This looks like a Disney reboot without being a Disney reboot. I feel like we've answered the question "how did blank become blank?" Like how did Cruella de Vil become Cruella de Vil? Turns out no...
This looks like a Disney reboot without being a Disney reboot. I feel like we've answered the question "how did blank become blank?" Like how did Cruella de Vil become Cruella de Vil? Turns out no one really cared all that much. There's sooooo much pressure in Hollywood for everything to become a franchise, or some bigger multi-movie story, whenever it's just not necessary. More often than not films like this just miss what made the originals special to begin with. Like I never watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory just for Willy Wonka, Wonka was a part of the weird world the main character was thrown into out of his mundane impoverished life, where Charlie contrasts with the other rich kids by his virtues of accepting that good things come in small packages, his patience, just overall not being greedy and spoiled, and he's rewarded for that and it's a great children's movie for that. I just never really asked what the mythos was behind the character named Willy Wonka.
I do like Timothée Chalamet as an actor, and I spotted Rowan Atkinson a few times so that gives me good vibes, but I can't see myself having the will to sit through an origin story for Willy Wonka.
Honestly, the wonka movie I'd really like to see is Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. There was talk a while back of Netflix doing an adaptation of both books, but I haven't heard about it for...
Honestly, the wonka movie I'd really like to see is Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. There was talk a while back of Netflix doing an adaptation of both books, but I haven't heard about it for quite a while so don't know if that's still happening. Great Glass elevator was always my preferred book of the two as a kid, and it could work really well as an animated type of thing, but with the money studios seem to put behind any franchise movie these days they could probably manage it just as well live action.
I sighed when I saw the title. The weird thing is that they've already done a 'reboot' of this story with Tim Burton and among the many reasons it failed as a film was the addition of Wonka's...
I sighed when I saw the title.
The weird thing is that they've already done a 'reboot' of this story with Tim Burton and among the many reasons it failed as a film was the addition of Wonka's backstory.
It's almost amazing how few people seem to understand that Charlie is the reason why the story is so good. Without him, it's not even a complete story; it's just "Here's a bunch of weird things that happen". Charlie is quite literally the hero of the story! Wonka doesn't even have a set personality through most of it. Leave it to Warner to completely rip the heart and soul out of a story. I can't wait for this to make millions of dollars for them anyways.
For what it's worth, the original film was titled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" because everyone understands the most important character to be Willy Wonka. When Charlie and the...
For what it's worth, the original film was titled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" because everyone understands the most important character to be Willy Wonka. When Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the title of the Tim Burton movie, and also the Roald Dahl book) film came out , no one was comparing Charlies -- they were comparing Willy Wonkas and not a single word was said about the new one without mentioning Gene Wilder reverence first. Despite that, as you acknowledge, Charlie made nearly half a billion dollars at the box office, not to mention "Certified Fresh" on rotten tomatoes. And speaking anecdotally, a lot of kids like the Tim Burton movie better if given the choice because it's not "that weird old man". All to say: whatever your personal opinions on Charlie, it's far from a failure.
I'm I guess the rare minority where the Tim Burton one has always been the default film to me. I've watched it multiple times as a kid, and as a kid I've enjoyed it and as an adult never thought...
I'm I guess the rare minority where the Tim Burton one has always been the default film to me. I've watched it multiple times as a kid, and as a kid I've enjoyed it and as an adult never thought it was considered a flop. I didn't even realize it was hated until reading this thread!
I'm aware that the Gene Wilder is revered in the original but I'm not entirely sure if I've even seen entirety of the original 1971 one. I know the meme? And it never appealed to me...because it's too old?
I think it's just a generational thing, those who had watched the 1975 one had something to compare it to when the 2005 came out. The ones complaining are maybe just old ;)
It's not something I'd bother watching in theater, but will probably get to it eventually on streaming. I agree with all your points though. Major studios are paralyzed by the amount of money...
It's not something I'd bother watching in theater, but will probably get to it eventually on streaming. I agree with all your points though. Major studios are paralyzed by the amount of money invested in new movies. What we have in modern major films is a dearth of creativity, stifled by return on investments. Adhering to known intellectual properties whenever possible is safe and box office returns show it to be a generally viable strategy. People will almost certainly go see this.
Isn't that the purpose, though? Why invest money in a movie that isn't going to appeal to the masses? There are plenty of niche movies that get released and flop because they're just not appealing...
Adhering to known intellectual properties whenever possible is safe and box office returns show it to be a generally viable strategy. People will almost certainly go see this.
Isn't that the purpose, though? Why invest money in a movie that isn't going to appeal to the masses? There are plenty of niche movies that get released and flop because they're just not appealing to most people. Understandably, studios try to create movies that large numbers of people actually want to see.
This trailer didn't do much for me. Timothée Chalamet's performance feels off and the universe feels like an extension of the Wizarding World. Paul King did a wonderful job with Paddington though,...
This trailer didn't do much for me. Timothée Chalamet's performance feels off and the universe feels like an extension of the Wizarding World. Paul King did a wonderful job with Paddington though, so maybe he'll work his magic with this film.
Ya I honestly just don't see Chalamet as Wonka, it felt a bit weird. There's no creepy vibe that you got from Wilder or crazy from Depp, he just seems too nice.
Ya I honestly just don't see Chalamet as Wonka, it felt a bit weird. There's no creepy vibe that you got from Wilder or crazy from Depp, he just seems too nice.
I have a feeling we won't see that in this movie. Both Wilder and Depp gave Wonka a controlling and almost malicious personality to him. With Wilder, you wonder if he's nearly a villain until late...
I have a feeling we won't see that in this movie. Both Wilder and Depp gave Wonka a controlling and almost malicious personality to him. With Wilder, you wonder if he's nearly a villain until late into the movie. Depp came from rejection of his father, and both desired an heir that fit their idea of themselves at that age. This just doesn't strike me as a movie that will go that deep.
It's kinda of funny that we're getting a backstory that wants to wash away the history of a fictional character.
It definitely feels like a more "happy go lucky" Wonka. I'd hope there would be a glimpse of crazy at the end of the film but wouldn't pin my hopes on it.
It definitely feels like a more "happy go lucky" Wonka. I'd hope there would be a glimpse of crazy at the end of the film but wouldn't pin my hopes on it.
I really did not like Depp's Wonka. The Wonka in my head was always zany, nutty, brilliant and perhaps slightly scary at times. But Depp's Wonka was androgynous and just odd. I don't know, hard to...
I really did not like Depp's Wonka. The Wonka in my head was always zany, nutty, brilliant and perhaps slightly scary at times. But Depp's Wonka was androgynous and just odd. I don't know, hard to put my finger on it, but I wasn't a fan.
I haven't watched Wilder's version in a long time, so I don't know how I would feel about that now. I do remember as a kid thinking he didn't look anything like the Wonka I had in my head or the...
I haven't watched Wilder's version in a long time, so I don't know how I would feel about that now. I do remember as a kid thinking he didn't look anything like the Wonka I had in my head or the illustrations of Quentin Blake. It's always tricky when a beloved book is adapted to the big screen and the choice of character is very different from your own imagined one.
It was ambiguous in the books. It always felt like Roald Dahl set it in industrial Britain, e.g. Yorkshire or something, but then tried to make it more appealing to Americans by calling the...
It was ambiguous in the books. It always felt like Roald Dahl set it in industrial Britain, e.g. Yorkshire or something, but then tried to make it more appealing to Americans by calling the currency dollars and having elevators rather than lifts.
