For those who are about to complain that this video is only about book accuracy, you do realize that’s only the first half, right? I say as much in the video, specially at 1:00. Half of this video is judging both movie as adaptations, and the other half is judging them as movies period. You don’t have to agree with me, but please don’t dismiss me because you only watched the first half and decided to judge the whole video by one section. Also, the video is 480p because of an editing error. We didn’t notice until months later. It’s too late to redo it now, and the editor who did the video and artwork is no longer working with this channel.

Here's a weird observation: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is more about Charlie, while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more about Willy Wonka.

I completely understand Wonka’s trauma. I would be scarred if my father were Count Dooku.

”Everything in this *room* is eatable. Even _I’m_ eatable, but that is called *cannibalism* , my dear children, and is, in fact, frowned upon in *_most_* societies.”

I feel like the reason why Charlie was lamented so much was because Willy Wonka had inadvertently caused everyone to interpret the source material as that movie. Hollywood in the 2000s were constantly churning out "darker and edgier" versions of classics that fell flat and weren't faithful to the original. Tim Burton was accused of doing the same thing, but nobody realized the book was always that dark. It probably would've cleared up a ton of confusion by calling it "Roald Dhal's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and marketed that it was faithful to the book.

"Everything in this room is edible, even me. But that's called cannibalism, and most people frown upon it."

I always really appreciated the fact that Tim Burton makes a point to show the audience that despite everything, all the kids made it out alive. It had a hopeful ending. Violet can't compete anymore, and is free from that burden. Varuca's dad finally said no to her. Augustus will have to learn self control, and Mike got a taste of violence and learned to shut up. Lessons were learned. I always thought all the kids in the original just straight up died lol

1971 Mike: *Arguably the best of the kids* 2005 Mike: *Arguably the worst of the kids*

Also, a little detail that I really like is how ghostly pale and awkward Willy Wonka is in the 2005 version. He likely hasn’t seen sunlight or people similar to locals for more than a decade, he’s going to be awkward, pale, and odd, not tan, charming, and full of life. Willy wonka is a weird character, not someone that you would feel comfortable around, he sticks out like a sore thumb, even with the other kooky characters. To the point where he even walks different from everyone else.

The part where Willy and Wilbur reconcile was based on Tim Burton’s life. He visited his dying mother and she had posters of the films he worked on. She still loved him. Even with the strained relationship.

I think what bothers me the most about Willy Wonka vs. Charlie is that so many people assume the later is a remake of the former, rather than a different adaption of the same novel.

Fun fact:the squirrel weren't cgi they actually trained 40 squirrels

The 1971 version is brighter but more surreal and creepy; the 2005 one is darker but funnier and more conventional. It's weird how that works.

Something I think people keep forgetting is that Charlie, in Charlie and the chocolate factory, did wind up accepting the chocolate factory, but on the condition that his family is brought with him, and after reuniting Wonka with his father, Wonka accepted this condition, somehow moving the bucket families house into the chocolate lake room and sharing dinner with the bucket family on a seemingly regular basis.

Honestly Slugworth would’ve been way better if they revealed him at the end as secretly just being a tower of Oompa Loompas in a trenchcoat and makeup

There IS a reason as to why Charlie in the 2005 movie is so bland. He’s just suppressing his autism before he grows up, changes his name and relocates to California where he goes to work at a hospital.

12:32 an example of such is: “Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly.

I think the elephant in the room between these movies is that the 2005 version actually shows the other kids still alive and exiting the factory. In the 1971 version, the kids never show up again and you basically just have to take Wonka's word for it.

I don't know why, but Mike Teevee in the Charlie version smashing the candy pumpkin filled with the gooey stuff inside is one of the most satisfying moments in all of cinema.

