Follow TV Tropes

Following

Headscratchers / Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Go To

For the 1971 film, see here

    open/close all folders 

    General 
  • Both movies show that millions of people were buying Wonka at a very fast rate, that made lots of shops run out of candy very fast. Anyone who understands economy would very well know that the price of the candies would skyrocket. How did Charlie buy a chocolate bar with a dollar? It would be impossible for him to buy candy with that amount of demand with just a dollar.
    • In the first movie at least, the chocolate craze had started to die down when he bought it. Perhaps by then prices had also begun to go down.
    • Wonka has a monopoly on Wonka bars, so he can sell them to select distributors and, just like any real life promotional contest, place strict validation rules on the golden tickets to make sure the chocolate bars aren't getting scalped. The real question is why the stores didn't run out, but Wonka's got enough crazy technology and production methods that we can assume he actually can keep up with that level of demand.
    • The 70s film does go into this somewhat. It's mentioned that while Wonka is cranking out Chocolate Bars, they aren't coming out quickly enough to meet demand. Also, while Wonka can control the amount of money he sells the bars to the distributors too, he likely can't control the price they choose to sell them for. The bars likely ranged in price from ten bucks to fifty apiece depending on the store (that auction had British aristocrats buying a single case for hundreds of pounds). Assuming the guy who owned the shop Charlie bought the ticket from was a nice guy and didn't try to stick it to the kids in the neighborhood by raising his prices.
    • The reason the Wonka craze was dying down was because the final ticket had been found in South America (Russia in the 2005 version), so the contest was considered finished. Then it was revealed that the ticket was a fake and the 5th was still out there. Some people were crowded around a newsstand talking about the fake and how the contest wasn't actually over; Charlie heard them and went into the candy store, which is where he finds the last ticket.
    • Well, that answers the question regarding the 2005 movie, "If Charlie found a ten dollar bill in the road, why could he only buy ONE chocolate bar with that ten dollars??"
      • Well, the guy behind the counter was in the process of getting change from the register, was he not? He would've forgotten about it when he realized Charlie had gotten the last Golden Ticket.
    • 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, especially if he's coming off a windfall like a major rush on chocolate.
  • What would Willie Wonka have done if he had gotten two or more well-behaved children out of the test? Have them fight to the death?
    • In the book, he said he'd just pick the one he liked the best. And since there was no "YOU LOSE" contract plot device, it'd still be a happy ending. But then you'd have two characters who didn't do anything in the factory and miss out on an extra Oompa Loompa song and some good ol' Dahl Nightmare Fuel.
    • Or they could share the prize. Wonka wants a child to take over for him once he's gone, but that doesn't it only has to be one child.
  • Also, what would have happened if an adult had gotten one of the tickets?
    • He'd find a child to take with him. The tickets were transferable—that's why Veruca Salt had one.
  • What was Wonka planning to do if all the children were rotten?
    • If all the kids turned out to be rotten Wonka could simply uphold the official terms of the Golden Ticket contest. Officially the kids were there to have a fun tour through a candy factory and then they would each receive a lifetime supply of chocolate. A lifetime of chocolate multiplied by five people would be a lot, but nothing Wonka couldn't handle. Then wait a few years and run the contest again.
      • This theory is supported by his initial press release about the contest: "I, Willy Wonka, have decided to allow five children — just five, mind you, and no more — to visit my factory this year." So he might indeed just run the contest again next year if things didn't work out the first time.
    • Though this does create something of a plot hole in the 2005 film, where Wonka makes known from the start that he has a special prize for one of the five children who find the tickets.
  • How is Wonka not the most hated man in town? Think about it. First, opens a big factory providing lots of people with jobs. Then, he shuts it down, leaving all those people without jobs. Then, a few years later, he reopens the factory, but none of the former workers gets their job back. When he gives the tour, he tells everyone how he smuggled a bunch of immigrants over to work for him. I don't see any of the laid-off former workers caring whether Oompa Loompas have the proper documentation or not. And if the Johnny Depp movie is to be believed, Wonka was also responsible, in part, for a big lay-off at the toothpaste factory.
    • Ask Steven Jobs. He probably has some haters, but he is bloody freaking rich and immeasurably brilliant.
    • Probably because the chocolate is Just. That. Good. Or possibly contains euphoriants.
    • In the book, the layoff happened a long time ago. It could be that most of the people who remember it clearly in that town have died off or moved away.
    • Also because it's a kid's book set mainly from the point of view of children. Even a precocious child like Charlie Bucket is only going to be at best vaguely aware of the societal effects of a factory layoff that likely occurred long before he was born.
      • Long time ago? It took place during the Golden Ticket craze but the book has no mention of Wonka being in any way responsible and the movie's layoff was restricted to employees in charge of putting the lids on toothpaste tubes before the factory bought machines to do the job. Even if Charlie's Dad wasn't the only one fired because of this, there couldn't have been enough of them for it to be called a "big" layoff.
      • I read the question thinking of the lay-offs at the factory because of internal spies but that's just me.
      • The factory layoffs and the reopening both occurred well before the Golden Ticket craze; Grandpa Joe reveals it in his story to Charlie about the factory. In any case, while you might have some adults grumbling about Wonka, remember that this story is still told from the point of view of children; all but the most precocious and socially active children are going to focus on the "chocolate" aspect of the situation before the "social and economic impacts" aspect.
  • How did Willy Wonka prevent health and safety inspectors from coming into the factory, since it's stated that no one has come into the factory in years?
    • Probably bribes. Wonka seems the type to pull that off.
    • We also don't know that he doesn't allow safety inspectors. When they say "No one goes in", what they probably mean is "no one who's in a position to tell us what it's like has gone in."
  • Mike running into the teleporter seems completely out of character. I know, we never actually got to see much of his character beyond "obsessed with TV and guns", but he'd clearly been shown to be quite intelligent. You'd think he would stop to think before running into a teleport machine that makes things smaller. Also, I can't help but feel that he'd have been better off if they'd left him as a tiny person (it's made worse by the fact that in the book his mother thanks Wonka when he says he can get him back to normal size). At least he'd have been able to fit in his house then.