The exact location was ambiguous - "a small wooden house on the edge of a great town" - but the book was definitely set in the UK. That must be an American edition. I can't find my copy right now...
The exact location was ambiguous - "a small wooden house on the edge of a great town" - but the book was definitely set in the UK.
calling the currency dollars and having elevators rather than lifts.
That must be an American edition. I can't find my copy right now but a quick look on Google Books shows Dahl referring to pounds and pence several times (not to mention the sixpence Grandpa Joe finds!). There is a chapter in Chocolate Factory titled "Great Glass Lift", where the word 'elevator' doesn't appear. I'm sure there's an explanation in Great Glass Elevator why it's not a lift any more.
The films were rather more flexible, which is fine. It's not like it matters to the story.
Interesting that the 1971 film has a 3.8 on Letterboxd and the 2005 remake has a 3.1 Looks like that differential holds mostly true across IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes as well Edit: For...
Interesting that the 1971 film has a 3.8 on Letterboxd and the 2005 remake has a 3.1
Looks like that differential holds mostly true across IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes as well
Edit: For reference, Letterboxd is out of 5 stars.
I agree that it's interesting, especially since I recall the contemporary reaction to the movie being pretty much unanimously that it was bad, or at least vastly inferior to the original. It's...
I agree that it's interesting, especially since I recall the contemporary reaction to the movie being pretty much unanimously that it was bad, or at least vastly inferior to the original. It's definitely one of those 2000s kids movies, along with e.g. the Star Wars prequels and easily a dozen other examples, that millennials and older all agreed were bad at the time, but which elder zoomers grew up with and have been reevaluating as they've grown up and become the majority on sites like this. And I say this as an elder zoomer who hasn't seen this one since I was a kid and it came out, and have no idea if I'd like it or hate it now. I just distinctly remember everyone agreeing it was bad when it came out, and I've been seeing others in this thread referring to the unanimous hatred for it and then getting similar corrections to this. It's just interesting the way reevaluations can memory hole stuff like that.
Okay I've had this idea for a while now but never really shared it, would be interested if people think I'm just being woke/deranged or if I actually have a good point. Does anyone else think it's...
Okay I've had this idea for a while now but never really shared it, would be interested if people think I'm just being woke/deranged or if I actually have a good point.
Does anyone else think it's strange, maybe even harmful to create movies like this? The real history of chocolate is one of exploitation, it's something that is evident in the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the Oompa Loompas, which are essentially a mockery of indigenous peoples.
If you make a movie that's now super diverse and willy wonka is helping some black girl is there not some kind of damage being done to the public consciousness?
Maybe this sounds ridiculous, it's just a family movie, but think about which countries we say have the best chocolate. Belgium? Switzerland? Does cocoa grow in these countries? How did the belgians treat their colonies?
I don't think the writers necessarily have any ulterior motives, if anything they probably just hire a diverse cast for representation, but black washing historical fiction/magic realism sort of incidentally creates these worlds where the injustices of colonisation and slavery never happened.
The same is true for Bridgerton, you can't make a diverse 18th century Britain where the Black/Indian characters have anglicised names and absolutely zero to do with their indigenous cultures, without making a fantasy world where colonization wasn't as cruel as it was in reality.
I wouldn't make a movie set in 1940's Germany where several characters are jewish but also don't mention Nazis or the Holocaust.
In the original book there are no oompa-loompas. Dahl used pygmy slaves....
it's something that is evident in the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the Oompa Loompas, which are essentially a mockery of indigenous peoples.
But there is a troubling aspect to this story. In the first edition of Charlie (1964), the Oompa-Loompas are black pygmies who Wonka imports from “the deepest and darkest part of the African jungle” and enslaves in his factory.
This is a reasonably common event with books for children. The worst bit of the content is removed or re-worded, but we see the under lying concepts and those are still pretty troubling. Another example is "Henry's Sneeze" from Thomas the Tank Engine books - Henry blows sooty smoke into the faces of children who are on a bridge throwing stones at trains. In the original version the N word is used to describe the children. That got changed to "black as coal", but the illustration still shows them in blackface. And that's the joke - these children are black - and it has a long history that lots of people aren't aware of.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as deranged, but I think you might be a little off-target. It's not a documentary. Nobody is going to think this has anything to do with this history of chocolate. Even...
I'm not sure I'd go as far as deranged, but I think you might be a little off-target. It's not a documentary. Nobody is going to think this has anything to do with this history of chocolate. Even my four year old knows the difference between fiction and reality.
Belgian chocolate is over-rated but chocolate is as much the process as the ingredients. Does anyone get upset that Italy makes the best coffee but coffee doesn't grow there? (caveat: I know nothing about coffee but that's not what I'm getting at). Belgium in particular has a horrendous record when it comes to colonialism but I'm not sure their at-home chocolatiers have too much of the blame to shoulder. Like how Hugh Grant isn't really to blame for anything the British Empire did (and we did a LOT)
If you want to educate kids about the dark history of chocolate, great. But that's not what this film is trying to do. It's not presenting a realistic-but-wrong story to hide anything. The chocolate is barely relevant - Wonka could be about someone who has a dream to make anything - chocolate, toys, jelly, doesn't matter.
I don't think any of the under-tens who will enjoy this movie are going to come away thinking that chocolate was invented by a singing white European dude in a tailcoat (modern chocolate was actually invented by several white European dudes in what clothing history does not mention).
To look at it another way, almost everything has some aspect of human shittiness to it. So if we must make kid's movies horrifyingly true to life then it's going to be a pretty bleak future for school-age filmgoers. It's important to teach the shittiness, but they're just kids. They can have some fun too, right?
Sorry if I diluted my point, I'm not really talking about the history of chocolate specifically, I think the only point I want to make is if we make a depictions of the past more diverse without...
Sorry if I diluted my point, I'm not really talking about the history of chocolate specifically, I think the only point I want to make is if we make a depictions of the past more diverse without that diversity being meaningful, we do more damage than the good that "representation" does.
Having a diverse cast is meaningless if the stories about these characters have nothing to do with their race. Honestly in a modern setting diversity for the sake of diversity is fine, but if we set something in 1920s Britain, fantasy reimagining or not, I think it's harmful to present a society that is more diverse or fairer than it really was. Doing so does erase the cruelty that was being perpetuated in that time.
Another good example is the Fantastic Beasts films, where for some reason it's set in 1920's New York, but the wizard president is a black woman, and the USA was literally segregated at the time. Sure you can get away with "oh but the wizards were fairer", but much of the movie isn't even set in a separate magic world, it's just 1920s New York, and no references to racial or sexual inequality are made.
Probably the worst is Netflix's Bridgerton where they have Black and Indian characters, but absolutely no reference to Indian or African Cultures. It's set in 1813, obviously Bridgerton is a vapid show made for wine moms with absolutely no "world building", but what would the world have to look like for Bridgerton to actually take place? How could you possibly have Black and Brown aristocracy in Britain?
It's almost like if The Man in The High Castle had black and brown Nazi's and they just didn't comment on it at all. If race matters it has to actually matter, diversity for the sake of diversity, especially in historical contexts harms how we view the past.
If you're thinking "The Man in The High Castle doesn't work because the Nazi's were explicitly racial supremacists", then it's only because you're forgetting 1820s British colonizers were also explicitly racial supremacists. Slavery wasn't even abolished in the empire until 1833, and they were still taking "indentured labourers" from India to work in places like Fiji up until the early 20th century.