"So let me get this straight, you think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is actually _better_ than Willy Wonka?" "I do. And I'm tired of pretending that it's not."

in my case i'm a gen z so charlie was the one i grew up watching and honestly when i entered the internet and saw everyone shitting on it, i felt bad tbh, like i felt like i was stupid for liking the movie so this video was a pleasant watch for me

The squirrels weren’t CGI they’re real squirrels. Tim Burton asked animal rescue rangers to trained rescued squirrels to train nut cracking

one thing that wasn't mentioned about the fashion of Burton's adaptation is how much Mike Teavee stands out. the fashion and interior designs are over all very retro, except for the Factory with its very futuristic technology. you can see this in Mike Teavee's house as well. everyone fits into this mid 70s era (tracksuits were invented in the late 1930s), except for Mike. his hair and clothes are modern for the time. although the gaming console, the one we saw briefly in his introduction, fits this era as well, as it kinda looked like an Atari, the game that he's playing does not. it's a very "modern" looking game. I think it's very interesting that stylistically Mike Teavee is very much the odd one out.

I am so glad the 2005 adaptation included the Prince Pondicherry story. I remember as a kid when my mom read the book to me that was one of my favorite parts.

For me, Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory is like the 1960's Batman TV series; It deserves its place in pop culture and is an interesting version of its property, but it shouldn't be the definitive version of its property.

I feel so validated by this video. I always preferred Charlie and the Chocolate factory but would always be told that Willy Wonka is the superior movie

I personally liked Charlie turning down the factory and putting his foot down. Think about it. If Charlie had willingly abandoned his family for the factory, it would’ve been out of character for him and it’d be an awful addition to the story. Now, if Augustus, Veruca, Violet or Mike had made the choice to leave their families behind for the factory, I could see them doing that. But Charlie would never abandon his family. In fact, him staying with them makes him more likable. Also, Burton’s version is better than the Wilder version. I’ve got oven mitts on for that “hot take.”

Charlie and Grandpa Joe ALSO being irresponsible and almost dying, not staying away from the danger, doesn’t make them the stand-out team who deserves to inherit the factory like in the book

Additional points!! the VHS smells like hot plastic when you take it out after watching. _the DVD smells like chocolate_

The bit where young Wonka goes to the flag museum and returns to find his house gone is one of the greatest comedic one-two punches in the history of cinema

After watching this video, I truly understand why Roald Dahl was *absolutely* not happy with the Willy Wonka film.

“Everything in this room is edible, even me. But that is called cannibalism, my dear children. And it is frowned upon in most societies.”

I was genuinely surprised by all the hate Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got when it came out. It is such an entertaining movie, with great performances and atmosphere. That said, Willy Wonka is also entertaining in its weird low-budget way. Both movies can be appreciated without having to hate one or the other.

In an interview, actor who played Agustus Gloop in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory clarified that the chocolate river was in fact, water. Dirty water that sat for weeks that people would throw their leftover coffee in. That's why it smelled.

The bad kids in the newer version are both multidimensional and realistic. When I was young, I've met at least 1 exactly like the ones in this movie. Augustus Gloop is gluttony personified. He doesn't eat because he's hungry. He eats because that's what food is for. It exists to be eaten by him. That's why he nearly has a heart when he enters the big room in the factory. A hungry person would just choose 1 type of candy, and eat until they were full. Augustus immediately starts gulping down everything, because the food needs to be eaten by him. It's also why he almost ate his Golden Ticket. The chocolate wrapper might as well not exist to him. Violet Beauregard in the original was a strange case. She liked chewing gum, but her flaw was really more her lack of manners. In the newer version, it's all about competition. Everything in her life is a contest, and she NEEDS to win. Because if she doesn't win, she's a loser. Violet's mother is also clearly living through her daughter. Her own baton trophies don't matter anymore since the media only cares about the younger, cuter kid. So instead of gracefully growing old, she needs her daughter to become a clone of herself. This illusion is shattered when Violet turns purple, probably forever. She can no longer be a perfect reflection of her mother at a younger age. Veruca Salt is similar to Augustus Gloop. She wants things, but not because she needs them. Veruca only sees value in things as long as they have her attention. Once she has it, it becomes worthless. Like when she receives her Golden Ticket. As soon as it is in her hands, it instantly loses all value to her, and she goes on to demanding something new. In the end, the Oompa Loompa's give her a bunch of actually worthless stuff that she literally can't refuse. Mike Teavee is probably the most realistic kid of the bunch. Neglected by his parents, and instead raised by a screen. Instead of finding the Golden Ticket by chance, both he and Veruca cheated, though he only got his ticket to prove that he could. His high intellect is also probably why he lasted the longest out of the bad kids. He saw the other, dumber kids fall into these obvious traps. But he would prove himself as smarter. That is, until Wonka lures him to the TV room, and basically challenges him with the "teleporter". Of course Wonka considered using the thing to teleport people. He's just playing dumb to provoke Mike.