    • In the RD book and Wilder movie, I think Mike just got overexcited about appearing on television (or doing some sort of out-of-world activity) and forgot about the fact the teleporter shrinks people. In the Depp movie, Mike is somewhat of a smart-alec and thinks he knows more than the average person. His ego drives him to subject himself to the teleporter. (said Mike to his father before he teleported himself, "You think [Wonka]'s a genius, but he's an idiot. But I'm not.")
    • In fiction (and real life) there are plenty of very intelligent characters known for being at least someone lacking in common sense.
  • Wonkavision- Assuming Wonka can magically teleport tangible chocolate to your TV, and isn't selling you some kind of device to do it, how does he expect to make any profit when millions of people just need to wait for his commercials to get free Wonka bars?
    • It Only Works Once. Remember, in order for you to take it, he has to send it. After he sends it, the commercial carries the image of the bar, but not the bar itself. Not to mention, he's only sending out one chocolate bar at a time, so only one person in the world actually gets the chocolate bar. In effect it would be like a free chocolate lottery. Whenever a Wonka commercial comes on tv every viewer has to rush to the screen and grab for the chocolate. One person will get it, the rest won't. It's basically like Wonka is selecting one random child on Earth to receive a free chocolate bar. Even if he did it every day, the expense of giving away one free chocolate bar per day would be massively outweighed by the spectacular publicity this would generate for WonkaCorp.
  • Is anyone else worried that Wonka may have damaged or even destroyed the food chain of Loompaland?
    • Some species don't eat just one thing, it's possible that they have other food sources.
  • Most the kids brought their fates upon themselves, and Wonka cured them as best he could; Violet, for instance, was purple as an aftereffect of being a blueberry, and there was nothing they could do to get her regular colouring back. But Mike... how can you overstretch someone by like six feet? Why couldn't Dahl just have had him walking out looking ridiculously thin? Seriously, I can't believe the oompa loompas overstretched him by accident.
    • Taffy pullers are hardly gentle nor precise, as I remember.
      • There is a scene in the second film showing just how much taffy gets pulled and to be fair, the Oompa Loompas would only have Willy Wonka as a model for how humans should look. Given that they they are the size of dolls, they probably just kept pulling when trying to get Mike to be as wide as a normal person. That or there may have been a risk with taffy tearing or leaving lumps if not doing in one go.
  • Shouldn't the Oompa Loompas hate Wonka by now? I mean in the book, it says that one was forced to suck on candy for over a year (and still is), another had his hair grow out so fast that they needed to cut with a lawnmower, another probably floated into space...plus all the ones that got turned into blueberries testing out his gum, yet they love him. I know they're getting paid with their favorite food, but that doesn't seem like enough for the kind of abuse they're taking. Why don't they leave or go on strike or something?
    • I'm not sure about the sucking on candy, but the rest were through their own fault presumably knowing the risks and Wonka even warned against the one that became like Violet.
    • In Violet's case, she took it when she wasn't supposed to. The Oompa Loompas are supposed to and test out Wonka's candy for him on a regular basis. Even if they're given informed consent, forcing your illegal-immigrant scab-workers to taste potentially-deadly candy to see if it's safe has some weird implications, Mr. Wonka.
      • This Troper believes Wonka was testing the children and intentionally made the candy flawed. Come on, this guy made the elixir of life, flew into space on a magic elevator and built a teleporter. Methinks it would be a doddle to make a blueness-antidote.
    • Taking their chances with being test subjects for weird candy is still about a billion times more attractive than being eaten by a vermicious knid. Besides, you're just doing an Accentuate the Negative and ignoring all the candy they'd get to test that would have awesome and wonderful effects.
      • There is also how the Oompa Loompas would have a very unique society where the side effects could be seen as badges of honor.
    • Never mind their working conditions: why are the Oompa Loompas so mellow about the fact that Wonka seems never to even have considered them as potential heirs to the factory? They're professionals, they know how the factory works, they support his business philosophy. They're the only reason he still has a working chocolate factory in the first place, and have been proving their competence for many years. And they're sufficiently devoid of the very character-flaws Wonka was determined to screen out of the child candidates - gluttony, bad manners, self-centered attitudes, addiction to mindless entertainment - to perform freakin' musical numbers about their own comparative virtue. So why are they so content to be passed over, one and all, no matter how much they've done for Mr. "I Can't Bring Myself To Trust A Successor Among My Hundreds Of Capable Employees" Wonka, for some random twelve-year-old paper boy?
      • 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.
      • There was a possibility that , by "heir" ,what Wnaka really means is more like a "spokesperson" or "face of the company".....The Oompa-Loompas are the one who will keep the business running , but he also need a heir for tax and marketing purpose.
  • Willy Wonka shuts down his factory because he's sick of spies stealing all of his ideas. Why can't he just patent his inventions? Then it won't matter how many recipes his rivals steal because they won't legally be allowed to sell them. Closing down his factory seems a little drastic in light of a much simpler solution.
    • Wonka is probably too insane to give his formulas to a patent office and let a bunch of grown-ups see them.
    • A patent can only go so far. You can patent the first design for a cell phone, but then other people can go make their own cell phones. His rivals might have to make slightly different recipes, but a patent wouldn't give him a monopoly on the candies he invented.
    • In order to patent something, you have to reveal how it works, and the patent only lasts 20 years. After it expires, any one can then copy it. If you want a permanent monopoly on a recipe, you can't patent it - you need to keep it a secret, and hope no-one manages to find it out (and none of your workers leaks it).
      • Yes. You patent things that you expect someone to be able to reverse-engineer quickly after release. If you're absolutely certain it can't be (barring espionage), you stay far away from the patent office. Hence the Coke formula and eleven herbs and spices.
  • If Wonka could make ice cream that never melts, why couldn't he make chocolate that never melts, especially when he made the chocolate palace?
    • The chocolate palace incident was mentioned to have taken place a long time ago. Quite possible before the business with the unmelting ice cream started.
    • Building on that, perhaps Wonka got the idea for "un-melting" ice cream from the failure with the prince.
    • Or Wonka just wanted to teach him a lesson. That's perfectly in character for him.
    • You might be forgetting that Wonka built the palace thinking the prince was going to eat it. He didn't reveal he wanted to live in it until after it had been built.