Is it? Does every non-white, non-straight, non-cis character have to be a figurehead for their culture? Can't there just be some people onscreen being... just people, regardless of their skin...
Having a diverse cast is meaningless if the stories about these characters have nothing to do with their race.
Is it? Does every non-white, non-straight, non-cis character have to be a figurehead for their culture? Can't there just be some people onscreen being... just people, regardless of their skin colour? Isn't that sort of how representation is supposed to work? I mean sure there's plenty of Serious and Worthy explorations of racial politics and history and so on but for a fun kid's film, can't we just have some sort of representation of the audience?
I haven't seen anything more than the trailer linked, but it doesn't appear to be set in the UK. It's clearly a fantasy world. Why not imagine a world better than the historical one? We edit Dahl's texts already to remove his (I believe mostly non-intentional) racism. Is this different?
Fantastic Beasts is Rowling's work, right? So I haven't been near that with even my biggest bargepole.
How could you possibly have Black and Brown aristocracy in Britain?
Eh, it did happen. A little. Not often. But I haven't seen Bridgerton. It sounds terrible.
19th century Britain was more diverse than perhaps modern people think. Diversity didn't start with Windrush, the UK is a nation of sailors and has been a world trader since long before it was United, or even a single Kingdom. London has always been a melting pot. Which isn't for a moment to suggest there hasn't been racism or oppression or colonialism or anything, of course!
I think if you're making historical stories or documentaries it does matter to leave in all the awful details. The awful details are probably the most important part, if we're to learn anything from the past. But fantasy is just that. Fantastic. People, a group for whom in aggregate I have very little faith, are pretty good at telling the difference.
To look at it from the other end, are you suggesting we should have fantasy kid's films where all the characters of any import are straight white European dudes, and all people of colour, women, queer or otherwise people are reduced to, at best, inferior sorts of human and at worst literal slaves? Because that does appear to be one - albeit somewhat absurd - end point of your argument.
I haven't seen most of the shows you are talking about, so could I ask what would you change in this trailer?
I absolutely agree with this, and your other points too. I agree with this too, but I'd like to add to this that I think it matters for kids to see people who aren't like them as well. I want my...
So basically, I like the diversity in this show because it is distinctively an alternate history.
I absolutely agree with this, and your other points too.
not only do you get more viewpoints represented, but more people who see themselves and people like them. Like I've occasionally heard about, say, a black kid who saw a black superhero and was like, "Holy shit, that could be me!"
I agree with this too, but I'd like to add to this that I think it matters for kids to see people who aren't like them as well. I want my kid to see superheroes (and not superheroes) of all colours and sexualities and gender identities and so on because I want them to grow up understanding those roles are for everyone. Which is absolutely happening, the kids TV shows and books we read are very diverse, certainly compared to how things were when I was a kid.
However, let's talk THE WATCH, because I loved that show and nobody ever wants to talk about it with me. Bear in mind I adore Pratchett and especially the Discworld. Those books I read and re-read obsessively as a child/teenager, they are my ultimate happiest, safest place. I could probably read half of them from memory. My kid is named after a Discworld character. I am a big Discworld fan.
But you know what Pratchett never did? He never said the Disc is a medieval-ish high-fantasy world. That was only ever done via Josh Kirby's covers - which supposedly PTerry didn't really like, he is said to have preferred Paul Kidby's later work (a signed print of his character drawings hangs on my bedroom wall). If a world had a "magical revolution" rather than an industrial/technological one, couldn't it turn out like The Watch's world? Magical technology rather than cyber or steam. I thought the show really hit the mark, it's just a mark I hadn't thought of and wasn't expecting. It's a totally legit representation of the book imo. Perhaps not the exact story, but that doesn't matter.
Also the casting was so good. Anna Chancellor (Vetinari), Jo Eaton-Kent (Cheery) and Ingrid Oliver (Dr Cruces) really stood out.
I feel as though your talking past me with your comments or intentionally misrepresenting my points since I am clearly saying that diversity is fine, my problem is with how it's portrayed in...
I feel as though your talking past me with your comments or intentionally misrepresenting my points since I am clearly saying that diversity is fine, my problem is with how it's portrayed in historical settings.
You could make Alice in Wonderland with a black alice and not have to deal with race, you can't with other settings.
I wouldn't change the trailer, I wouldn't make another reboot of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory to begin with.
It's hard for me to talk about the other examples you give because I haven't seen them. I was talking about the trailer for Wonka, in which I got the impression you were objecting to the use of...
It's hard for me to talk about the other examples you give because I haven't seen them. I was talking about the trailer for Wonka, in which I got the impression you were objecting to the use of non-white actors playing roles that appeared to be not directly related to their race and/or are historically accurate for what you believe to be 19th century Britain. Apologies if I misunderstood that.
And I don't disagree that when we're representing history we have a duty to do so with some amount of accuracy. But Wonka is very clearly not a historical film, it looks from the few minutes linked above to be just as fantastical as Alice in Wonderland. There are people eating chocolates that make them fly..
If you don't want to give examples of how you'd make this specific trailer fit your desires better that's fine, but otherwise I don't think there's much left to talk about, because I've obviously not understood what you're trying to say at all.
If we make depictions of the past more diverse and fair than they truly were we risk whitewashing history. Whether the depictions are fantasy doesn't really matter. A fantasy 1940s with Nazi that...
If we make depictions of the past more diverse and fair than they truly were we risk whitewashing history. Whether the depictions are fantasy doesn't really matter.
A fantasy 1940s with Nazi that aren't that bad is clearly a bad thing.
A fantasy 1920s, or 1820s where the British Empire weren't that bad is also a bad thing.
If you don't think the British Empire and Nazi Germany are fair comparisons then that's where we disagree.
Willy Wonka running around with a black girl in 1920s Britain is a form of white washing, the same way making a movie about Good Nazis is white washing history.
I'm not saying we shouldn't make movies with diverse casts.
I am aware of the history - and present - of chocolate and in a documentary or historical drama about chocolate I would absolutely expect to see all that stuff covered. But this is a children's...
I am aware of the history - and present - of chocolate and in a documentary or historical drama about chocolate I would absolutely expect to see all that stuff covered. But this is a children's fantasy film. And that does matter. Because it's not the past, not any more than Alice in Wonderland or Mary Poppins is the past. It's set in a fantasy past but it's not the actual past. It's not real and it's not pretending to be.
Willy Wonka running around with a black girl in 1920s Britain is a form of white washing
It's not 1920s Britain though. It's clearly not Britain and those clothes look more like mid-19th century to me. But even if it was supposed to be an historical version of the UK, how is having black people in the film white washing? There have been black people in Britain since before it was Britain. If this was historical 19th century London there would absolutely have been poor black kids on the streets for Wonka to be friends with. Historically there were even - albeit not a lot - rich black people, like the business dude you haven't mentioned but who appears several times.
I'm not being facetious when I ask how you would "fix" this trailer. I know you wouldn't make a prequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I'm with you on that - but this film does exist and you have issues with it that I'm struggling to understand, so perhaps it would be helpful to suggest how it might work in a way you'd be happy with. While remaining a family-friendly, fun, christmas fantasy film. Remaking it as a chocolately version of Schindler's List isn't going to work.
Britain was not a nice place for black and brown people, creating a fictional 1920s Britain where they were treated as such white washes Britains history of racism and discrimination. It's really...
Britain was not a nice place for black and brown people, creating a fictional 1920s Britain where they were treated as such white washes Britains history of racism and discrimination.
