Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory

Go To



** I suspect we might be overthinking this a little bit. In the book, at least, once Charlie's found the golden ticket the shopkeeper makes a point of saying that he's glad that Charlie was the one found the golden ticket because he suspects Charlie has needed some good fortune. In the original movie, where this scene doesn't actually take place, the shopkeeper has already been established as a rather likeable fellow who shows generosity to children. So if we assume that chocolate was being sold for inflated prices due to the golden ticket hunt, the most likely explanation is that this shopkeeper was simply a kind-hearted person who saw a child who was clearly rather poor and hungry-looking and decided to cut him a break by letting him buy a bar of chocolate for what little money he had on him, even if it wasn't the full price. A one-off price cut on a single bar of chocolate for a poor kid is unlikely to ruin him, after all.

to:

** I suspect we might be overthinking this a little bit. In the book, at least, once Charlie's found the golden ticket the shopkeeper makes a point of saying that he's glad that Charlie was the one found the golden ticket because he suspects Charlie has needed some good fortune. In the original movie, where this scene doesn't actually take place, the shopkeeper has already been established as a rather likeable fellow who shows generosity to children. So if we assume that chocolate was being sold for inflated prices due to the golden ticket hunt, the most likely explanation is that this shopkeeper was simply a kind-hearted person who saw a child who was clearly rather poor and hungry-looking and decided to cut him a break by letting him buy a bar of chocolate for what little money he had on him, even if it wasn't the full price. A one-off price cut on a single bar of chocolate for a poor kid is unlikely to ruin him, after all.all, especially if he's coming off a windfall like a major rush on chocolate.


** "They need money now" -- and either way will get them money (assuming the lack of a "no resale clause", granted, but since it's unspecified either way it's just as reasonable to assume the lack of such a clause as its presence), so might as well go with the way which will provide an ongoing income. They also don't necessarily need a brick and mortar shop, at least initially -- set up a stall on the street or in a public space. Though that said, if food is the main issue, then both of us have been overlooking the most compelling argument in favour of keeping the ticket, which is that if they're in dire need of food then that's all the more reason to go on the tour, which will end with them getting access to '''''a lifetime's supply of food'''''. Not the healthiest of food, granted, but it's something they can eat, which is better than nothing, and will taste a damn sight better than cabbage soup every morning, noon and night.



** It's fantasy. You also can't get stretched seven feet tall like taffy after going through a stretching machine, suck on a gobstopper that lasts forever, and swim in a chocolate river. And yet. I know this is Headscratchers and all, but frankly if anyone's unable to [[WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief suspend disbelief]] and [[MST3KMantra just relax because it's only a story]] to ''this'' extent over a kid's fantasy story, the problem's with them not the story.

to:

** It's fantasy. You also can't get stretched seven feet tall like taffy after going through a stretching machine, suck on a gobstopper that lasts forever, and swim in a chocolate river.river either. And yet. I know this is Headscratchers and all, but frankly if anyone's unable to [[WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief suspend disbelief]] and [[MST3KMantra just relax because it's only a story]] to ''this'' extent over a kid's fantasy story, the problem's with them not the story.

Added DiffLines:

** Yet another example of someone not understanding the NoodleIncident trope.

Added DiffLines:

** Again, at this point, they aren’t concerned about the size or consistency of the windfall. Charlie’s father already lost his job, it’s the middle of winter, and they’re only getting hungrier and hungrier. They need money now. And for all they know, the lifetime supply of chocolate could come with some sort of “no resales” clause to keep the kids from competing with Wonka. And even if it didn’t, obtaining a business license and building a premises in which to sell the chocolate both cost more money than the Buckets presumably have on them at this point.

Added DiffLines:

** A smaller windfall, perhaps, but a more consistent one. A lifetime supply of chocolate keeps coming and can be sold to provide a reasonably steady income that can be saved up cover an ongoing cost. A one-off payment, no matter how large, disappears as soon as you spend it, and then you're left with no money coming in whatsoever (i.e. back at square one). As for more work, no more than, say, setting up a small shop would be. They've already got an initial supply route arranged. In any case, it's academic since if Charlie just sells the ticket, there's no story, ergo Charlie isn't gonna sell the ticket anyway.