  • I watched a DVD of a middle-school production of Willy Wonka Junior last night. In that version, Charlie faced temptation in the room with the Fizzy Lifting Drinks. At the end of the play, Wonka told Charlie that even though he failed to resist sneaking a drink, he still won the factory by admitting his mistake, and offering to make up for it by declining the lifetime supply of chocolate. If Charlie just decided not to take the drink at all, how would Wonka know that he passed his test?
    • Process of elimination, same as in the book.
      • I don't think so. In the Wilder movie, resisting the candy temptations weren't the real test. The real test was giving back the Gobstopper, and that's what made Charlie a winner. If he'd kept it, Lifting Drinks or not, Wonka probably would've either run the contest all over again or figure out something else.
      • Giving back the gobstopper was A test, not THE test. All the children faced various tests, which they all failed except for Charlie.
    • In line with the Rewatch Bonus entry in the other mediums they wanted to make Charlie's "test/s" bigger for the sake of drama. As in the book his test is rather low-key. Whether Wonka chess mastered the whole thing or not, each kid had something put in front of them that played at their temptations and vices. Four of them all fall victim to it, Charlie does not. The ever-lasting gobstobber is his, for someone who was poor and had little money, the ultimate never ending candy was his bait. He didn't do anything about it. While not very action friendly realistically this would no doubt the moment Wonka realized Charlie was a candidate, he would just need to see if any of the others would resist too, and none of them did.
  • I don't know if anyone knows how the physics of the scene would ACTUALLY work, but Augustus's pipe seems... impossible in all versions. Not to mention the fact that he's described at becoming thin afterwards, which seems bizarre, unless his stomach was actually stretched out by the tight squeeze (which would be almost as much of a physical deformity as Mike or Violet).
  • Why do the Oompa-Loompas seem to hate Augustus Gloop so much? He's a greedy pig, sure, but the lyrics to his song are almost all personal insults, while the other songs are much less personal and more along the lines of warnings. The kid doesn't get nearly enough "screen time" to show he's nearly as bad as the Oompa-Loompas describe him- revolting, vile, greedy, foul, and infantile, to name a few adjectives.
    • He was the only one not using a swimcap in the river.
    • Because while Wonka was warning the other children to not play with the devices or squirrels for their own safety (especially Violet), Augustus was "dirtying" his chocolate by lapping it from the river. The other children were looking at inventions that hadn't been released or squirrels that never left their Nut Room. Augustus wasn't listening to anything except his cravings, which was selfish and inconsiderate since he had a "nasty cold" to boot that could be spread to the entire country.
    • And there were plenty of treats in the chocolate room but Augustus had to go for the river. And when Wonka told him to stop, he didn't listen and fell in. And as said above, the other children were only putting their own safety at risk but Augustus was putting everyone else's - if he hadn't got sucked into the pipe, someone would have had to go into the river after him.
  • Mike Teavee's whole schtick is watching a lot of television - you know, like some other people we may have heard of. Wouldn't years of gorging himself on science-fiction shows where Teleporter Accidents are a dime a dozen make him more Genre Savvy than that?
    • Honestly, the fact that he's watched so much TV is probably the exact reason why he wasn't more Genre Savvy than that. It would probably be like a big Doctor Who fan suddenly seeing a real-life TARDIS, or a Lord Of The Rings fan meeting a hobbit. Or heck, anyone meeting their favourite celebrity. It's one of those situations where common sense just goes completely out the window.
    • In the 2005 film, at least, Mike has clearly had it up to here with Wonka and his insanity by that point, and isn't thinking straight at all. It comes off less like Genre Blindness, and more like Frank Grimes grabbing the high-voltage cable mid-breakdown.
    • Who says he even watches science-fiction shows to begin with? He watches a lot of television, that doesn't translate to watching all of the television and knowing the ins and outs of every story ever told. And even if he does, let's not oversell Mike here; he's a dumb TV addict with little common-sense and an over-inflated opinion of his intelligence, he's no genius. It's entirely likely he'd foolishly blunder into some dangerous situation and come out poorly out of over-confidence.
  • Why is it called a chocolate factory? It's clearly a candy factory. (If the reason was alliteration, Dahl could've named the hero Carl or Christopher or you get the idea.)
    • Not sure about the meta reason, but the in-universe reason is probably because chocolate is the most notable and famous stuff that comes out of it, and that's what people know Willy Wonka for the most.
    • Also, Dahl lived and wrote in the United Kingdom, where 'candy' is not really used frequently as a term for confectionary (in Britain they tend to be called 'sweets'). Presumably he thought 'chocolate' worked better in the title than Charlie and the Sweets Factory or Charlie and the Confectionary Factory.
    • Also, why would he need to rename the main character? "Charlie" is just as alliterative with "candy" as either "Carl" or "Christopher".
      • Um...no it isn't. "Ch" isn't alliterative with "c" (hard "k" sound). They're completely different.
      • I was thinking of alliteration in terms of the letters, not the sounds. Thanks for putting me straight (though the tone of condescension was probably not necessary).
  • In both the book and the 2005-movie, why is the garbage chute in the nut-sorting room big enough for an adult human to go through? It's only supposed to be for rotten nuts, so a much smaller chute would do just fine.
    • In case a disobedient child needs to be hoisted through, clearly.
    • Serious answer: presumably because there was a point once where adult humans might have needed to enter the chute for whatever reason (such as maintenance). When Wonka transferred to a squirrel-sorting department, the chutes remained because it would have been too costly or he didn't feel like replacing them. Besides, the Oompa-Loompas might still need to have access to them and, while smaller than an average adult human, they're still bigger than nuts.
  • How does the elevator fly? Willy Wonka was asked this question twice and said something different both times. The first time, he said it was "one million sugar power", but what does that mean? The second time, he said it was an invisible sky-hook but doesn't answer when asked what the other end of the hook is attached to.
    • Yet another example of someone not understanding the Noodle Incident trope.
  • When Charlie finds the golden ticket, after he gets back home, he discovers that the visit to the factory is going to be the next day. What would have happened if the fifth golden ticket had not been found by that date? Only four kids would have gone to the factory or the visit would have been postponed?
