Wonka (2023 musical film)

Timmy Tims…

What about Ryan Reynolds? I can see him having big Gene Wilder energy.

Edited by BigBadShadow25 on Jul 12th 2023 at 1:46:10 PM

Yeah, but he's about the same age now that Gene was in the original, which definitely wouldn't work for a prequel.

I don't normally care about physique, but wouldn't Reynold be a bit too much on the big side for Wonka?

Better idea:

Not sure what twee is but isn't the point of this movie to have Wonka ve a fresh faced young guy chasing his dream?

That’s a good point.

Also, it’s fun to see the range Chalamet has. Don’t forget, he’s gonna be in Dune 2 just a MONTH BEFORE THIS HITS!

Something tells me Hollywood is setting him up to be a big star.

Twee; excessively or affectedly quaint, sentimental, or emotional.

I usually use it in reference to a lot of media aimed at kid's or particularly nostalgic media. I would describe, say, a lot of the emotional beats in Kingdom Hearts to be rather twee constantly and at this point it wouldn't be Kingdom Hearts if it wasn't twee every now and again.

I'm kinda... ambivalent about the movie.

I love the production design. I kinda like the premise. I just... kinda hate everything Wonka related. I think Chalamet's performance is... to reserved? He's trying to emulate Gene Wilder's performance based on the "flip that, reverse it" line and it's not... hitting for me. Gene Wilder's performance is a really hard act to replicate.

His version of Wonka wasn't quite a loud personality and rather downplayed, but he was still larger than life in his pure sardonic nature, sarcasm, and rather in how utterly detatched he was from the events around him. None of which you'd expect from how his products build him up. But then you can really see that glint in his eye and excitement the second he actually gets to talk about making candy or making a joke. And then can swing wildly back into ultra serious grand lines about "We are the dreamers" when a child asks a snotty question.

Wilder made VERY deliberate and intricate choices. I don't know quite how much was the script, but there's a reason it's a performance that's stuck around.

Wilder's entrance, which he told no one about before filming, was slow and utterly banal compared to the larger-than-life idea you'd expect. Even when Depp took on the character, the role still is about subverting expectations. Depp's version has a whole robot song and dance for his entrance... that he's not even on the throne for and instead watching and clapping from the audience giving his own non-performance entrance applause and cheers.

Chalamet's performance just... feels detached and downplayed. He's deadpan and overly serious, but it's not striking the right note for me?

Granted, it's a trailer. Could be just bad shots but idk. I'm judging what I have to go on.

I'm also... not going to touch the Oompa Loompas. They're just dated and played out and don't really work anymore and I don't care for them. And get WAY more uncomfortable the more you pack into Wonka's backstory. At least they're just funny characters in the original films?

This is yet another movie where... why is this Wonka? I kinda hate everything that's Wonka related and I kinda wish we could just file the serial numbers off and make it it's own thing. Why can't we have a late 1800s magic candy maker going up against a Chocolate Cartel and make a musical out of it? Why do we need Wonka at all? Dhall's estate doesn't have a copyright on the concept of "Magic Candy Maker". The movie has to add SO MUCH to this character to upgrade Wonka from Magical Mentor to protagonist; a dead mother he has a dream for, a love interest girl who encourages him, employees that I guess he "wants to save" or whatever (What does this say that he has slave labor later?), that is he really Wonka at that point?

Almost everything that's "Wonka" about this feels token and forced, why not drop it entirely? Do your own thing. Make your own images. Get rid of the unfair comparisons to two prior movies.

Timmy (who, to be clear, is an actor whose work I otherwise enjoy, because otherwise I would not have this many thoughts about this project lmao) is already a star at this point. When the casting for this was announced it was met with eyerolls because it was a very "hand a preestablished IP to an it boy/girl and see what happens" (compare: Tom Holland in Uncharted).

By twee, I mean cutesy and quaint. He can't help being a pretty boy with a soft voice, and it does seem like he was cast with that in mind (his Wonka, a gentle momma's boy from what we can see, isn't too far off from how he presents himself in public, compare this Apple TV+ commercial.

If the point of the film is that he'll eventually resemble the hard-edged kookiness of the book and Wilder's take (I have only seen the Depp film once as a kid so I don't remember it too clearly), then the trailer doesn't make that clear. And he may not at all, since this is a different take on the character. But I think the "doesn't feel like Wonka" crit is for now not unwarranted until we see more.

And also but echoing about the half-assed IP tie angle — why not just make a soft boy chocolatier movie without attempting to tie it to preestablished IP, except we know that's what Hollywood wants right now? So the frustration isn't just about the film but also about the studio circumstances that got us here.