It's really difficult to have this conversation because you seem to think I'm making the argument that we shouldn't have diverse casting for historical settings because the UK used to be less diverse. I never argued this, or hinted toward this, this might be an argument you have heard from conservatives but it's not the one I'm making and I don't understand why you keep referencing this. For the record I'm British-Indian, though I shouldn't have to make an appeal to my own ethnicity for my arguments to hold weight.
While things aren't perfect now I would have no problems with a modern setting and a diverse cast. Or if you want to argue the movie isn't set in Britain and it's some completely fantasy world, then really do this with some kind of steampunk over the top fantasy setting. I understand that there is fantasy here with oompa loompas and flying chocolate, but these are present in the original work which is based on 1920s Britain.
If we keep making historic depictions, fantasy or otherwise, that don't represent the realities of what living in that time period was like for brown and black people, we make it seem like things were never so bad to begin with.
This is meta, but I want to say that I really appreciate how tactfully you stated this. It seems like you and mat share the same values (it’s important to advocate for minority groups) but...
It's really difficult to have this conversation because you seem to think I'm making the argument that we shouldn't have diverse casting for historical settings because the UK used to be less diverse.
I never argued this, or hinted toward this, this might be an argument you have heard from conservatives but it's not the one I'm making and I don't understand why you keep referencing this.
This is meta, but I want to say that I really appreciate how tactfully you stated this.
It seems like you and mat share the same values (it’s important to advocate for minority groups) but different ideas about how those values should be acted on in a modern film about the past.
I think that right there is the trouble: how do you make a modern film about the past? Especially a modern children’s film.
Because while we don’t want every modern film about the past to be about racism, it’s difficult to depict the past accurately without depicting racism if you include characters from racialized backgrounds.
For an example that may be more viscerally real to Americans, how would you cast a children’s fantasy film that takes place in Alabama in the 1850s? Would it feel appropriate to cast a bunch of Black actors and then ignore the reality of what life was like for Black people in the Antebellum South? But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be just as bad to erase Black people from the film completely with an all-white cast? That doesn’t seem right—but then, should all movies about that time period have to include examples of racism just so we aren’t whitewashing history?
(Not to suggest the situation in the UK at the time of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was as bad as slavery in the USA in the 1850s, but hopefully my point comes across).
I’m not sure how you handle this kind of issue.
You and mat both raise really good points, and I appreciate you both sharing your thoughts on this. You’ve given me something to think about.
Thanks, it's really difficult to have discussions about topics like this because people often assume I'm just a conservative trying to pull some sort of Motte and Bailey trick on them.
Thanks, it's really difficult to have discussions about topics like this because people often assume I'm just a conservative trying to pull some sort of Motte and Bailey trick on them.
I'm unclear how I gave you this impression because this isn't what I think at all, and I do apologise if that is how my comments have read. I don't think you are against diversity, personally, but...
you seem to think I'm making the argument that we shouldn't have diverse casting for historical settings because the UK used to be less diverse.
I'm unclear how I gave you this impression because this isn't what I think at all, and I do apologise if that is how my comments have read.
I don't think you are against diversity, personally, but I also can't see a way out of the problem you present without doing less diverse casting. I've asked a few times for how you would approach solving this issue, but until you give me some suggestions, I can't see another way out. Help me out here!
If it was more historically accurate for Wonka to have a white friend and on the numbers it obviously is then OK sure, cast a white kid in the role. But that's not going to look good, is it? All the kids in the audience are just going to see another parade of European white people doing stuff, again. I'm sure you're perfectly well aware of how important seeing diversity onscreen is for kids - and not just the black and brown and all the other kids, but the white ones too.
I want my uncooked-bread-skinned kid to grow up seeing all sorts and colours of people doing all sorts of things on the telly and in books because that's how they will grow up learning that skin colour (not to mention sexuality and gender identity and and and) isn't a way you should decide how to treat other people. I want them to learn about the history of this country and others and the terrible way we've acted in the past (and still do today) but they are a child. Sometimes it's just time to have some fun.
Additional to that, the other thing I really can't get past is that this film is not set in the UK, nor is it historical. And that's where I think your argument, such as I have understood it, really falls apart. Wonka is very clearly not a historical drama set in the UK. There is no reality for it to be accurate to. Nobody is trying to rewrite or whitewash history because this isn't history. The setting looks pretty over the top to me already, but how much more over the top do you want than literal rivers of chocolate and people actually flying?
For the record I'm British-Indian, though I shouldn't have to make an appeal to my own ethnicity for my arguments to hold weight.
You don't have to and it makes no difference to me. The reason I don't think your arguments don't hold up is that I disagree with the idea that this is a realistic historical drama rather than a kid's fantasy film, and I think in the context of a kid's fantasy movie, representation matters more than "historical" accuracy. I am genuinely surprised you are British though, because I would have thought someone who lived here could see that it's very obviously not set here. Look at the sign the use for currency, to take a very explicit example.
I would have no problems with a modern setting
Except this is a prequel to a book/movie set in roughly the mid/late 20th century (admittedly Charlie and the Chocolate, the book, was set in the UK - the film was not). So doing a prequel to that story set in the 21st century is not really an option. Again, I'm sure there are other films we'd all prefer to see being made than yet another reworking of an existing property, but this film is this film.
The conceit that Shondaland is apparently going for in Bridgerton is a parallel universe based on the canard that Queen Charlotte was of "Moorish blood" (and thus was darker-skinned than she was...
Probably the worst is Netflix's Bridgerton where they have Black and Indian characters, but absolutely no reference to Indian or African Cultures. It's set in 1813, obviously Bridgerton is a vapid show made for wine moms with absolutely no "world building", but what would the world have to look like for Bridgerton to actually take place? How could you possibly have Black and Brown aristocracy in Britain?
The conceit that Shondaland is apparently going for in Bridgerton is a parallel universe based on the canard that Queen Charlotte was of "Moorish blood" (and thus was darker-skinned than she was in reality); in their timeline they suggest the royal family would have spontaneously decided to elevate the few existing landed-gentry POC to the queen's royal court so that the new queen wouldn't look out of place. It then basically postulates that the more integrated aristocracy is what the nobility would have turned into forty or fifty years down the line.
Completely bonkers, and yes, it's absolutely glossing over what a tumultuous period that would have ushered in, but that's the conceit the show is going for. Luckily it's pretty clear it's a fantasy when they start dancing to a string quartet version of Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball"
Your topic was the subject of a recent article by the Guardian. If you haven't read it, you might find it interesting as it speaks more about some of the issues you raise....
Your topic was the subject of a recent article by the Guardian. If you haven't read it, you might find it interesting as it speaks more about some of the issues you raise.
As soon as I saw the thread title, my mind immediately flashed back to that utterly insane Jason Micallef script from 2014. It's an absolute trip, and I would be lying if I said I didn't kinda...
As soon as I saw the thread title, my mind immediately flashed back to that utterly insane Jason Micallef script from 2014. It's an absolute trip, and I would be lying if I said I didn't kinda want to see it in actual movie form.
There's a brief Twitter thread summarizing some of its... highlightshere, and you can read the script itself at your own peril here. It's 114 pages of the most ridiculous whimsical grimdark nonsense I've ever read.
Ah, good point, I forgot about the Twitter changes... To summarize the thread, with some extra details: The very first scene is a cold open that involves an Oompa-Loopa getting devoured by the...
Ah, good point, I forgot about the Twitter changes... To summarize the thread, with some extra details:
The very first scene is a cold open that involves an Oompa-Loopa getting devoured by the Vermicious Knid. Yep.