A lot of people mostly hate on Wonka's haircut in the 2005 movie, but I would argue it fits him. It's weird and odd, yes, but that's exactly like the candymaker himself. Plus, it led to what I consider to be one of the best jokes in the movie.

Having Johnny Depp play Willy Wonka was the best option. I never knew Willy Wonka, The Mad Hatter and Jack sparrow were all played by the same actor until I looked into it. That's gotta be a sign of good acting

Personally, I think Tim Burton was the PERFECT choice to direct the movie, even his drawings hold an insane amount of likeness to Roald Dahl’s books (with maybe a little more detail) and the whole tone of the movie felt like children walking into a dream come true until it’s actually a trap that practically ruins their lives. Creepy stuff and Exactly what the book was going for

I initially had a hypothesis about each child representing one of the seven deadly sins. Augustus being Gluttony was the basis -- pretty low-hanging fruit, I know. But that idea fell apart rather quickly considering there simply weren't enough characters to map the sins onto. However, that train of thought brought me to a far more accurate reading of the story (if I do say so myself): each child represents one thing that adults will accuse modern children of. They eat too much candy, they're too spoiled, they watch too much tv, etc... The Tim Burton version modernizes the children's "vices." Candy is replaced with more generalized junk food, watching tv becomes playing video games, and so on. If another movie was made today, there would probably be a kid that spends too much time on tiktok and Augustus would have to have some new toxic traits because being fat isn't considered a moral failing anymore. Point is, Charlie is the only one who exhibits diligence, obedience, and respectfulness, and he's rewarded for his good behavior. It's a fairy tale where naughty children are punished and good children are rewarded.

I’d say that Danny DeVito’s take on Rolad Dahl’s book Matilda was honestly a very faithful adaptation of the source material.

