This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Floy Bob: Removed:
"Wikipedia has an extensive list
of the book-film differences. Or at least it did."
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Wikipedia! ¬_¬
Doug S Machina: "Both film adaptations address the problem that at the moment Charlie begins the factory tour, he becomes a completely passive non-entity who does nothing to earn the prize at the end outside of staying out of trouble."
I remember the book having a man from another company offer Charlie money to steal a prototype from the factory, but it was a test: he was really working for Wonka. Or was that just the first film?
Also, I just saw the second film and it doesn't seem to do anything like that. There's the resolution of the tacked-on "Importance of Family" message about Wonka's father, but that's different.
Where the Hell Is Springfield?: The second film looks mostly like Charlie's home and Wonka's factory is in Britain, nowhere in particular but possibly the North (accents notwithstanding), though the banknote Charlie picks up looks like a dollar.
R Taco: Removed the "Oompa-Loompas are still orange." entry from the recent movies list of tropes. I really don't see how they couldn't be seen as brown, Deep Roy's natural skin color.
Is there any particular reason the 70s film is marked as "decay" and the recent one as "distillation"? I personally enjoyed both, but in my experience if someone has a preference between them, they hate the new one.
C Trombley: I flipped the decay/distillation tags. There was this weird dissonance on the page that the trope descriptions for the 1971 film did nothing but praise it and half the tropes on the recent version were negative, yet decay/distillation markers suggested the opposite should be true. I suppose the tags were put there when the new film was fresh. If anyone wants to offer a reason they should be switched back, I'd suggest removing them to avoid a Flame War over such Serious Business.
Vert: I'd suggest just removing both of them. Apart from the fact that I prefer the newer movie, it seems harsh to call it an adaptation decay when rottentomatoes gives the (2005) movie a 83% fresh rating and it has elements that are more faithful than (70's) movie, such as the squirrels and tremoving the whole soda-pop-floating-nonsense.
C Trombley: They are zapped. Even though it's clear to me that the 70's version is superior as a movie and story than the 2005 version, it's not worth getting into an argument over whether it's better as an adaptation.
sotrain515: Can I get some clarification on what is meant by Mike (strikethrough) "Geeteeaye" in the "Insufferable Genius" entry? I get that it means "GTI", but what does that mean? Google and TOW weren't too helpful.. Maybe this would all be clear if I'd seen the 2005 film...
Darth l33t: "GTA", referring to the fact that he's a gamer.
Mr JL: I'm not asking it be removed, but I am completely amazed the boat scene is considered Nightmare Fuel. It's always been my favorite part of the movie, I love singing along with Wonka, and I'm not even slightly fond of scray stuff.
Laota: Dude, there's animation of a chicken getting it's head chopped off. Can't you understand how someone might be wigged by that? Kids' parents at least. We all know adults take stuff harder than kids.
Laota: I took this out —
- Family-Unfriendly Aesop - And what can we learn from Mike, children? Being smart is bad!
- So being smart is a perfectly good reason to be obnoxious, rude, and disrespectful?
- The problem is that Wonka doesn't seem to have an issue with any of those qualities (openly having at least two of them himself). He does, however, immediately and openly display a dislike of Mike for being smart enough to figure out his distribution system instead of just buying chocolate at random.
- So being smart is a perfectly good reason to be obnoxious, rude, and disrespectful?