The second scene opens on Willy and his friends dancing and playing instruments on the rooftops of London during the Blitz in WWII, during which he means Slugworth
Willy gets in a love triangle with Charlie's mom and dad as teenagers; Charlie's dad is the son of an extremely rich chocolate magnate who frames Willy for assault to get him sent to prison
Willy ends up on a prison ship where he accidentally kills one of his cell mates, then kills the other to cover it up, before ending up on a "bright, almost technicolour island" teeming with (bloodthirsty) Roald Dahl-esque creatures, as well as Oompa-Loompas (described as having "Southeast Asian features" and "orange and green tribal markings")
The island/prison colony is a subsidiary of Bucket Chocolate, so after learning how to make poison from a Hornswaggler's horn from Narpah, Willy sabotages the company by poisoning their chocolate supply; this bankrupts them and leaves them in their rundown house from the novel
Prince Pondicherry visits the island to meet with the Governor, which Willy uses as an opportunity to escape; after escaping he has a brief affair with Angina Salt, Veruca's mother
Willy builds the chocolate palace that the prince wants, but knowing that it's going to melt, he steals all of the prince's jewels and flees the country, letting the prince and his guests get killed (? it's ambiguous, but...) as the palace melts
Willy buys the abandoned Bucket Chocolate Factory and transforms it into his own before trying to reconnect with Eveliegh (Charlie's mother); when she rejects his advances, he turns into a cooped up, paranoid recluse - during this period, he learns about the children from the book and how nasty they are, driving him to want to kill them
He stages the whole golden ticket thing to get all the children (including Charlie) into the factory; the last act is basically him using the circumstances to try and kill all of them, including Charlie (pushing Augustus into the chocolate river, deliberately vaporizing Mike during the TV chocolate demo, etc.)
Eveliegh and Slugworth (and Charlie, by way of his kindness) manage to stop him at the last moment, at which point he gives ownership of the factory to Charlie before taking off in the great glass elevator
As the Twitter writer puts it, "every scene after he's arrested is basically about the trail of bodies he leaves behind." I'd like to stress that I'm not making any of this up, either. This is pretty much how it goes. It's completely unhinged, and I'm more than a little morbidly curious about how it'd be to see it in actual movie form as opposed to just a script.
Part of this was filmed in my old hometown, Bath! It finished filming so long ago I actually started to wonder if it was released and I just missed it.
Part of this was filmed in my old hometown, Bath! It finished filming so long ago I actually started to wonder if it was released and I just missed it.
Am I the only one that thinks looks great? I didn't know anything about this except that I recognized the main actor since he was in Dune. The cinematography looks awesome. It looks a bit like a...
Am I the only one that thinks looks great? I didn't know anything about this except that I recognized the main actor since he was in Dune. The cinematography looks awesome. It looks a bit like a dream. Gives me vibes from a 90s movie maybe?
I highly recommend watching Zoe Bee on Willy Wonka. She has some rather fresh points to make about the Wonka myth besides the obvious capitalist slave owner glorification.
I highly recommend watching Zoe Bee on Willy Wonka. She has some rather fresh points to make about the Wonka myth besides the obvious capitalist slave owner glorification.
In the beginning of the trailer, there’s that bit of dialogue “no scratch that, reverse it” which is from the original, so of course I want to hear it in Gene Wilder’s voice/cadence and instead it...
In the beginning of the trailer, there’s that bit of dialogue “no scratch that, reverse it” which is from the original, so of course I want to hear it in Gene Wilder’s voice/cadence and instead it sounds affected … I can’t figure out who the little girl is and why she’s there … I’m unclear why the town is afraid of someone making chocolate … I guess what I’m saying is I can’t figure out what the hero’s journey is here. And I miss the highly saturated colors of the original, too.
Hugh Grant as an oompa loompa though, I’ll have to see it for that alone.
This looks pretty good but I didn't expect much. Seems like there's a lot for kids here. I'll just treat this as a totally separate thing from any earlier Wonka stuff, it'll probably work best...
This looks pretty good but I didn't expect much. Seems like there's a lot for kids here.
I'll just treat this as a totally separate thing from any earlier Wonka stuff, it'll probably work best that way.
This looks like a Disney reboot without being a Disney reboot. I feel like we've answered the question "how did blank become blank?" Like how did Cruella de Vil become Cruella de Vil? Turns out no one really cared all that much. There's sooooo much pressure in Hollywood for everything to become a franchise, or some bigger multi-movie story, whenever it's just not necessary. More often than not films like this just miss what made the originals special to begin with. Like I never watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory just for Willy Wonka, Wonka was a part of the weird world the main character was thrown into out of his mundane impoverished life, where Charlie contrasts with the other rich kids by his virtues of accepting that good things come in small packages, his patience, just overall not being greedy and spoiled, and he's rewarded for that and it's a great children's movie for that. I just never really asked what the mythos was behind the character named Willy Wonka.
I do like Timothée Chalamet as an actor, and I spotted Rowan Atkinson a few times so that gives me good vibes, but I can't see myself having the will to sit through an origin story for Willy Wonka.
Honestly, the wonka movie I'd really like to see is Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. There was talk a while back of Netflix doing an adaptation of both books, but I haven't heard about it for quite a while so don't know if that's still happening. Great Glass elevator was always my preferred book of the two as a kid, and it could work really well as an animated type of thing, but with the money studios seem to put behind any franchise movie these days they could probably manage it just as well live action.
I sighed when I saw the title.
The weird thing is that they've already done a 'reboot' of this story with Tim Burton and among the many reasons it failed as a film was the addition of Wonka's backstory.
It's almost amazing how few people seem to understand that Charlie is the reason why the story is so good. Without him, it's not even a complete story; it's just "Here's a bunch of weird things that happen". Charlie is quite literally the hero of the story! Wonka doesn't even have a set personality through most of it. Leave it to Warner to completely rip the heart and soul out of a story. I can't wait for this to make millions of dollars for them anyways.
For what it's worth, the original film was titled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" because everyone understands the most important character to be Willy Wonka. When Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the title of the Tim Burton movie, and also the Roald Dahl book) film came out , no one was comparing Charlies -- they were comparing Willy Wonkas and not a single word was said about the new one without mentioning Gene Wilder reverence first. Despite that, as you acknowledge, Charlie made nearly half a billion dollars at the box office, not to mention "Certified Fresh" on rotten tomatoes. And speaking anecdotally, a lot of kids like the Tim Burton movie better if given the choice because it's not "that weird old man". All to say: whatever your personal opinions on Charlie, it's far from a failure.
I'm I guess the rare minority where the Tim Burton one has always been the default film to me. I've watched it multiple times as a kid, and as a kid I've enjoyed it and as an adult never thought it was considered a flop. I didn't even realize it was hated until reading this thread!
I'm aware that the Gene Wilder is revered in the original but I'm not entirely sure if I've even seen entirety of the original 1971 one. I know the meme? And it never appealed to me...because it's too old?
I think it's just a generational thing, those who had watched the 1975 one had something to compare it to when the 2005 came out. The ones complaining are maybe just old ;)
It's not something I'd bother watching in theater, but will probably get to it eventually on streaming. I agree with all your points though. Major studios are paralyzed by the amount of money invested in new movies. What we have in modern major films is a dearth of creativity, stifled by return on investments. Adhering to known intellectual properties whenever possible is safe and box office returns show it to be a generally viable strategy. People will almost certainly go see this.