First of all, THANK YOU. I have been trying to argue this for YEARS. So here's the thing - I was a little kid in the 90s, and I was one of those "read anything and everything I can get my hands on" kids. My list of nostalgia books would be several pages long. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book, was one of the staples of my childhood, as I was an avid Dahl reader (or, y'know, a reader of the Dahl work that was child-appropriate). My favorite genre was (and is) fantasy, especially fantasy that goes outside the LOTR formula of elves and dragons in a D&D world to do some WEIRD things. I categorize C&tCF as that brand of fantasy that is obviously about magical and supernatural elements, but takes it in a framework that most might not recognize as traditional fantasy. And I LOVED that. It was bizarre. It was DIFFERENT. And it was colorful - my mental images of the factory as this wonderland of weirdness were so strong. I did also read Great Glass Elevator, and agree with you that it's not as good - its two acts are disjointed (one is about space travel and the other is about "oops we took too much fountain-of-youth serum and now one of us literally died from de-aging") and the Vermicious Knid section kind of takes it a bit further from charismatic-yet-dark into just straight-up horror. Which I don't mind in children's books in general, but tonally, it was jarring for THIS duology. Anyway, when I was that small kid, Gene Wilder's version of the movie was all we had, basically, so I tried to watch it in order to get more content of that world I loved...and was so disappointed because it changed so much. It didn't feel like the world of the book in the slightest. I don't need to tell you why; it's all outlined here. Long before Burton EVER put out his version, I was disappointed with what the other one had to offer me, and it was literally the only option. Then Burton made his. It got a lot of detractors, and I think one thing that's worth noting is that it wasn't *just* about the Wilder version being everyone's favorite but also because at the time, we as a pop culture society had a bit of Tim Burton fatigue. He had this really productive streak around that time where he was churning out movie after movie, but people were starting to draw connections between him casting the same actors (Depp, Bonham Carter, and before them Keaton), hiring the same composer (Elfman), using the same art and costuming styles (or the lanky animation found in TNBC/Corpse Bride), and basically building a particular aesthetic brand in all his films. Either you loved it or you hated it, and a lot of people were just ready for variety and hated it out of that alone. I personally really loved the Burton aesthetic for a long time - I'm kinda easy to please as long as a film is visually stunning, and even though Burton's style is instantly recognizable, it is so because it's always OVER THE TOP and I love that. And the only reason I say "loved" in the past tense is just because it went from one of my favorite movie styles to being a drop in a much larger pool of film style I like now. But a lot of people were just "Oh he just went for Depp and Elfman again and it's another movie about something that's creepy and goth but not evil" and wrote it off simply because they wanted something new. Which is the way of film critics; all trends eventually garner criticism simply for being trends, and that's not good or bad intrinsically. The point is that I never saw Burton's version in theaters because even back then, everyone was panning it, and the criticisms I heard in real time weren't even about the Willy Wonka film, they were about "Oh Tim is back doing THIS again, we're all sick of it" But then I caught it on a TV rerun and I was BLOWN AWAY because I could tell IMMEDIATELY that this was more faithful to the world I had known through the book. When little things happened like the cutaway to the prince who commissioned a chocolate palace, I was like "NO ONE EVER REMEMBERS THAT PART! THAT'S ATTENTION TO DETAIL!". Now, I was in fact a little miffed by the dad flashbacks with Wonka, especially because they took away some of Wonka's mystery (I always liked thinking that perhaps the reason his life and world were so bizarre was because he maybe wasn't quite human), buuuuuut in the end, I let that go because I was a super fan of Christopher Lee and his amazing baritone. And nowadays, having gained more real-world experience, I gotta say that the way you describe Wonka's interests, lack of social skill, and strained relationship with his parents SCREAMS neurodivergent/autistic. I'm not sure if that was Burton's intent, but the film really took the prompt of "give Willy Wonka a backstory" and made it something incredibly relatable to a lot of us who were growing up realizing our brains were a wee bit different and people were laughing at us for it. So yeah, I'm okay sacrificing Wonka being a potential supernatural entity if it means he can actually be a metaphor for something that needs to be pointed out. Anyway, I'm a big villain fan, but not the normal kind, and from the very start, I agreed with you on everything Slugworth. From "This guy wasn't in the book" to "Where'd that subplot go?" to "Does...this mean...there never was a Slugworth...?". You know who my absolute favorite characters are? The four kids who failed the tour. Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike. I am FASCINATED by them because they all are such little gremlins. It's like...we've all known kids who were annoying in those exact ways, and you wanna feel bad for them because they are just kids, but at the same time, you KNOW that if they don't learn some lessons soon, they're going to grow into obnoxious, entitled, and downright evil adults. Making them so "oh they're just innocent kids with flaws" in the first film was probably why so many people decided to interpret Willy Wonka as this secretly edgy horror character, because the kids aren't getting what they deserve. The Burton film is very clear that these kids ruined their own fates by not listening to the rules laid out and doing things that were downright dangerous to themselves and others for no other reason than that they wanted to serve themselves. All they can think about is what they want RIGHT NOW, and so they'll run over everyone and everything else to get there. That makes them FUN and so much cooler characters to think about than kinda being generically nice kids. And it gets one thinking about the vicious cycles of parenting that brought them to life - how their parents were all probably mean kids too, and those parents before them, and these four will probably one day have mean kids of their own, and man, how much of society's evils come from kids being taught in their own homes that being mean to get what you want is okay? So, uh, no, we didn't need a Slugworth. We have FOUR villains/antivillains already who are ripe for the studying, and I love those greedy kids with my whole heart. TL;DR you're 100% correct and thank you for validating me. Signed, someone who grew up on the book and always had issues with the older movie because of that

At least Roald Dahl didn't see the Tom and Jerry Version of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

It’s nice that Dahl’s estate was working to keep his works alive and also put out a product in line with his vision. Usually families just see dollar signs and sign off on whatever

I remember reading Dahl's book as a kid, then watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and loving it for how much it stuck to the story. From then on, I stuck with the mindset that Tim Burton's version was the better of the two. And to learn now that Dahl hated Willy Wonka and would have been proud of Charlie just solidifies that belief.