    • I've sometimes wondered the same thing. It surely would have made more sense to wait until all five tickets had been found before announcing the date. It's also lucky that Charlie happens to live right on the doorstep of the factory; what if he'd had to fly in from the other side of the world? He wouldn't even have had time to make the arrangements. But Wonka might have just expected that all the tickets would have been found by that date at the rate they were being bought, and with his wealth and influence would probably have had the means to get the makers of any last-minute discoveries there on time.
    • Going off the above question of "What would happen if all the children on the tour were rotten?", I'd assume that if the fifth ticket hadn't been found, Wonka would just hold the tour with the four children who'd already found their tickets, the fifth one would effectively be recalled, and then he would send out five more tickets the next year to continue his secret search for an heir.
  • When Fickelgruber, Prodnose and Slugworth stole some of Wonka's recipes through their spies, why instead of closing down the factory, Wonka just didn't fil a lawsuit against them? It's really seems obvious that they copied him, if only Wonka was known for producing that specific sweets, like the "un-melting" ice cream.
    • I think it's because Wonka's competitors aren't stealing anything from him that can be legally protected. There is no way to obtain a patent or copyright protection for an idea, like "ice cream that never melts" or "super-inflatable candy balloons" or "gum that never loses its flavor". He can't prove that their imitations of his products are anything more than that, in the same way that PepsiCo and the Coca Cola Company can't sue each other over both selling their own versions of lemon-lime soda.
Advertisement:

    Book 
  • In the sequel- which is set in the 1970s, as the characters mention- they're building a space hotel, and ordinary people are going to stay there. Um, how are they going to get there? Send the guests up three at a time in Apollo capsules?
    • That is what the Great Glass Elevators are used for.
    • Perhaps we should assume space travel is more advanced in their world. In reality we don't even have space hotels...well not smart ones like in the book anyway.
    • A lot of people in the 1960s assumed that space flight technology would keep right on developing, and did not foresee the long periods of stagnation we've seen since. If they'd been right, it would have been at least possible to get tourists into a space hotel using reusable SSTOs or something by the late '70s or early '80s. Tickets might have been a hundred thousand dollars a person or more, but it would have been possible.
    • The ship they sent the staff up on had 150 people on board.
  • Augustus is described as being very thin after being squeezed in the pipe. How is that possible?? Is his flesh just hanging off him loosely? And for that matter, how do the physics of the entire pipe scene work?
    • That pipe is not the only physics-defying object owned by Willy Wonka: the elevator that goes to space is another. If we don't want to apply thought-stopping mantras like A Wizard Did It or the MST3K Mantra, we could infer that Willy Wonka possesses Sufficiently Advanced Technology. As to why he does, it could be that he is actually an alien. In keeping with the spirit of TV Tropes, we could guess that he is a Time Lord, and the factory is his TARDIS. From this, we could even understand how he deals with workplace safety and food health regulations: the inside of his factory actually does conform to safety and hygiene rules, but whenever children come to visit it, he activates a combination of holograms that make it look like a crazy theme park. In other words, nothing of what the children see is real.
    • The pipes work in the same way that the taffy-puller can restore Mike Teavee to human height if not human proportions; the juicing room can 'fix' blueberrification; and the Television Chocolate device somehow renders TV screens insubstantial as a side effect of its teleportation power - they shouldn't. But they do. This is one of those 'sense of childlike wonder' things that Wonka's 'fairyland' expects you to accept.
  • What if someone fell into the chocolate lake, but they were just clumsy and not actively trying to drink the chocolate? Would the Oompa-Loompas still write a diss track about them?
    • My theory is that they will diss track the child for being clumsy.
  • After Wonka sends the Gloops with an Oompa-Loompa to retrieve Augustus, why they didn't rejoin the group later on? I understand that the other kids likely didn't rejoin the group because the visit had surely ended once they got squeezed, taken from the trash and stretched, but if Augustus was the first boy to be eliminated, he had plenty of time to rejoin the visit...
    • Given that the tour itself was just a front for Wonka's search for an heir, and Augustus had proven himself to be a highly unpleasant and greedy little twit, I'd be more than willing to assume that he didn't get to rejoin because 1. Augustus was now out of the running to inherit the factory and 2. Wonka seems the type to be more than happy to revoke the "prize" of visiting the factory now that Augustus essentially messed it up for himself by not listening. Sort of like a parent confiscating a new toy from a child who is misbehaving with it.
    • Plus, in the book and the 2005 film, Augustus is only shown leaving the factory after the tour is already over. (And he's still covered in chocolate, too.) It's possible it really did take that long to fish him out of the mixing barrel.

     2005 film 
  • Mike Teevee's "exit song" chides him for becoming mindless due to watching television, with lyrics such as "He does not think, he only sees!" However, Teevee's flaw in the Burton film is that he seems a bit too smart for his own good. What gives?
    • The exit song was transferred word-for-word from the original book. Mike Teavee's character was not. So it could be blamed on Danny Elfman for not writing modified lyrics to go with the character change.
    • It could be seen as Mike 'saw' that he could use the thing as a teleporter but didn't 'think' further than that.
    • Playing video games (on a console, and hence on a television) has given him a false sense of invulnerability, so he doesn't appreciate the consequences of turning himself three inches tall through a one-way teleporter.
    • It doesn't make sense to portray TV-obsession as being a hideous flaw when your target market is children who have been raised on 24-hour TV and movies. They changed the character of Mike to be more relevant to today, and either forgot to change the song or decided people would interpret it in relation to the character. Considering the ending, they seem to be working on the assumption people haven't read the book, so might either not notice.
    • The idea seems to be not that TV is bad or he's too smart but rather that his limited knowledge and lack of experience is a bad thing to have combined with arrogance. Yes, TV can teach you a lot of things... but it's not good to rely solely on it to teach you everything or assume that it's the one true holder of all useful knowledge. Similarly, his flaw was that his smarmy knowledge did not actually allow him to learn. He'd lost a sense of wonder and curiousity - he wanted to be told, not taught.
      • Like was mentioned earlier, if you consider how Mike calculated the "code" to only purchase one wonka bar which contained the ticket (instead of buying as much as he could like the others) it would have been more in character if he at least tried to figure out how the "teleporter" worked in more depth than Wonka's demostration. Not only that but I would assume with all the Nightmare Fuel-filled videogames and television he's implied to see, he'd be more wiser than to jump into a teleporter that hasn't been tested.