Isn't that the purpose, though? Why invest money in a movie that isn't going to appeal to the masses? There are plenty of niche movies that get released and flop because they're just not appealing to most people. Understandably, studios try to create movies that large numbers of people actually want to see.
Or scrolling past it on a random streaming service.
This trailer didn't do much for me. Timothée Chalamet's performance feels off and the universe feels like an extension of the Wizarding World. Paul King did a wonderful job with Paddington though, so maybe he'll work his magic with this film.
Ya I honestly just don't see Chalamet as Wonka, it felt a bit weird. There's no creepy vibe that you got from Wilder or crazy from Depp, he just seems too nice.
Maybe the creepy/crazy comes after? This is young, idealistic Wonka, not the creepy or crazy person he may turn out to be later.
I have a feeling we won't see that in this movie. Both Wilder and Depp gave Wonka a controlling and almost malicious personality to him. With Wilder, you wonder if he's nearly a villain until late into the movie. Depp came from rejection of his father, and both desired an heir that fit their idea of themselves at that age. This just doesn't strike me as a movie that will go that deep.
It's kinda of funny that we're getting a backstory that wants to wash away the history of a fictional character.
It definitely feels like a more "happy go lucky" Wonka. I'd hope there would be a glimpse of crazy at the end of the film but wouldn't pin my hopes on it.
I really did not like Depp's Wonka. The Wonka in my head was always zany, nutty, brilliant and perhaps slightly scary at times. But Depp's Wonka was androgynous and just odd. I don't know, hard to put my finger on it, but I wasn't a fan.
This is probably a generational divide, since I watched it as a kid, but I love Depp's performance in that. Especially his line deliveries.
I haven't watched Wilder's version in a long time, so I don't know how I would feel about that now. I do remember as a kid thinking he didn't look anything like the Wonka I had in my head or the illustrations of Quentin Blake. It's always tricky when a beloved book is adapted to the big screen and the choice of character is very different from your own imagined one.
Sounds like he's doing a hybrid US/English accent, which I assume is deliberate because he is a good actor. Do we know where Wonka is from?
It was ambiguous in the books. It always felt like Roald Dahl set it in industrial Britain, e.g. Yorkshire or something, but then tried to make it more appealing to Americans by calling the currency dollars and having elevators rather than lifts.
The exact location was ambiguous - "a small wooden house on the edge of a great town" - but the book was definitely set in the UK.
That must be an American edition. I can't find my copy right now but a quick look on Google Books shows Dahl referring to pounds and pence several times (not to mention the sixpence Grandpa Joe finds!). There is a chapter in Chocolate Factory titled "Great Glass Lift", where the word 'elevator' doesn't appear. I'm sure there's an explanation in Great Glass Elevator why it's not a lift any more.
The films were rather more flexible, which is fine. It's not like it matters to the story.
That's pretty much where my hopes lay. Paddington was incredible!
Looks as bad as that remake with Johnny Depp. Hollywood needs some originality desperately.
One man’s bad remake is another man’s guilty pleasure. (It’s me)
Interesting that the 1971 film has a 3.8 on Letterboxd and the 2005 remake has a 3.1
Looks like that differential holds mostly true across IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes as well
Edit: For reference, Letterboxd is out of 5 stars.
I agree that it's interesting, especially since I recall the contemporary reaction to the movie being pretty much unanimously that it was bad, or at least vastly inferior to the original. It's definitely one of those 2000s kids movies, along with e.g. the Star Wars prequels and easily a dozen other examples, that millennials and older all agreed were bad at the time, but which elder zoomers grew up with and have been reevaluating as they've grown up and become the majority on sites like this. And I say this as an elder zoomer who hasn't seen this one since I was a kid and it came out, and have no idea if I'd like it or hate it now. I just distinctly remember everyone agreeing it was bad when it came out, and I've been seeing others in this thread referring to the unanimous hatred for it and then getting similar corrections to this. It's just interesting the way reevaluations can memory hole stuff like that.
Okay I've had this idea for a while now but never really shared it, would be interested if people think I'm just being woke/deranged or if I actually have a good point.
Does anyone else think it's strange, maybe even harmful to create movies like this? The real history of chocolate is one of exploitation, it's something that is evident in the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the Oompa Loompas, which are essentially a mockery of indigenous peoples.
If you make a movie that's now super diverse and willy wonka is helping some black girl is there not some kind of damage being done to the public consciousness?
Maybe this sounds ridiculous, it's just a family movie, but think about which countries we say have the best chocolate. Belgium? Switzerland? Does cocoa grow in these countries? How did the belgians treat their colonies?
I don't think the writers necessarily have any ulterior motives, if anything they probably just hire a diverse cast for representation, but black washing historical fiction/magic realism sort of incidentally creates these worlds where the injustices of colonisation and slavery never happened.
The same is true for Bridgerton, you can't make a diverse 18th century Britain where the Black/Indian characters have anglicised names and absolutely zero to do with their indigenous cultures, without making a fantasy world where colonization wasn't as cruel as it was in reality.
I wouldn't make a movie set in 1940's Germany where several characters are jewish but also don't mention Nazis or the Holocaust.
In the original book there are no oompa-loompas. Dahl used pygmy slaves. https://theconversation.com/from-pygmies-to-puppets-what-to-do-with-roald-dahls-enslaved-oompa-loompas-in-modern-adaptations-166967
This is a reasonably common event with books for children. The worst bit of the content is removed or re-worded, but we see the under lying concepts and those are still pretty troubling. Another example is "Henry's Sneeze" from Thomas the Tank Engine books - Henry blows sooty smoke into the faces of children who are on a bridge throwing stones at trains. In the original version the N word is used to describe the children. That got changed to "black as coal", but the illustration still shows them in blackface. And that's the joke - these children are black - and it has a long history that lots of people aren't aware of.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as deranged, but I think you might be a little off-target. It's not a documentary. Nobody is going to think this has anything to do with this history of chocolate. Even my four year old knows the difference between fiction and reality.
Belgian chocolate is over-rated but chocolate is as much the process as the ingredients. Does anyone get upset that Italy makes the best coffee but coffee doesn't grow there? (caveat: I know nothing about coffee but that's not what I'm getting at). Belgium in particular has a horrendous record when it comes to colonialism but I'm not sure their at-home chocolatiers have too much of the blame to shoulder. Like how Hugh Grant isn't really to blame for anything the British Empire did (and we did a LOT)
If you want to educate kids about the dark history of chocolate, great. But that's not what this film is trying to do. It's not presenting a realistic-but-wrong story to hide anything. The chocolate is barely relevant - Wonka could be about someone who has a dream to make anything - chocolate, toys, jelly, doesn't matter.
I don't think any of the under-tens who will enjoy this movie are going to come away thinking that chocolate was invented by a singing white European dude in a tailcoat (modern chocolate was actually invented by several white European dudes in what clothing history does not mention).
To look at it another way, almost everything has some aspect of human shittiness to it. So if we must make kid's movies horrifyingly true to life then it's going to be a pretty bleak future for school-age filmgoers. It's important to teach the shittiness, but they're just kids. They can have some fun too, right?
Sorry if I diluted my point, I'm not really talking about the history of chocolate specifically, I think the only point I want to make is if we make a depictions of the past more diverse without that diversity being meaningful, we do more damage than the good that "representation" does.
Having a diverse cast is meaningless if the stories about these characters have nothing to do with their race. Honestly in a modern setting diversity for the sake of diversity is fine, but if we set something in 1920s Britain, fantasy reimagining or not, I think it's harmful to present a society that is more diverse or fairer than it really was. Doing so does erase the cruelty that was being perpetuated in that time.