Added DiffLines:

** Maybe, but that would take more work than just selling the ticket and would likely lead to a smaller windfall -- Charlie reasons that if a someone was willing to pay $500 on the spot, then there has to be someone else he would offer more. That's a lot more considerable than selling candies sparingly to make a little change on the side.


** Basically, it's a kid's story. Now, maybe when you were a kid you eagerly sat through books and movies involving litigation for negligence as a result of a zany children's hero's madcap adventures. But I feel safe in assuming that 99% of kids (and the parents watching them for that matter) probably weren't interested in a thorough exploration of the legal and OHS implications of Wonka's tour, so they left it out. Basically, you're meant to [[MST3KMantra shut up and not think about it]].




to:

** Probably people working for an advertising agency Wonka contracted to advertise the factory tour. He produces all his own chocolate in-house, but he doesn't necessarily need to do his own in-house marketing; he just contacts an advertising agency or printing house, tells them "make up some posters my factory tour!" and lets them get on with it.


Added DiffLines:

** No one says that the Buckets would corner the entire market on selling Wonka chocolate; just that if they were receiving a lifetime's supply of free chocolate, selling some of it would probably bring in some change at least.


Added DiffLines:

** It's fantasy. You also can't get stretched seven feet tall like taffy after going through a stretching machine, suck on a gobstopper that lasts forever, and swim in a chocolate river. And yet. I know this is Headscratchers and all, but frankly if anyone's unable to [[WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief suspend disbelief]] and [[MST3KMantra just relax because it's only a story]] to ''this'' extent over a kid's fantasy story, the problem's with them not the story.

Added DiffLines:

* Sorry to be a Mike Teavee here, but the Television Idea wouldn't work because you can't reach into a TV: Televisions are solid boxes, not portals or gateways, and trying to put your hand through the screen will either result in hurting your hand or literally breaking the TV itself. So unless Wonka gets into the Television Manufacturing Business, this idea collapses, even if it succeeds in his Factory. Also, couldn't they technically take out the actors from the Commercials instead of the Bars, or would that still be Radio Signals that you couldn't interact with? Mike seems to be interacting with the Actors and Items in the Commercials, at least in the Tim Burton Film.

Added DiffLines:

** Aren't there laws and health codes and such that keep you from just selling food all willy-nilly to people? Plus, why would anyone want to buy chocolate from one specific family in one specific part of the world when they can just go down the street to the store and get some?

Added DiffLines:

**** I read the question thinking of the lay-offs at the ''factory'' because of internal spies but that's just me.


*** I think we're missing something very important here. Wonka is cold to four children who are very screamingly obviously ''giant brats''. Notice how he is ''not'' cold to Charlie, who is also ''not'' a giant brat. Wonka doesn't hate these kids because he hates kids in general, he hates these kids because these kids are massively irritating and obnoxious.

to:

*** I think we're missing something very important here. Wonka is cold to four children who are very screamingly obviously ''giant brats''. Notice how he is ''not'' cold to Charlie, who is also ''not'' a giant brat. Wonka doesn't necessarily hate these kids because he hates kids in general, but he hates these ''these'' kids because these ''these'' kids are massively irritating and obnoxious.

Added DiffLines:

** [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_relocation Structure relocation]]. Either they took the house apart, moved it into the factory and rebuilt it or they literally picked it up, put it on the back of a truck, and drove it there. Either's possible since the Bucket house is not one that would require a lot of drastic construction work to move; it's basically a large shack.


*** I think we're missing something very important here. Wonka is cold to four children who are very screamingly obviously ''giant brats''. Notice how he is ''not'' cold to Charlie, who is also ''not'' a giant brat. Wonka doesn't hate these kids because he hates kids in general, he hates these kids because these kids are massively irritating and obnoxious.
** Depp based his performance on Michael Jackson, but that doesn't mean he is like Michael Jackson to the nth degree (which, given some of the more unsavoury accusations about Jackson's interactions with kids, is probably a good thing). He shares Jackson's mannerisms, but not his affection for kids. Simple.