  • Is this version set in Britain or America? Charlie's family is British, but they all use American grammar and slang. Willy Wonka is American, but his origin story is British, and everyone eats candy... I can't remember what currency they use.
    • Artistic combination of both, I think, so it can appeal to either side of the pond.
    • Carried over from the book, which used British idioms and yet Charlie found a dollar...
      • This troper never noticed this until he read this. (Facepalm)
      • It's not actually wrong — "dollar" was slang for the British coin called a crown, or five-shilling piece, worth one quarter of a pound. The slang expression originated in the 19th century, fell into disuse, and was then revived during WWII by the presence of US troops in the UK and the fact that a US dollar was worth about five shillings at the time. The book was written in 1964 and the UK didn't move to decimal currency until 1971, so Charlie probably found a crown/five-shilling piece.
      • In my version, Grandpa Joe gives him sixpence, and then later he finds a fifty pence piece. This places the book at a post-1971 date. Although sixpences are pre-decimal, and 50p is decimal, people still used sixpences for a time as 2 1/2 new pence.
      • In the second book when one of the grandmothers regresses backwards through her life the historical events she remembers - the major one is the death of Abraham Lincoln - seem to imply they're in America. It confused this (British) troper no end as a kid.
      • To be fair, I'm sure that even in Victorian Britain the news of the assassination of the President of the United States would make it across the ocean eventually.
      • Nope: I've checked the book and the events described are definitely from an American perspective, starting from crossing on the Mayflower, the War of Independence (with reference to "the dirty British"), the Civil War and then the death of Lincoln.
      • That must be the American edition. In the British edition, the War of Independence isn't mentioned. She does, however, excitedly tell everyone that Nelson has beaten the French at Trafalgar.
      • I'm pretty sure the 2005 film was set in America. My reasoning for this is because when Charlie finds the last golden ticket, two people approach him and offer him 50 dollars and 500 dollars, respectively. I would guess that there are just a lot of British immigrants in the town they live in.
    • The older film also is vague in this regard, which is addressed by Neil Patrick Harris in the Rifftrax. "Maybe this takes place before the American Revolution."
      • Maybe it makes sense in context, but it's about a chocolate factory and features television news prominently. Did pre-revolutionary Britain, or America use...? No. I'm completely stumped.
      • That's the point. It's Rifftrax. Neil was making a joke.
      • This troper always saw the characters (all of them) as being intentionally vague as to where they came from, to let the reader feel like they could possibly be one of the characters.
      • Perhaps Charlie grew up in a community of recent American immigrants to Great Britain, or vice versa. Ethnic neighborhoods are common on both sides of the Pond.
      • He'd still speak American English or a mid-Atlantic sound.
      • This troper assumes that Charlie (in the book and movies) was from an imaginary country in North America that had some British influence.
      • ...Canada?
  • When Violet becomes a blueberry, how come her clothes didn't split from the strain?
    • Probably because people would complain if the movie showed an expanding naked girl. Or maybe the gum makes your clothes expand too, since it's supposed to be magical.
    • Her clothes are made from the same stuff The Incredible Hulk buys.
    • You can see the juice soaking into her clothes, so presumably that's how the transformation also affected the clothes.
    • Probably the same reason her skin didn't rip open.
    • There's a trope for that.
  • So, uh, why didn't either Charlie or Mike, who both were small enough to fit though the gate as Veruca did, do anything to save her?
    • Maybe because they spent a few seconds in shock first. Then when they got out of it, she was already down the chute.
    • Would you run down into the midst of a bunch of apparently intelligent, acting-rabid squirrels to save some witchy girl who stupidly put herself into that position whom you didn't even like? No thanks, I like my knees very much where they are.
      • Why didn't her father just climb over the gate? Oh, no, Mister Wonka has to open the gate first...
      • Maybe they were too initially shocked by what was going on to react in time.
    • I honestly think they were being smart. Think about it. If they ran down to save this witchy girl, she might have just pulled them into the mess while she escaped and not bothered going back to save them.
      • The same would have happened with Charlie for whatever happened. Try swimming after Agustus despite probably having no swim lessons? He would have been likely pulled under by the fat boy or would have been sent up the pipe (in the book version) and processed quickly. Veruca? Might be tossed into a table or experiments, caused her to swallow the gum, or be bitten as the Oompa Loompas add verses to their song about not sticking his hand where it shouldn't belong. Mike? Only part of them are sent over or they are fused together. The book mentioned that he avoided playing to preserve what little energy his body had and it does him well here. Naivety or white knighting might be his fault otherwise.
  • What was up with that part with the sheep?
    • The implication seems to be that they're the source of Wonka's cotton candy, but if you knew that cotton candy came from sheep, would you ever eat it again?
      • Considering that lamb chops are a fairly popular food... and the whole role of wool in clothing production...
      • But I've never eaten a jumper before.
    • I'm to understand it was a reference to Johnny Depp's previous role a Ed Wood in the film of the same name.
    • To me, it's a reference to an obvious (though typically British) joke about shepherds using their sheep for... um... certain purposes. So Wonka keeps them around to... yeah...
    • I thought it was a very sneaky little joke. Cotton candy is also called candy floss. Floss is a type of yarn, and yarn is made form wool.
  • The chocolate river is explicitly stated to be "hot melted chocolate of the finest quality." Think about how hot chocolate has to get just to melt, let alone keep such a gooey-but-thin liquid consistency. Surely Augustus should be covered in at least second-degree burns under all that fudge-coating, shouldn't he?
    • What, 45 degrees celsius?
    • Thinking too hard again!
      • What?
      • Put some chocolate squares in a metal cup. Go sit in a hot tub with the cup floating beside you. When you've had a good soak, get out and drink the chocolate.
    • Because they're not going to show a small child covered in second-degree burns in a family-friendly movie. Had they shown Augustus looking like a burnt chocolate hominoid monstrosity, the movie would've been thrown in the scrap heap.