"This movie sucks, the original movie was better" Me: MUMLER!... Seriously, I cannot understand a word you're saying

Did you know that the part about "Slugworth" actually being a worker of Wonka and the whole thing being a test was made up during shoots? It wasn't in the original script; they just made that shit up when shooting the ending scenes, and the director/screenwriter actually had no idea what Slugworth's motivations were even supposed to be. Explains a lot, really.

Glad to see there are some people out there that have a fondness for the Tim Burton adaptation. This film has been getting so much unfair backlash.

I cannot understand people who are against the 2005 version. When I first watched it, I already had read excerpts of the original book (I hadn't access to the book though), it really bothered me that the old movie didn't follow the story accurately. When I watched the 2005 version, I was really happy when I saw everything going correctly according to what I have read from the book, and, since then, I always had seen it as the superior version. It's strange that so many people think otherwise.

I’m going to be playing both Ms. Teavee and Mrs. Bucket in my community production of the Willy Wonka musical. It’s my first semi lead roles ever. And I’m so excited to be playing them and are definitely portraying them as polar opposites of each other. Ms. Teavee being mildly annoying and Mrs. Bucket being more soft spoken.

Honestly, CatCF has a lot more going for it than just "being accurate to the book" like some of the commenters here are saying. The performances and characters are fantastic, the sets and music are great, and the weirder, darker tone that the movie commits itself to really lends itself to both the styles of Dahl and Burton.

Mike in the Charlie version seems like a kid who'll grow up to be violent and dangerous if left unchecked.

Imagine if Tim Burton made this movie as a stop motion film

The only song I appreciate from the older version is Pure Imagination, or whatever it's called. That actually helps me justify my refusal to live in the real world.

There is one tiny detail in the original that I preferred, when Augustus falls into the chocolate river, Charlie holds out a giant lollipop and tries to save Augustus. None of the other characters even try to help so it showed Charlie as the one good kid. I also once heard that originally there were meant to be 8 ticket winners, not 5, not sure if that’s true but if it is, I have had a theory that the original 7 bad kids would have represented the 7 deadly sins. Augustus is Gluttony, Violet is Pride, Veruca is Greed, Mike is Wrath, with the other kids representing the rest

I really liked Charlie turning down the factory, to be honest. Up until then, the movie had been faithfull to the book, so suddenly seeing a departure that severe shocked me. But it's not just that. It makes more sense given the characters of the people involved. Charlie is a family kid, so of course he isn't going to budge on this. Meanwhile, Wonka not allowing Charlie's family in fits with his own preconcieved notions about families. At this point, Mike TV is gone. And I think Wonka has taken his place as sort of the villain of the movie. That becomes clear when he denies Charlie's request to have his family join them. Not just _that_ he does it, but _how_ he does it: matter-of-factly, as if it's not even worth discussing. It takes Charlie aback, and that's what results in him refusing. But it makes sense given where Wonka is comming from, and where he is in his head. And what results from that is just perfect. Wonka just leaves, clearly baffled why anyone would turn down such an offer. But we get it. And we see that, even without Wonka, Charlie's family would have been okay. His dad gets a stable job back, Charlie takes on odd-jobs, clearly having been inspired by his time in the factory, even if he turned it down. And Wonka? He has a nervous breakdown, eventually leading him to the one place no one, not even he himself, would have expected him to go: outside. Fortunately for him, because it's what allows Charlie to guide him to work things out with his father. For a movie that is so focussed on Wonka's past and his relationship with his father, it would have been weird if this didn't come to a head at some point. And it does, beautifully. You can't just praise the backstory and then say the resolution of that backstory is "weird". Either explain those feelings, or point out a way it could have been done better.