Another good example is the Fantastic Beasts films, where for some reason it's set in 1920's New York, but the wizard president is a black woman, and the USA was literally segregated at the time. Sure you can get away with "oh but the wizards were fairer", but much of the movie isn't even set in a separate magic world, it's just 1920s New York, and no references to racial or sexual inequality are made.
Probably the worst is Netflix's Bridgerton where they have Black and Indian characters, but absolutely no reference to Indian or African Cultures. It's set in 1813, obviously Bridgerton is a vapid show made for wine moms with absolutely no "world building", but what would the world have to look like for Bridgerton to actually take place? How could you possibly have Black and Brown aristocracy in Britain?
It's almost like if The Man in The High Castle had black and brown Nazi's and they just didn't comment on it at all. If race matters it has to actually matter, diversity for the sake of diversity, especially in historical contexts harms how we view the past.
If you're thinking "The Man in The High Castle doesn't work because the Nazi's were explicitly racial supremacists", then it's only because you're forgetting 1820s British colonizers were also explicitly racial supremacists. Slavery wasn't even abolished in the empire until 1833, and they were still taking "indentured labourers" from India to work in places like Fiji up until the early 20th century.
Is it? Does every non-white, non-straight, non-cis character have to be a figurehead for their culture? Can't there just be some people onscreen being... just people, regardless of their skin colour? Isn't that sort of how representation is supposed to work? I mean sure there's plenty of Serious and Worthy explorations of racial politics and history and so on but for a fun kid's film, can't we just have some sort of representation of the audience?
I haven't seen anything more than the trailer linked, but it doesn't appear to be set in the UK. It's clearly a fantasy world. Why not imagine a world better than the historical one? We edit Dahl's texts already to remove his (I believe mostly non-intentional) racism. Is this different?
Fantastic Beasts is Rowling's work, right? So I haven't been near that with even my biggest bargepole.
Eh, it did happen. A little. Not often. But I haven't seen Bridgerton. It sounds terrible.
19th century Britain was more diverse than perhaps modern people think. Diversity didn't start with Windrush, the UK is a nation of sailors and has been a world trader since long before it was United, or even a single Kingdom. London has always been a melting pot. Which isn't for a moment to suggest there hasn't been racism or oppression or colonialism or anything, of course!
I think if you're making historical stories or documentaries it does matter to leave in all the awful details. The awful details are probably the most important part, if we're to learn anything from the past. But fantasy is just that. Fantastic. People, a group for whom in aggregate I have very little faith, are pretty good at telling the difference.
To look at it from the other end, are you suggesting we should have fantasy kid's films where all the characters of any import are straight white European dudes, and all people of colour, women, queer or otherwise people are reduced to, at best, inferior sorts of human and at worst literal slaves? Because that does appear to be one - albeit somewhat absurd - end point of your argument.
I haven't seen most of the shows you are talking about, so could I ask what would you change in this trailer?
I absolutely agree with this, and your other points too.
I agree with this too, but I'd like to add to this that I think it matters for kids to see people who aren't like them as well. I want my kid to see superheroes (and not superheroes) of all colours and sexualities and gender identities and so on because I want them to grow up understanding those roles are for everyone. Which is absolutely happening, the kids TV shows and books we read are very diverse, certainly compared to how things were when I was a kid.
However, let's talk THE WATCH, because I loved that show and nobody ever wants to talk about it with me. Bear in mind I adore Pratchett and especially the Discworld. Those books I read and re-read obsessively as a child/teenager, they are my ultimate happiest, safest place. I could probably read half of them from memory. My kid is named after a Discworld character. I am a big Discworld fan.
But you know what Pratchett never did? He never said the Disc is a medieval-ish high-fantasy world. That was only ever done via Josh Kirby's covers - which supposedly PTerry didn't really like, he is said to have preferred Paul Kidby's later work (a signed print of his character drawings hangs on my bedroom wall). If a world had a "magical revolution" rather than an industrial/technological one, couldn't it turn out like The Watch's world? Magical technology rather than cyber or steam. I thought the show really hit the mark, it's just a mark I hadn't thought of and wasn't expecting. It's a totally legit representation of the book imo. Perhaps not the exact story, but that doesn't matter.
Also the casting was so good. Anna Chancellor (Vetinari), Jo Eaton-Kent (Cheery) and Ingrid Oliver (Dr Cruces) really stood out.
I feel as though your talking past me with your comments or intentionally misrepresenting my points since I am clearly saying that diversity is fine, my problem is with how it's portrayed in historical settings.
You could make Alice in Wonderland with a black alice and not have to deal with race, you can't with other settings.
I wouldn't change the trailer, I wouldn't make another reboot of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory to begin with.
It's hard for me to talk about the other examples you give because I haven't seen them. I was talking about the trailer for Wonka, in which I got the impression you were objecting to the use of non-white actors playing roles that appeared to be not directly related to their race and/or are historically accurate for what you believe to be 19th century Britain. Apologies if I misunderstood that.
And I don't disagree that when we're representing history we have a duty to do so with some amount of accuracy. But Wonka is very clearly not a historical film, it looks from the few minutes linked above to be just as fantastical as Alice in Wonderland. There are people eating chocolates that make them fly..
If you don't want to give examples of how you'd make this specific trailer fit your desires better that's fine, but otherwise I don't think there's much left to talk about, because I've obviously not understood what you're trying to say at all.
If we make depictions of the past more diverse and fair than they truly were we risk whitewashing history. Whether the depictions are fantasy doesn't really matter.
A fantasy 1940s with Nazi that aren't that bad is clearly a bad thing.
A fantasy 1920s, or 1820s where the British Empire weren't that bad is also a bad thing.
If you don't think the British Empire and Nazi Germany are fair comparisons then that's where we disagree.
The british made chocolate by looting africa and using slave labour, even today chocolate is made using slavery https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/ .
Willy Wonka running around with a black girl in 1920s Britain is a form of white washing, the same way making a movie about Good Nazis is white washing history.
I'm not saying we shouldn't make movies with diverse casts.
I am aware of the history - and present - of chocolate and in a documentary or historical drama about chocolate I would absolutely expect to see all that stuff covered. But this is a children's fantasy film. And that does matter. Because it's not the past, not any more than Alice in Wonderland or Mary Poppins is the past. It's set in a fantasy past but it's not the actual past. It's not real and it's not pretending to be.
It's not 1920s Britain though. It's clearly not Britain and those clothes look more like mid-19th century to me. But even if it was supposed to be an historical version of the UK, how is having black people in the film white washing? There have been black people in Britain since before it was Britain. If this was historical 19th century London there would absolutely have been poor black kids on the streets for Wonka to be friends with. Historically there were even - albeit not a lot - rich black people, like the business dude you haven't mentioned but who appears several times.
I'm not being facetious when I ask how you would "fix" this trailer. I know you wouldn't make a prequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I'm with you on that - but this film does exist and you have issues with it that I'm struggling to understand, so perhaps it would be helpful to suggest how it might work in a way you'd be happy with. While remaining a family-friendly, fun, christmas fantasy film. Remaking it as a chocolately version of Schindler's List isn't going to work.
Britain was not a nice place for black and brown people, creating a fictional 1920s Britain where they were treated as such white washes Britains history of racism and discrimination.