  • Before moving on from the chocolate river, why when Augustus falls into the river he gets immediately covered with chocolate but when the Oopa-Loompas jump there to swim while they sing Augustus' song they didn't get covered at all? Because they wore swimsuits or what?
    • Probably, yes.
  • What kind of game system was Mike playing in his introduction? Or at least what was it based on? It looked similar to an Atari 7200 however the graphics was more PS2 or Xbox like.
    • The SchiZtation 9100, which was made by an obscure Ameritish company back in 19exty2. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.
  • Why did the other kids hate Charlie? Why did Violet and Veruca hate each other? Why did Violet and Veruca pretend to be friends?
    • Violet was shown to be very competitive, Veruca was a spoiled brat who probably didn't like the idea that other people were sharing the prize with her. They didn't like each other in the first movie either. As for the rest of it... I don't really know either.
    • The other kids are mean to Charlie because they're the kind of nasty little children who will pick on anyone they see as weaker. None of the kids liked each other, but Violet and Veruca especially disliked each other because they knew who the real competition was for the "special prize." And they pretended to be friends because, like many popular and entitled girls, they understood the concept of keeping one's enemies close.
  • Why was the father of the spoiled brat the only parent that got a punishment? He sure was making her to the person she is, but every other parent was that to their kids too and the punishments for them were running after their kids. Also, he didn´t even mean to make her obnoxious and dominant, he just wanted to make her happy, although he did it with the wrong, material way. The competetive girl mother was far worse, probably forcing her daughter to that hobby.
    • Mr. Salt is also shown to be an asshole to his employees, forcing them to spend hours opening chocolate bars just so his daughter can get the golden ticket. While the other parents were unlikeable, none of them did anything like that. Personally, I think the audience would have felt cheated if Veruca's dad didn't get punished.
      • I don't see what's so bad about this. They are paid to spend hours a day shelling nuts. That's their job and having them do their job doesn't make him an asshole. He puts the nut-shelling on hold and has them unwrap chocolate instead for a few days because of the contest. Surely unwrapping chocolate isn't harder than shelling nuts all day. You could say that it's unfair that he has his employees open the chocolate and then takes the ticket but he's the one who bought it.
    • While the other parents might have been able to straighten their kids out but didn't feel like it or were just as bad, Mr. Salt was the only one the book directly linked to his kid bring a brat. In the movie they did the storyline with Veruca's mom being a Sports-Mom, but in the original book, I think it was only Salt who could be blamed the most directly for what she did. While we're on the subject, look at the difference in reaction to Violet turning blue between her mom and Violet herself. Mrs. Boulregard got her own, subtle, punishment.
      • It must be a book / film disparity then, because Mrs. Beauregarde, Mrs. Gloop and Mr. Salt were all almost certainly directly responsible for the way their kids turned out in the 2005 film. Violet's mother was a parody of a Stage Mom-like personality, pushing her daughter to succeed so she could live vicariously through her. Augustus's mother (and father probably) encouraged him to eat and eat out of some kind of misguided idea that it was good for him. Mr. Salt.. well you all know what his problem was.. To me the oddest thing was that Burton didn't make the Teavees more culpable for Mike's problem. His father seems like the only one who is kind of disappointed / embarrassed about his kid's behavior from the beginning. It would have made more sense to make Mike's parents aloof or lazy to make a point about how it's bad to be a "hands-off"-style parent who lets pop culture do all the heavy child-rearing.
      • Mr Teavee is culpable for his child's problems because he's ineffectual and pathetic. You're meant to see him as a loser who can't even stand up and discipline his own child. He's not as obnoxious as the other parents, but he's still as much of a failure in that he's raised a nasty child.
      • Exactly. The bratty kids' flaws are all due to being brainwashed into doing nothing but win, encouraged to do overeat, indulged, and lacking any source of serious authority.
  • Why did Wonka use the TV machine to shrink giant-ass candy bars to normal size when he could've, ya know, made normal sized bars in the first place? Seems wasteful.
    • The shrinkage was a side-effect of transmitting things via TV. He wasn't transmitting them to shrink them, he was shrinking them to transmit them.
      • I still don't see the problem with using regular bars. Hershey's Minis are big business - if he did the regular-bar to mini-size then he'd use less chocolate for a bite-size chunk to simply whet people's appetites..
      • Probably because two-metre-long chocolate bar/boy + transmission = Six-inch-long bar/boy. Six-inch-long chocolate bar + transmission = 1.1 centimetre long chocolate bar. You probably wouldn't even see it on the screen, let alone be able to take it or get the wrapper off.
      • This above. The book explains that a giant size chocolate bar is necessary to become the correct size of an average chocolate bar on someone's television screen. These days, you'd probably need a much bigger bar.
    • Due to resolution problems with the camera/transmitter. If you sent a normal bar, important molecules may be lost due to resolution and fail to make the right taste and structure. What this says of Mike, however...
    • For (confectionery) SCIENCE!!!
  • Why does Veruca Salt's song end more abruptly than the others?
    • They didn't want to tip off Mr. Salt about what was coming behind him. When he was gone they had no more reason to sing.
  • Why did they insert the bits about Grandpa Joe being one of the Wonka employees laid off to make way for the Oompa-Loompas and the link between Mr. Bucket being fired from the toothpaste factory and the Wonka chocolate craze? They set it up so that Willy Wonka is either directly or indirectly responsible for all of the Bucket family's misery and then didn't do anything with it.
    • The former so that Grandpa Joe could narrate what working under Wonka used to be like and the latter so that Mr. Bucket could get his job back later because of the same craze. Narrative reasons.
    • Also, Wonka wasn't really responsible for the family's hard times, as Grandpa Joe had believed himself too old to find work anyway by the time of the story, and the family was incredibly poor even before Mr. Bucket lost his job.
  • Did anyone else feel that Veruca's punishment was far too light? She was arguably the most obnoxious child in the group, yet she was the only one whose punishment didn't leave drastic, lasting effects. To wit: Augustus gets (presumably) turned into living chocolate, and will have to spend the rest of his life trying to keep from eating himself or melting; Violet is left blue-skinned and freakishly flexible (and permanently doing cartwheels, it seems); Mikey is turned into a freakishly tall noodle person; Veruca... gets a bath and a stern look from her father.