Edited by Synchronicity on Jul 12th 2023 at 2:56:56 PM

The Depp version had a pretty established backstory including his very first store so this seems to be much more akin to the Gene Wilder version. The Depp version also had daddy-issues while this one has mommy-issues.

Honestly, I'm kind of wondering how they'll handle the Oompa-Loompas. Will they come from someplace else and is the 'kooky foreign tribe that Wonka 'rescued' and bought to work in his factory and paid in literal beans' origin story going to be retconned into something he made up? That's the vibe I get from this.

Edited by Chortleous on Jul 12th 2023 at 5:16:57 AM

calling it now Wonka is going to mistreat his Oompa-Loompas and after some stuff happens he learns not to

By Star I mean a box-office draw. Someone whose very involvement will put butts in seats.

There have been complaints that there are not enough modern movie stars with this power.

Edited by BigBadShadow25 on Jul 12th 2023 at 6:21:03 AM

While I do think Paul King will do well on it and is a perfect fit to adapt Dahl, the film doesn't look too good for me, and if Thimothee's Wonka is meant to be Gene Wilder's I don't see him developing into him.

Odd comparison, but I think of Cruella: an unexpectedly unusual individual starting from a seemingly normal place before they become that classic figure they'll eventually be.

As someone who likes the 2005 movie, I'm gonna give it a chance. It's interesting to say the least.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Jul 12th 2023 at 6:36:05 AM

Wasn't the problem with Cruella that she fundamentally didn't become the character she would eventually become and she was mostly a good person? Granted, I never saw it for myself but it was such a consistent echo since it came out from disparate sources that I assume it to be the case.

It's been my problem with A LOT of these "Villain Origins" in general; they fundementally misunderstand what we liked about the characters. We often revel and enjoy these characters because they're villains, not in spite of it.

The Random Events Plot of Great Glass Elevator still sounds more interesting than a generic origin story.

Honestly just keep the space adventure of that and turn and expand it into it's own film. Would be massively fun to see a fight against space aliens that can morph into any shape.

Great Glass Elevator was the first Roald Dahl book I ever read. I think you could make a good miniseries out of it.

I'm on the fence regarding this film.

Edited by windleopard on Jul 13th 2023 at 11:18:35 AM

So Cruella is odd to me. I feel like there's possibility for her to become a villain, but they turned the film's antagonist into the Cruella we know and enjoy and made this lame anti hero Cruella instead. Supposedly the sequel is going to set her up for real.

But like. Let's be real. Emma Stone probably/mainstream media isn't going to look well upon a girl boss who wants to skin puppies. For some reason Hollywood is convinced nobody wants a supervillain movie.

See Venom, Maleficent, and potentially Kraven the Hunter.

If the movie ever gets made they're going to downplay the heck out of her villainy.

Wonka luckily doesn't habe to do that because he's an agreeable sort. "Twee" as it were.

Edited by FOFD on Jul 13th 2023 at 8:56:37 AM

Well, more the rampant child-endangerment is simply funny and "karmic". And handwaved as "definitely didn't die off screen".

I mean he didn't make any of the kids do any of that stuff.

Augustus is probably the one he's most accountable for.

Veruca fell down a chute while actively destroying his chicken pen and demanding one.

Mike TV... I don't remember what he did but he was a little footstool so he probably had it coming.

Wonka told Charlie and Joe not to try that antigravitg stuff.

Violet ate gum Wonka specifically told her not to.

Man should have made them sign a waiver but in court I think he had a case. Every child there stole from him or contaminated his product.

That doesn't mean they deserve to die or be permanently maimed. Something the Gene Wilder version leaves very ambiguous but the Burton film explicitly shows the children leaving and worse the wear for it. Mike TV is flat as a board and nine feet tall, for example.

Mike Teevee, if you wanna know, wanted to be put in the TV. Since Roald Dahl was religiously opposed to television, he seemed to be considered worse than the glutton, the obnoxious one, and the rich little git.

Edited by Weirdguy149 on Jul 13th 2023 at 9:05:59 AM

He did make them sign a waiver, he just had it in super, super, super tiny print that would never hold up in a court of law as an enforceable contract (That aside from the fact that the kids sign it rather then their guardians, even though minors can't sign a contract on their own)

For what it's worth, Gene Wilder's Wonka does say at the end that the other kids are fine and will return safely to their "miserable little lives". Of course, he could still be lying, which... does not seem unlikely for him, actually.