It's really difficult to have this conversation because you seem to think I'm making the argument that we shouldn't have diverse casting for historical settings because the UK used to be less diverse. I never argued this, or hinted toward this, this might be an argument you have heard from conservatives but it's not the one I'm making and I don't understand why you keep referencing this. For the record I'm British-Indian, though I shouldn't have to make an appeal to my own ethnicity for my arguments to hold weight.
While things aren't perfect now I would have no problems with a modern setting and a diverse cast. Or if you want to argue the movie isn't set in Britain and it's some completely fantasy world, then really do this with some kind of steampunk over the top fantasy setting. I understand that there is fantasy here with oompa loompas and flying chocolate, but these are present in the original work which is based on 1920s Britain.
If we keep making historic depictions, fantasy or otherwise, that don't represent the realities of what living in that time period was like for brown and black people, we make it seem like things were never so bad to begin with.
This is meta, but I want to say that I really appreciate how tactfully you stated this.
It seems like you and mat share the same values (it’s important to advocate for minority groups) but different ideas about how those values should be acted on in a modern film about the past.
I think that right there is the trouble: how do you make a modern film about the past? Especially a modern children’s film.
Because while we don’t want every modern film about the past to be about racism, it’s difficult to depict the past accurately without depicting racism if you include characters from racialized backgrounds.
For an example that may be more viscerally real to Americans, how would you cast a children’s fantasy film that takes place in Alabama in the 1850s? Would it feel appropriate to cast a bunch of Black actors and then ignore the reality of what life was like for Black people in the Antebellum South? But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be just as bad to erase Black people from the film completely with an all-white cast? That doesn’t seem right—but then, should all movies about that time period have to include examples of racism just so we aren’t whitewashing history?
(Not to suggest the situation in the UK at the time of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was as bad as slavery in the USA in the 1850s, but hopefully my point comes across).
I’m not sure how you handle this kind of issue.
You and mat both raise really good points, and I appreciate you both sharing your thoughts on this. You’ve given me something to think about.
Thanks, it's really difficult to have discussions about topics like this because people often assume I'm just a conservative trying to pull some sort of Motte and Bailey trick on them.
I'm unclear how I gave you this impression because this isn't what I think at all, and I do apologise if that is how my comments have read.
I don't think you are against diversity, personally, but I also can't see a way out of the problem you present without doing less diverse casting. I've asked a few times for how you would approach solving this issue, but until you give me some suggestions, I can't see another way out. Help me out here!
If it was more historically accurate for Wonka to have a white friend and on the numbers it obviously is then OK sure, cast a white kid in the role. But that's not going to look good, is it? All the kids in the audience are just going to see another parade of European white people doing stuff, again. I'm sure you're perfectly well aware of how important seeing diversity onscreen is for kids - and not just the black and brown and all the other kids, but the white ones too.
I want my uncooked-bread-skinned kid to grow up seeing all sorts and colours of people doing all sorts of things on the telly and in books because that's how they will grow up learning that skin colour (not to mention sexuality and gender identity and and and) isn't a way you should decide how to treat other people. I want them to learn about the history of this country and others and the terrible way we've acted in the past (and still do today) but they are a child. Sometimes it's just time to have some fun.
Additional to that, the other thing I really can't get past is that this film is not set in the UK, nor is it historical. And that's where I think your argument, such as I have understood it, really falls apart. Wonka is very clearly not a historical drama set in the UK. There is no reality for it to be accurate to. Nobody is trying to rewrite or whitewash history because this isn't history. The setting looks pretty over the top to me already, but how much more over the top do you want than literal rivers of chocolate and people actually flying?
You don't have to and it makes no difference to me. The reason I don't think your arguments don't hold up is that I disagree with the idea that this is a realistic historical drama rather than a kid's fantasy film, and I think in the context of a kid's fantasy movie, representation matters more than "historical" accuracy. I am genuinely surprised you are British though, because I would have thought someone who lived here could see that it's very obviously not set here. Look at the sign the use for currency, to take a very explicit example.
Except this is a prequel to a book/movie set in roughly the mid/late 20th century (admittedly Charlie and the Chocolate, the book, was set in the UK - the film was not). So doing a prequel to that story set in the 21st century is not really an option. Again, I'm sure there are other films we'd all prefer to see being made than yet another reworking of an existing property, but this film is this film.
The conceit that Shondaland is apparently going for in Bridgerton is a parallel universe based on the canard that Queen Charlotte was of "Moorish blood" (and thus was darker-skinned than she was in reality); in their timeline they suggest the royal family would have spontaneously decided to elevate the few existing landed-gentry POC to the queen's royal court so that the new queen wouldn't look out of place. It then basically postulates that the more integrated aristocracy is what the nobility would have turned into forty or fifty years down the line.
Completely bonkers, and yes, it's absolutely glossing over what a tumultuous period that would have ushered in, but that's the conceit the show is going for. Luckily it's pretty clear it's a fantasy when they start dancing to a string quartet version of Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball"
Your topic was the subject of a recent article by the Guardian. If you haven't read it, you might find it interesting as it speaks more about some of the issues you raise.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jun/12/bridgerton-queen-charlotte-race-black-fantasies-king-george
Thanks I'll check it out.
This was one of my most anticipated of the year. It’s from the writer/Director of the Paddington films
That is literally the only thing that piqued my interest in the trailer.
Every time I hear of the paddington films, I think of that nick cage movie and how much he loved it.
"I fucking told you" always gets me.
As soon as I saw the thread title, my mind immediately flashed back to that utterly insane Jason Micallef script from 2014. It's an absolute trip, and I would be lying if I said I didn't kinda want to see it in actual movie form.
There's a brief Twitter thread summarizing some of its... highlights here, and you can read the script itself at your own peril here. It's 114 pages of the most ridiculous whimsical grimdark nonsense I've ever read.
Elon has decided I'll only get to see one highlight of the script. I'll have to read the script at some point.
Ah, good point, I forgot about the Twitter changes... To summarize the thread, with some extra details:
As the Twitter writer puts it, "every scene after he's arrested is basically about the trail of bodies he leaves behind." I'd like to stress that I'm not making any of this up, either. This is pretty much how it goes. It's completely unhinged, and I'm more than a little morbidly curious about how it'd be to see it in actual movie form as opposed to just a script.
https://nitter.net/topherflorence/status/950213941501857792
I can't tell what's a real movie trailer and what's an SNL skit any more.
Part of this was filmed in my old hometown, Bath! It finished filming so long ago I actually started to wonder if it was released and I just missed it.
Am I the only one that thinks looks great? I didn't know anything about this except that I recognized the main actor since he was in Dune. The cinematography looks awesome. It looks a bit like a dream. Gives me vibes from a 90s movie maybe?
Looking forward to watching it.
I think it looks fantastic!
I highly recommend watching Zoe Bee on Willy Wonka. She has some rather fresh points to make about the Wonka myth besides the obvious capitalist slave owner glorification.
In the beginning of the trailer, there’s that bit of dialogue “no scratch that, reverse it” which is from the original, so of course I want to hear it in Gene Wilder’s voice/cadence and instead it sounds affected … I can’t figure out who the little girl is and why she’s there … I’m unclear why the town is afraid of someone making chocolate … I guess what I’m saying is I can’t figure out what the hero’s journey is here. And I miss the highly saturated colors of the original, too.
Hugh Grant as an oompa loompa though, I’ll have to see it for that alone.
This looks pretty good but I didn't expect much. Seems like there's a lot for kids here.
I'll just treat this as a totally separate thing from any earlier Wonka stuff, it'll probably work best that way.