    • Perhaps for the same reason Mr. Salt was the only parent who was punished directly? The other parents are certainly guilty of criminal neglect to allow their children to reach the horrible state they were in by the time of the book/movies, that neglect was not straightening out their children's innate nastiness. Augustus Gloop was a greedy little shit without prompting, his parents just enabled him. Veruca's brattiness could be argued to be completely a creation of her father telling her to act that way to get what she wants. So she gets off light, while her father gets punished as well.
    • I didn't think Augustus was turned into chocolate, he was just covered in it, they probably got it off after several washes,and Violet seemed quite happy with her situation (she wasn't doing cartwheels because she had to, she was showing off). I did think it was unfair that they didn't all get lasting effects, though. It should have been all or none of them getting permanent side effects.
    • What makes her the worst in the group? I don't think she really came off as any more bratty than Mike or Violet, it's just her brattishness was demanding presents, while the others were obnoxious in different ways. I'd say she was actually the least deserving of punishment out of everyone. Her parents are as much to blame for her personality, which can't be said for the other families really. Wonka clearly agrees- Veruca and her parents are both punished, which doesn't happen to any other family.
      • The bratty qualities of the other children can be blamed (well, partially) on the parents, too, though. If the Gloops made sure her son knew how to control himself and enjoy a healthy diet, he wouldn't have practically dived into the chocolate lake; if the Mike's parents actually raised their child instead of letting him become obsessed with television, he just would have just been in awe of Wonka's invention instead of rushing to use it and the same for Violet and gum/winning. And the other parents are punished as well because they have to deal with a stretched out son or a purple daughter; in other words they have to deal with the mess they themselves created. The children were all brats because of their awful personalities and because bad habits their parents allowed them to keep.
    • The scene seemed to be implying that that her dad was going to stop spoiling her, which is definitely a long lasting effect.
    • What?! I think Veruca's got it worse than the others. It'll be fun to be stretched out or purple and extremely flexible, but being dumped down a rubbish chute? Ew. (Being carried by squirrels is probably fun, though, but the others get to do fun weird stuff too!)
    • I always imagined that being manhandled by a group of squirrels would be quite painful, what with the scratching and constantly grabbing etc. Of course, scars couldn't be shown in a children's film, but it would still be a pretty harsh side effect.
    • Probably Veruca wound up with lifelong squirrel and/or garbage phobias.
  • How does Wonka not have a massive lawsuit on his hands after the factory tour? I mean: almost being burned to death, shrunk, turned purple and almost killed by a chocolate river, someone MUST have raised something. In the other film they sign a contract that probably covers that. But it this film, there is no one who bats an eyelid at someone being creepily long and PURPLE.
    • Who says he doesn't? But Wonka's got plenty of money to throw around. Plus, Mrs. Gloop is the only one who really becomes furious at Wonka. Presumably Mr. and Mrs. Salt would be as well, but it seems like it would be hard to make charges stick in these cases, when each child was repeatedly warned against the action that got them karmic punishment.
      • Oh you bet the charges would stick. A half-hearted "Little girl/boy, please don't do that" doesn't cut it, especially since it's kids on a candy factory tour. The owner of a multi-million dollar franchise would have the burden of creating a safe environment with proper railings, warning labels, have them sign liability waivers etc, especially since all the yummy candy and fuzzy animals are enticing to kids. Just the fact that he's exposing them to some of the dangers in the factory would be grounds for a lawsuit.
    • All the money he made from the Golden Ticket frenzy was used to settle the suits.
    • Maybe that's why Wonka had the parents accompany them, to divert some of the liability away from him. Not making the factory safe enough for them is one thing, but if they go out of their way to get themselves in trouble and their parents don't do anything to stop them, it won't come down as heavily on him, at least.
    • The 1971 film has the children and their parents signing a waver (that tapers down into microscopically small print). Couldn't they at least have thrown in something like that?
    • 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 shut up and not think about it.
    • Also, "half-hearted" is a little unfair to describe Wonka's attempts to stop the kids from doing what they shouldn't do. Initially, at least, he's quite forceful and rational in pointing out to the kids how what they're doing is dangerous and they should stop right now. He only gets all "Stop. Don't. Come back." with Mike right at the end, after an entire day of snotty kids arrogantly disregarding his urgent warnings and blundering foolishly into dangerous situations, and really, at that point, can we blame him for not giving too much of a crap?
  • Mr. Bucket gets laid off from his job at the toothpaste factory after the factory replaces him with a machine, then he later gets rehired to repair said machine. Either the machine breaks down constantly and Mr. Bucket is hired to fix it each time, which would make having the machine in the first place seem like a pointless waste of money; or the factory paid Mr. Bucket to fix the machine the one time, which would still leave him without a constant job.
    • I'm guessing what they meant was that Mr. Bucket was rehired to maintain the machine.
      • The Buckets were probably news in the papers for a while, considering that their son was seen flying above a crowd and ended up as the only one not horribly disfigured (Or humiliated, unless Veruca got a stench of rotting that wouldn't go away) so people would wonder about what made him so different.
    • Mr. Bucket may have just gotten a job as a maintenance man for the entire factory, or at least a part of it, but still a larger role than just fixing the machine - whether it constantly breaks down or not, a company hiring a man for the sake of upkeep of one machine, especially one with such a minor purpose overall, wouldn't seem like a job that would be capable of supporting a family of a child, two adults, and four elderly bedridden grandparents. Mr. Bucket fixing up the machine as was shown in the film could've been an entry-level performance test, for the company executives to get an idea what he was capable of.
  • If Wonka's factory officially has no workers, who drives the delivery trucks with Wonka logos in the beginning? Unless they're operated by a subcontractor, of course.
    • This is likely the case — and it follows the book's explanation for how the candies are distributed fairly closely: According to Grandpa Joe, "[The candies] come out through a special trap door in the wall, all packed and addressed, and they are picked up every day by Post Office trucks."
    • We also don’t know that Wonka doesn’t have official workers. He had Mr. Wilkinson in the 1971 film, and considering this Wonka is considerably more childish and immature, it makes sense that he would have other employees to help him with things like advertising and distribution.