Despite growing up with the Willy Wonka version, I much prefer the Charlie one more. The Charlie version has better musical numbers, characters, and a much more satisfying ending, and its so nice seeing it get the acknowledgement it deserves.

I used to live near a candy store that played the first movie on loop and I can only imagine the workers there must lose their mind seeing it every single shift

I cannot believe, that this video has convinced me to actually read the book. I respect the hell out of that

Wait, people LEGIT thought Charlie was supposed to be a remake of the FIRST MOVIE, not the BOOK???? Bro...that explains SO MUCH. I can't believe I thought haters kinda had a point back then when they actually had no fucking clue what they were talking about... Now I'm glad I was reading the book for school around the exact time Charlie came out, cause I ended up loving it. Also, the Roald Dahl hate for the original...MAN, I knew he hated the Slugworth twist but yeesh, I can see why he just straight up did NOT have a good time with this movie

The thing about Slugworth was that not a single person watching the news, saw this random ass man pulling children close and whispering in their ears and said "woah, that's weird, who is that guy? Wait, wasn't he JUST in Germany? How is he in America now?"

In my opinion, the flashbacks are the best part of the movie. Christopher Lee saying " *Lollypops* " will never not be funny😂

I’ll be honest, I thought Tim Burton’s Charlie had more personality than the 70s Charlie. You got to see more of Charlie’s creativity and how that actually helps him in running the factory later. He still has to grow up sooner but also keeps some naivety when his dad tries to keep him from knowing he got laid off. And it makes way more sense for him to reject the factory because of that, his family is everything to him because that’s all he’s ever really had, obviously he wouldn’t give them up just to work with some weird guy he’s only known for a day. The whole reason he went in the first place was because his family wanted him to be a kid for once and not worry about money

I love how Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's portrayal of Mike TV is him ironically being a genius. Here me out here. He's portrayed as idiot due to being a pessimistic brat who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. If it weren't for those qualities, he'd show that he's actually rather brilliant minded. Think about it. The kid calculated where his golden ticket would be (which he briefly mentions in his first scene), and he did it just because he could. He has potential, and know that he does, but limit himself to what media tells him. Basically he's a boy genius who stifles his brilliance with what he learns from media alone, his pessimistic outlook, and his own arrogance of his capabilities over others.

Fun fact: Grandpa Joe did say on page 83 that Veruca did want a good kick in the pants. from the beginning of the page to when he says this (omitting a sentence that started on page 81 there was an illustration on page 82) :”Daddy, said Veruca Salt I want a boat like this! I want you to buy me a big pink boiled-sweet boat exactly like Mr Wonka’s! And I want lots of Oompa-Loompas to row me about, and I want a chocolate river and I want … I want …” She wants a good kick in the pants, whispered Grandpa Joe to Charlie. Despite this here in the video (15:09) he says it like it didn’t happen in the book

As someone who grew up on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this brings a smile to my face.

1 detail I appreciated a lot more when I got older was how Willy Wonka wore dark bug-eyed sunglasses whenever he was outside his factory. It was a great way to show how shunned and isolated he felt from the world.

i like how there’s names like “veruca” and “augustus” and then there’s just “mike”

Dude I totally agree, everyone always says "willy wonka and the chocolate factory is the best" and I just disagree, thank you for being a voice for our corner of the internet.

I'm an autistic 19 year old was raised on the Charlie film instead of the Willy Wonka film. In fact, I'm almost certain my divorced parents listed the 70s film as a film I couldn't watch and even then I only was able to see the Willy Wonka version through it just airing live on Boomerang. Otherwise, I've only actually seen it once or twice. I've always preferred the Charlie version, and my parents have as well. I also grew up heavily on the Roald Dahl books. Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the BFG, The Magic Finger, Esio Trot, The Witches, even some of his autobiographies. I've read them. Maybe it's me being autistic, but I just ended up disliking the Willy Wonka version because of how far it deviated from the book, how much it butchers its characters, something I hadn't seen with the Charlie version. Honestly, the Charlie film feels like it's just the book in movie form, and I love it for that. Thank you for defending this film.