*** This troper would have to agree. Even if the more contemporary Mike is a little more relatable to audiences, he's still impatient, snotty, and condescending. He's a little smarter than everyone else, but he's still over-reliant on technology to the point of laziness. This is the underlyingflaw the character represents, not just simply an obsession with television or video games.

to:

*** This troper would have to agree. Even if the more contemporary Mike is a little more relatable to audiences, he's still impatient, snotty, and condescending. He's a little smarter than everyone else, but he's still over-reliant on technology to the point of laziness. This is the underlyingflaw underlying flaw the character represents, not just simply an obsession with television or video games.


* Why wasn't the girl a competitive athlete and chewed bubblegum? Wasn´t it as widespread of a concept to have the children of a wannabe-sportler being grown up to train in a specific sport or of a wannabe-musician to teach their kid piano, or did the author just happen to hate bubblegum?

to:

*** Who says he didn't? We've no real knowledge of what Wonka did or did not do or consider before he announces the factory tour; perhaps he did look among the Oompa-Loompas for a successor, but couldn't find one suitable. They're good workers and have a knack for a tune, but that doesn't mean they can come up with great ideas for candy.
* Why wasn't the girl a competitive athlete and chewed bubblegum? Wasn´t Wasn't it as widespread of a concept to have the children of a wannabe-sportler being grown up to train in a specific sport or of a wannabe-musician to teach their kid piano, or did the author just happen to hate bubblegum?


** OK, while I disagree with you, I think I understand the point your making, and you could easily have made the same point using any of the other four bratty children. But "likeable" is the wrong word. There's nothing likeable about the other kids, but they're all far more ''relatable'' than Charlie, who, like you pointed out, is a PuritySue. Does that make him unlikeable? No---in the context of the book, which has a lot of [[FlatCharacter]]s, it works well---but it does make him extremely difficult for the average kid to relate too. That's why they changed his personality in the 1970s version---to make him more believable. Sure, in it he gets angry, he gets upset, but in the end he has a good heart and does the right thing, in contrast to how he is in all other versions---very likeable, but hardly believeable. Like I said, though, you could have used any of the other bratty kids to make your point, since although they're completely dispisable assholes, they're all very believable characters, at least one of whom I'm sure almost anyone can relate to.

to:

** OK, while I disagree with you, I think I understand the point your making, and you could easily have made the same point using any of the other four bratty children. But "likeable" is the wrong word. There's nothing likeable about the other kids, but they're all far more ''relatable'' than Charlie, who, like you pointed out, is a PuritySue.overly perfect. Does that make him unlikeable? No---in the context of the book, which has a lot of [[FlatCharacter]]s, it works well---but it does make him extremely difficult for the average kid to relate too. That's why they changed his personality in the 1970s version---to make him more believable. Sure, in it he gets angry, he gets upset, but in the end he has a good heart and does the right thing, in contrast to how he is in all other versions---very likeable, but hardly believeable. Like I said, though, you could have used any of the other bratty kids to make your point, since although they're completely dispisable assholes, they're all very believable characters, at least one of whom I'm sure almost anyone can relate to.



*** So are you saying that Charlie is the worst out of all the kids then, just for being a PuritySue? Which yes, he is, but the fact that he is despite all that's happening to him and his family is what's supposed to make him incredibly admirable. I saw you also compared him to his Gene Wilder film counterpart, who I do admit is better-written for being a more realistic and relatable character. And while I can't agree with anyone who thinks the four bratty kids are more likeable, I can understand why someone might have mixed feelings about TheHero for not being as relatable as them.

to:

*** So are you saying that Charlie is the worst out of all the kids then, just for being a PuritySue? overly perfect? Which yes, he is, but the fact that he is despite all that's happening to him and his family is what's supposed to make him incredibly admirable. I saw you also compared him to his Gene Wilder film counterpart, who I do admit is better-written for being a more realistic and relatable character. And while I can't agree with anyone who thinks the four bratty kids are more likeable, I can understand why someone might have mixed feelings about TheHero for not being as relatable as them.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 265

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report