  • Why did Mike Teevee go to the chocolate factory in this version? He said himself he hated chocolate and he didn't really seem interested in the wonder and splendor of the factory. Yet he went as far as hacking the factory to get the proper codes to find the golden ticket and there was no Slugworth in this movie to bribe him.
    • 2005 Mike strikes me as proactive enough to not need a Slugworth to come to him. He probably thought he'd just take a look around and maybe get a few secrets he could sell. Either that, or the neener-neener privileges of visiting The Forbidden Factory outweighed his dislike of chocolate...Speaking of which, did he say he hated all sweets, or just chocolate? Wonka makes a lot of other stuff in there besides chocolate, which may include the soft drinks that gamers today love so much?
      • He only said he hated chocolate.
  • If Wilbur Wonka has an entire wall covered with photos and newspaper clippings detailing his son's accomplishments as a chocolatier, how did he not recognize Willy when he and Charlie showed up on his doorstep? Even if a lot of his photos were outdated since Willy hasn't been out in public in several years, his appearance shouldn't have changed much in that time
    • Wilbur Wonka was a consummate professional, and he was in full 'dentist' mode when Willy ostensibly came in for a check-up, so his entire focus was on the dental rather than the facial aspects of his patient. Of course, he finally recognized Willy anyway after taking a good, hard look at his dental assets.
  • So what was the point of the great glass elevator ride and Wonka asking where Charlie lived in this version? In the book (and ostensibly the 1971 film), it's because they used the elevator to pick up the rest of Charlie's family and bring them all back to his new factory. (Which also explains why they destroyed the roof of his house in the process.) But in this version, Wonka tells Charlie he can't bring his family back with him, so why did he bother taking the elevator? Was it just a more exciting way of taking Grandpa Joe home?
    • Considering how short-sighted and immature Wonka is demonstrated as being elsewhere in the film, I wouldn't put it past him to not have considered the ramifications of destroying the roof of his house. He also might've assumed that Charlie was more well off than he turned out to be, and thought that such property damage wouldn't be such a big deal to his family. Being such a famous chocolatier, it's not as if he'd know what it's like to be so destitute.
  • Who were those guys putting up the golden ticket posters, anyway? From what can be seen of their features (granted, only for a few seconds), they don't appear to be Oompa-Loompas.
    • 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.
    • We don’t know that Wonka doesn’t have workers besides the Oompa-Loompas. He had Mr. Wilkinson in the 1971 film, and considering this Wonka is considerably more childish and immature, it makes sense that he would have other employees to help him with things like advertising and distribution.
  • The logic behind the kids' "punishments" was always kind of interesting to me. While all four are spoiled, it's only Veruca's parents who are punished alongside her. This is apparently because, as the song says, they share the blame for her character flaw. With the others, however, this is apparently not so. While the text does make it clear that the Gloops, Beauregardes, and Teavees either encourage or turn a blind eye to their childrens' flaws, the punishment eventually falls on the kids alone - it is Augustus who is sucked painfully up the pipe, it is Violet who is permanently blue, and it is Mike who is now a Slender-Man-esque freak of nature, while the parents only look on with dismay. Augustus's song especially makes it clear that he's just a loathsome human being (though we don't get too much evidence of that in his behavior besides, you know, his gluttony). But why do their parents, unlike Veruca's, get off scot-free?
    • Possibly because Mr. Salt has the distinction of having a direct role in Veruca's brattiness, while the Gloops, Mrs. Beauregarde, and the Teevees are only responsible indirectly, by not stopping the bad habits.
  • "We need the money more than we need the chocolate." But going already guarantees a lifetime supply of chocolate even before the special prize is revealed. They can still sell the chocolate after the factory tour. (Of course, they don't know yet what the tour will involve.)
    • Aren't there laws and health codes and such that keep you from just selling food all willy-nilly to people? And for all the Buckets knew, 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.
  • 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.
    • 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 either. And yet. I know this is Headscratchers and all, but frankly if anyone's unable to suspend disbelief and just relax to this extent over a kid's fantasy story, the problem's with them not the story.
    • When I watched both films, I got the impression that Wonka was planning to get into the TV manufacturing business. The TVs you can reach into and grab stuff from are the product he was testing in the Television Room, but the only stuff you can take from inside them are those transmitted via the teleporter inside Wonka's factory.
  • If Wilbur Wonka was so opposed to his son eating candy, why did he let him go trick or treating in the first place?
    • He tasked him with going out and collecting candy so that he could lecture him personally about how unhealthy all of it is. Or he’s still a reasonable parent who is okay with his son dressing up in costume and spending the night having fun with his friends, but just doesn't want him eating the unhealthy candy he brings home afterwards.
  • When Willy Wonka made the giant chocolate palace for the Indian prince, he tells him to "start eating it" before it melts. Exactly how is a single person and his family going to eat all of that in a short amount of time? I'm sure even the biggest chocolate-lovers wouldn't be able to get through a quarter of that without getting sick and eventually turned off from the candy. Willy Wonka may be a chocolate-selling businessman on the extreme level but he should know better.
    • His warning was meant to be taken as “This palace won’t last long, so I’d recommend you eat what you can before it all melts away,” not “If you start eating now, I believe you can definitely finish eating this entire palace before it melts away.” Even if we look beyond that, it's not really up to Wonka what the prince does with his palace, whether he eats it all up or lets it melt away into nothing. He was just giving him a warning out of human decency.
  • During the song about Veruca, how and why the Oompa-Loompas have a portrait of Mrs. Salt to begin with? I get that its presence symbolically represents Mrs. Salt's fate in the book and that she is responsible as well of Veruca's bratiness, but she doesn't go to the factory and the Oompa-Loompas didn't know Mr. Salt until he and Veruca arrived with the other winners. Do they have portraits of all other parents?
  • When Mike attempts to send himself through television, why didn't the Oompa Loompas nearby push the button again to cancel the teleportation?
    • How do we know the button works that way? Maybe pressing it a second time wouldn't have done anything.
  • How did Wonka manage to build the palace for the Indian prince without it melting away before it was even finished?
    • According to sources, the melting point of chocolate is between 86 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit. There are parts of the year in India with average temperatures well below that threshold. Wonka probably just arranged to have the palace constructed at a time of year when it would withstand the local temperature.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report