Current Events > Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory... how high were the people that made this

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/Inf5du8u7OE

So... how much of the drugs did the people behind willy wonka take? This movie was in 1971, so... I imagine all the LSD available on earth at the time? With some of the mary wanna for good measure?

About as high as the guy who wrote the book I'd wager.

McmadnessV3 posted...

About as high as the guy who wrote the book I'd wager.

Nah that's different, that's... um... whimsical.

Yeah, I had a teacher who read the book to us in third grade and a lot of the weirdness from the movie comes from that.

Roald Dahl puts children in deadly situations and we loved him for it.

Great movie.

It does have a lot of really weird stuff in it though, lol.

The most ridiculous part of the movie is the shopkeep making it rain free candy for an entire song.

And somehow Charlie is still too poor for the free candy.

No more drugs that the people who made Little Audrey and similar cartoons in the 30's and 40's, which were often equal parts meant to entertain children and frighten them into obedience.

I feel like a hallmark of movies 'made by people on drugs' is that the audience similarly has to be on drugs (or very open-minded) to even have a chance of understanding it, and WW is almost impossible not to follow along with.

Let me tell you about a little movie called The Holy Mountain....

SAlYAN posted...

The most ridiculous part of the movie is the shopkeep making it rain free candy for an entire song.

And somehow Charlie is still too poor for the free candy.

I can think of a few explanations for this, but the bottom line is Charlie doesn't get candy because he's poor, while the other kids just have it given to them.

Maybe the other kids' parents have one of those small town store arrangements where the customer has an open tab that they settle once a week or so (and the shopkeep knows them/their parents because he knows everyone in town so he keeps track later after they leave).

Maybe it's not meant to be interpreted literally. The kids are actually giving the candy man money in exchange for the candy, but the physical exchange of money is irrelevant, so the film doesn't show it. These kids just got money from their parents; they don't understand its value. Charlie, on the other hand, doesn't understand why it's such a barrier. The only character who understands the situation is the Candyman himself, who is gleefully collecting all this cash, which looks to Charlie as if he is gleefully handing out candy. All Charlie cares about is that these kids get candy (figuratively, but literally in the movie) showered on them because they're not poor like he is.

Maybe it's some kind of rewards program, and Charlie has never bought any candy to earn the free stuff.

I kinda interpreted it as outsider syndrome of sorts where Charlie doesn't think he's good enough to partake in all the free candy. Like maybe he's too worried about the other kids screaming 'eww, what's a poor doing here?!" even though the Candyman himself probably wouldn't have treated him any differently.

masterpug53 posted...

I kinda interpreted it as outsider syndrome of sorts where Charlie doesn't think he's good enough to partake in all the free candy. Like maybe he's too worried about the other kids screaming 'eww, what's a poor doing here?!" even though the Candyman himself probably wouldn't have treated him any differently.

That makes sense.

Super easy! Barely an inconvenience!

Also to be fair the movie does some changes to the book that suck. Really gene wilder party liaison as wonka is the only thing about the movie I like

saspa posted...

Also to be fair the movie does some changes to the book that suck. Really gene wilder party liaison as wonka is the only thing about the movie I like

I've never read the book, and the Johnny Depp one kind of convinced me that I don't want to, lol. That one was supposed to be a closer adaptation, and I didn't like it at all.

I think Veruca and Michael should have switched places in the order they were eliminated tbh.

The person who came up with the tunnel scene had problems.

masterpug53 posted...

I kinda interpreted it as outsider syndrome of sorts where Charlie doesn't think he's good enough to partake in all the free candy. Like maybe he's too worried about the other kids screaming 'eww, what's a poor doing here?!" even though the Candyman himself probably wouldn't have treated him any differently.

I don't know. He coughs/hints to wanting money for the bar that Charlie was eating instead of letting him finish it.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

I've never read the book, and the Johnny Depp one kind of convinced me that I don't want to, lol. That one was supposed to be a closer adaptation, and I didn't like it at all.

It's "closer" in the sense that it more closely follows the letter of the book, I guess. But its still woefully off base.

The Burton movie is dour, because he thrives off of eerie, weird things. Everything looks dark when it shouldn't. There's bizarre shit like the melting puppets. He Burton'd a story that didn't need Burton'd.

Wonka is all wrong; gene wilder is much closer to the book Wonka in personality. And he doesn't look like the lovechild of Michael Jackson and that Russian bitch in Indiana Jones 4.

The whole subplot with Wonka's dad is totally made up. As is charlie's refusal of Wonka's offer because wonka's an adult-hating manbaby.

When people say it "more accurately follows the book," they mean it on a superficial level. It's not a musical. Charlie's dad is alive and has a shit job. The golden geese are actually squirrels. There's no Slugworth subplot. They used the actual oompa loompa song lyrics.

SAlYAN posted...

It's "closer" in the sense that it more closely follows the letter of the book, I guess. But its still woefully off base.

The Burton movie is dour, because he thrives off of eerie, weird things. Everything looks dark when it shouldn't. There's bizarre shit like the melting puppets. He Burton'd a story that didn't need Burton'd.

Wonka is all wrong; gene wilder is much closer to the book Wonka in personality. And he doesn't look like the lovechild of Michael Jackson and that Russian bitch in Indiana Jones 4.

The whole subplot with Wonka's dad is totally made up. As is charlie's refusal of Wonka's offer because wonka's an adult-hating manbaby.

When people say it "more accurately follows the book," they mean it on a superficial level. It's not a musical. Charlie's dad is alive and has a shit job. The golden geese are actually squirrels. There's no Slugworth subplot. They used the actual oompa loompa song lyrics.

I see. Maybe I'll give it a read after all.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

I've never read the book, and the Johnny Depp one kind of convinced me that I don't want to, lol. That one was supposed to be a closer adaptation, and I didn't like it at all.

I don't think it was tbh?

Quezovercoatl posted...

I don't think it was tbh?

It wasn't. If anything it was even more different.

DragulaRULEZ posted...

Roald Dahl puts children in deadly situations and we loved him for it.

Edward Gorey took it even further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1ezWzktRA

I remember a book from when I was a kid that had old German children stories...they didn't fuck around. Kids sucking on their thumb? What if we invented a dude that cuts them off?

saspa posted...

Nah that's different, that's... um... whimsical.

You forgot it was a book first didn't you.

DragulaRULEZ posted...

I remember a book from when I was a kid that had old German children stories...they didn't fuck around. Kids sucking on their thumb? What if we invented a dude that cuts them off?

That's so tame even by modern standards, considering some of the more twisted folk tales they had. Heck it was still a common a threat up til at least the 90s