THANK you for mentioning Coraline in good book adaptations. Its so well adapted. Fun fact, the first draft of the script was SO loyal, SO faithful to the book, that Neil Gaiman ENCOURAGED changes so it wouldnt be so 1-to-1 with the book. That says something. Although, the basement scene wouldve been cool as hell on screen, as well as the Other Mother's hair floating around her head like its underwater, but i understand thatd be difficult to animate in stop motion. And there are some little moments that are called into question without the book's lore. Such as the little ghost boy using "thou" and "art" and "t'aint" (the book takes place in Britain, not Oregon, so there it makes a bit more sense for him to be speaking that way)

I don't think you'll ever be able to truly separate these two films in the public consciousness, but I appreciate someone finally coming out and showing why Charlie isn't even remotely as bad as everyone made it out to be at the time. It genuinely pisses me off that the Charlie got so thoroughly shafted before it had a chance to even come out the gate by a bunch of people with rose-tinted glasses and a vast misunderstanding of what a remake even is.

Can we also note how David Kelly's portrayal looks EXACTLY like Quentin Blake's portrayal in the illustrations?! And lets give a round of applause to Deep Roy who ROCKED the huge task of portraying every.single. Oompa Loompa!

15:08 While true that Grandpa Joe wouldn't be the type to say that Veruca needs a kick in the pants, he does actually say it in the book as they get on the boat. " 'And I want lots of Oompa-Loompas to row me about, and I want a chocolate river and I want… I want...' " (Veruca said this, but I think anyone could tell.) " 'She wants a good kick in the pants,' " whispered Grandpa Joe to Charlie." I agree with your point that Grandpa Joe wouldn't be the type to say this, but he does do it in the book, which definitely explains why he did it in the 1971 movie.

I was in a film studies class, and we had to present a pilot show we made. At one point my group butchered to decribe the characters I made... Honestly it was extremely painful. I can not fathom how the author of the book felt seeing everything changed.

Kinda warmed my heart when you said "wearing their love for this film like a badge of honour" because I absolutely feel that way. I love the Charlie version with a big chunk of my heart.

I feel like the fizzy lifting drinks scene ironically exemplifies the entire issue with the older adaptation. Directly disregard the wishes of the property owner for selfish gain? Sounds a little familiar.

There is a very simple reason why many people prefer the earlier adaptation over the newer one-innocence. Films from that era convey a sense of innocence that has long been lost in cinematography, and little has been done to attempt to tell those universal, simplistic yet timeless stories as of late. The grittiness of the 70s produced arguably some of the best films ever made, but it was the death of innocence in cinema.

My son read the book in school and wanted to watch the movies afterwards. He watched the original with his grandparents and then the new one with me. He liked Tim Burton’s version miles more than the old one.

Charlie in Willy Wonka movie was a whiny child MUCH LIKE VERUCA. Charlie in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a pure kindhearted realist who still had the sense of wonder and awe that every child has in a chocolate factory like this. *ALSO THE CHOCOLATE WAS REAL. TIM BURTON SAID SO*

For me, I have always and still do LIKE Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory more than Charlie. But I always recognized that Charlie was a purer adaptation of the original book and I did still absolutely love it for that. My own preference I 100% acknowledge as first exposure bias.

You're absolutely right, Ive always felt Burton's version was a better overall film, especially the music and the in-film acknowledgement that Wonka purposely set all those kids up to learn a lesson. I do, however, like the ending addition with Wonka having a family now and Charlie as a partner to share in their future candy escapades. That whole 'Boys, no business talk at the table' line is something I think Dahl would have especially liked. I've always chalked the fact that it was better to the fact that it had a talented director known for his quirkiness, paired with a star who had the hollywood clout to play the character the way he thought it should be played, all with the goal of accurately representing and even adding to Dahl's many subtle themes and innuendos.

