What is it about filmmakers wanting to depict slavery in their precious kids movies? Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and that 2010 Nutcracker abomination come to mind. Or the inexplicably beloved Toy Story 3. You know, the one where our lovable heroes spend 90% of the movie in a toy Stalag, and they get a side of Holocaust metaphor as a bonus? Yeah, f**k each and every one of those movies. And this one too (I'm taking Nathan's word for it).
(Ironically I was OK with Burton's version because if nothing else it came closest to the original material of any Dahl adaptation.)
Oh, and from everything I read, Hugh Grant did indeed hate making this movie. It's such a far cry from the Paddington 2 experience, which he cited as one of his favorite roles and most enjoyable movies to make.
How do you go out of your way to make a movie as inoffensive as possible, then still fail to cast a little person in maybe the most famous character use of little person actors outside of Wizard of Oz or Willow? Oompa Loompa is surely second only to Munchkin in cultural ubiquity. But they still shrank Hugh Grant.
There is a book sequel by Dahl to Chocolate Factory called and The Great Glass Elevator. It’s never been filmed because Dahl refused to give adaptation rights to Hollywood after the Wilder film. So, WBD created this dumbass prequel for what end?
Thanks. I have a son who is a huge early Tim Burton fan so I am reliving the fall from grace through him. He sure started out great and then got worse with time, not unlike Robert Zemeckis.
I don't think it's a bad movie at all the songs were ok but could of been better also why does need so many villains that's my only concern however overall its a good movie and good plot u was glad they got the song pure imagination in it
I don't think it's a bad movie at all the songs were ok but could of been better also why does need so many villains that's my only concern however overall its a good movie and good plot u was glad they got the song pure imagination in it
Problem with every prequel is, good movies rarely leave unanswered question for audience, and prequel need to hang on unanswered question. "What was Darth Vader like as little kid" not question people were dying to hear answer to. "How does one go about becoming mafia don" is endlessly fascinating question, which is why De Niro segments of Godfather II are only prequel in entire history of movies to work.
But Wonka presents interesting case, because "how did beloved candy maker come to hate children so much?" or conversely "how did sociopathic misanthrope become beloved candy maker?" are questions that might be worth exploring, but this one instead choose to answer question that has plagued exactly no one for centuries, "what could possibly drive man to make lots of money selling delightful confections to children?"
Geez, Nabin—who put Jimson Weed in YOUR Wheaties? You not only hate the movie but, launching off into one of those flights of fancy you have that presents perfectly decent persons as monsters, you allege that a major and respected actor like Hugh Grant must somehow hate acting—not just this part, which apparently he didn't enjoy, but acting overall.
I'm going to see it this weekend because my friends want to, and I'll decide for myself if there's any validity in your rant, or if you're just somehow projecting onto it.
What is it about filmmakers wanting to depict slavery in their precious kids movies? Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and that 2010 Nutcracker abomination come to mind. Or the inexplicably beloved Toy Story 3. You know, the one where our lovable heroes spend 90% of the movie in a toy Stalag, and they get a side of Holocaust metaphor as a bonus? Yeah, f**k each and every one of those movies. And this one too (I'm taking Nathan's word for it).
(Ironically I was OK with Burton's version because if nothing else it came closest to the original material of any Dahl adaptation.)
Oh, and from everything I read, Hugh Grant did indeed hate making this movie. It's such a far cry from the Paddington 2 experience, which he cited as one of his favorite roles and most enjoyable movies to make.
people love this movie this .movie was big huge success y'all obviously jelous of this movie's cast's work
How do you go out of your way to make a movie as inoffensive as possible, then still fail to cast a little person in maybe the most famous character use of little person actors outside of Wizard of Oz or Willow? Oompa Loompa is surely second only to Munchkin in cultural ubiquity. But they still shrank Hugh Grant.
Not discussed here:
There is a book sequel by Dahl to Chocolate Factory called and The Great Glass Elevator. It’s never been filmed because Dahl refused to give adaptation rights to Hollywood after the Wilder film. So, WBD created this dumbass prequel for what end?
Yeah, I can't imagine how obnoxious Dahl would have found this. He didn't like good adaptations of his work, let alone off-brand, Disneyfied schlock.
Not to mention, Great Glass Elevator is probably unfilmable, on account of being plotless acid trip that very pointedly not feature chocolate factory.
Surely, Sid.
Yeah fuck this movie but also sick and well-deserved dig at the end there.
Thanks. I have a son who is a huge early Tim Burton fan so I am reliving the fall from grace through him. He sure started out great and then got worse with time, not unlike Robert Zemeckis.
shut up this movie is much better than that trash Tim burton film
What was the extra half star for?
I don't think it's a bad movie at all the songs were ok but could of been better also why does need so many villains that's my only concern however overall its a good movie and good plot u was glad they got the song pure imagination in it
I don't think it's a bad movie at all the songs were ok but could of been better also why does need so many villains that's my only concern however overall its a good movie and good plot u was glad they got the song pure imagination in it
You should've seen my expression having to sit through Timothee Chalamet singing "Noodles Will Have Oodles of Fun" song.
I know that was sweet timothee's singing is good
Problem with every prequel is, good movies rarely leave unanswered question for audience, and prequel need to hang on unanswered question. "What was Darth Vader like as little kid" not question people were dying to hear answer to. "How does one go about becoming mafia don" is endlessly fascinating question, which is why De Niro segments of Godfather II are only prequel in entire history of movies to work.
But Wonka presents interesting case, because "how did beloved candy maker come to hate children so much?" or conversely "how did sociopathic misanthrope become beloved candy maker?" are questions that might be worth exploring, but this one instead choose to answer question that has plagued exactly no one for centuries, "what could possibly drive man to make lots of money selling delightful confections to children?"
Geez, Nabin—who put Jimson Weed in YOUR Wheaties? You not only hate the movie but, launching off into one of those flights of fancy you have that presents perfectly decent persons as monsters, you allege that a major and respected actor like Hugh Grant must somehow hate acting—not just this part, which apparently he didn't enjoy, but acting overall.
I'm going to see it this weekend because my friends want to, and I'll decide for myself if there's any validity in your rant, or if you're just somehow projecting onto it.
You will be happy to note that Hugh Grant truly did hate making this movie. Deeply and openly. When asked about making the movie he ‘couldn’t have hated it more’ if it was worth it he said "probably not." https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/29/hugh-grant-loathed-playing-oompa-loompa-wonka-this-reason-19902111/