Glad to see some positivity for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I love both films and it was sad how hated this one had been. The thing that always stuck with the most was Violet, and her reaction to the results of her mishaps in the factory. The Violet who went into the factory was not really a happy kid. She was driven, yes, but she was basically her mother's show dog. She had to do everything for her mother's approval and be just like her. The Violet who left was gleefully playing with her new flexibility and brushing off her mother's bitter remarks. The way she had permanently changed color forcibly divorced her from her mother's image, much to her mother's dismay. Violet learned a lesson, sure, but if anyone was punished by the experience it was her mother. Much the same can be said for the rest of the bratty kids and their parents, but Violet always stuck out to me and I felt so happy for the kid at the end of the film.

I've never seen the Willy Wonka version, but I remember absolutely loving the Charlie version. It was a childhood defining movie for me

I've been stuck at home with an eye injury so I listened to the book on audio only and came to the realization that the tim Burton film is a complete almost replica of the book. I e always liked this version better than the gene wilder one anyways, but I'm glad that people are finally giving it a better rep. It was hated on, but it's a masterpiece

Me, being born in the 2000s, I can say the reason people like Willy Wonka is the same reason I like Charlie. I grew up with it, and it is a cozy movie. I don’t even need an argument for why it’s better than Willy Wonka.

I agree wholeheartedly with this review. I'm sick and tired of people shunning Tim Burton's version just because it's not like the original classic. They're two different entities, people. I mean, thats like hating on The Dark Knight just because it's different to Batman 89 (ironically also directed by Burton). Plus, you want to talk about a cheap remake that completely misses the point of the original? _Tom and Jerry and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,_ nuff said. :P

I have been saying this for years. People need to learn the difference between a remake and an adaptation.

You may be the ONLY person in existence that likes "Cheer Up, Charlie". Ya know, literally the only song in the 1971 version that people skip!? 😂😂😂

Ive always loved the Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and you've helped me understand why. Thx bro

If Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the first film, it would have definitely been a lot more memorable, and liked

honestly I think the biggest player in the dislike on this movie is the Nostalgia Critic, who didn't read the original book and basically judged the Burton version on the basis of the original. Which would be like adapting the story of the twelve labors of Heracles and saying it doesn't represent the Disney version well, it's stupid Also no disrespect to the dead but Gene Wilder saying how much he doesn't like "that CGI mess" is just a giant slap in the face. Like he's one to talk, to be honest

"So, does Oompa Loompa mean something OTHER than their names? Because I wouldn't start a song with, 'Hu-man be-ing, human being!'" -Mike Nelson

I love both movies. At first I thought the Charlie one was a remake until I saw it & found the book. The Wonka one will always have a place in my heart. It's behind the scenes backstory won't stop me from loving it. As with many movies, it will have those happy, cozy moments with my family. I

I can't express enough how happy I am to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory being given so much love these past few years. So many people are looking back and finally realizing just how great it was and still is.

The fact that it uses the actual songs from the book instead of making up their own alone makes it the superior version.

Veruca is the worst kid, she doesn't bother to find the ticket herself. Mike may also be a brat, but even he found his ticket and yet he hates chocolate

I like how Grandpa George had the mini arc of going from a bitter cynic to telling Charlie he'd be an idiot to sell the ticket.

I love both movies, and as someone that's actually read the book too, I greatly appreciate Burton's film for being obviously way closer to the source material. Side note: somewhat surprised you didn't use the same reason you gave for Elfman being part of a Burton film for Johnny Depp. Burton and Depp are frequently paired together; enough so, that it's shocking when one does something without the other.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory traumatized me as a kid, to the point where I couldn't even hear references to it for several years without panicking, and that's why it'll always be my favorite of the two. While both films are fun in their own ways, Willy Wonka is more quirky and light-hearted, whereas Charlie is psychological warfare. The color grading, the soundtrack, the acting, the set design, the choreography, the camera work, the writing, everything works together to create this constant underlying sense of dread. Even before we enter the chocolate factory. Scenes and lines linger, both the unnerving ones and the funny ones, and you're left in this state of uncertainty because "what the fuck was that about??" Again, both films are good. They're both for different audiences and have different aims and intentions. However, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory willl always be superioir to me because of how masterfully it crafted its unsuspecting horror.

As someone who read the book, this video is spot on.