As someone once said: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is about Charlie. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is about Willie Wonka

"This isn't the case of one being a remake of the other~but rather both are adaptations from the same source" THANK YOU! I like to always make that distinction with films (or any media for that matter) that are adaptations from another medium. I think we should only classify something as a remake if it's a retelling within the same medium as the original work - (and even then, there's the occasional outlier). It's an important distinction to make, in my opinion. I often see people claiming that "remakes should never happen and film makers should come up with new ideas", and lumping adaptations in with that sentiment, which is ridiculous when you think about how everyone will take something different away from a work. Sure, you don't want to flood the market with different adaptations of the same thing, but I do find it interesting to see different creatives show off their interpretations of the same thing.

I will admit, while I wasnt a big Wonka fan and still am not, watching the reviews gave me a much better appreciation for both from a film and adaptation perspective. Both I feel can be appreciated and loved in their own way with their own positives/strengths.

One interesting difference is the handling of class with regards to the Salt's. In WWATCF Mr Salt is coded to be a, "self made man," someone from a humble working class background that though grit, determination and I'm sure a bit of luck, had bult the empire he has today. The coding is both his non aristocratic common not posh way of speaking and his manor of dress that clearly lack refitment. He dotting on Verruca in his opening scene is presented as very emotional, "I can't bare to see her like this," it speaks to man who endured want and poverty as a child and carries though scars and so in the process of wanting to ensure his daughter never experiences the hardship he had, has overcorrected with her brattish greed, demands and tantrums, for lack of a better term, triggering to him regarding his own past. This to me makes Mr Salt a more sympathetic character with the misguided way he has raised Verruca coming from a genuine place. The negative impact on Verruca is therefore not simply making her a spoilt brat, but also giving her a sense of entailment to simply be provided, denying her the drive he had though his hardship to improve his situation. This is not to say of course I believe children should have artificial poverty inflicted on them to give them a better work ethic etc, but denying them outrageous extravagance on a whim and making them contribute something, even something as basic as chores so that they are then rewarded can have a great effect in installing the positive values of taking pride in their accomplishments that can be built on as they grow. Compare Mr Salt in CATCF and you have a radically different class dynamic at play. He is very clearly from the aristocratic elite, born with a silver spoon in his moth. He has grown up being provided with everything from his old money family wealth and sees no reason why his daughter should not have the same. This is a lot less powerful in terms of depth regarding Mr Salt as a character and so shifts the emphasis away form him as a person and directing it towards a broader critique of the of the class they were born into, the reassessment you are encouraged to feel is towards their wealth privilege in an abstract social-economic way. It also weakens the message of Verruca being damaged by being spoilt as she is merely acting in a way that is expected of her within the more aristocratic sub-faction of the ruling class abiding by it's cultural norms that she needs to function in without incurring social stigma by being more selfless with money that would challenge the acceptability of the excesses within the social group that should be excepted blindly without question. If Mr Salt from WWATCF is a somewhat sympathetic or at least pitiful man, Mr Salt in CATCF leaves no impression on me at all, he seems utterly clueless and out of touch with nothing really beyond that so I feel nothing for the character.

I appreciate your evenhanded perspective and your take on the differences between the two films. It truly is, ultimately, the story elements each version wanted to emphasis that cascades throughout them and defines how they adapt the book.

Il always have a bias towards the 1971 film, but I can sort of admire both films in their own right. The Wilder film isn’t the best adaptation of the book but leans into the whimsical side (as well as having a lot of great comedy), whilst the Depp version tries to copy most of the book but leans into the darker and surreal side of the story. I will admit that the 1971 version has stood the test of time better and gives us loads of memorable moments, but I can see why some people would like the 2005 film more.

Romeo and Julliet with vampires and werewolves... shit that is the first Underworld. Two Houses and all that. Guess I need to have my brain checked now for not noticing that in the 20 something years since that film came out.

Your analysis of the 2005 film blew my mind

This little run of videos has been a nice walk down memory lane with adaptations of one of my childhood favourite books, so thank you for that Are you going to look at the Wonka film from last year? Or anything about The Great Glass Elevator? That book is a trip in places

Now I wonder if anyone requested from Chuck, a treatment like this for Frankenstein

The amusing thing about Sherlock being mentioned in the opening bit is that not only did it have a competitor adapting the same material with that modern day setting twist (and doing it way better), but Sherlock itself counts as one of the examples of 'making it my own' that diminished it in comparison to more faithful retellings (like the Jeremy-Brett led Granada TV version). That said, Moffat at least has made good stuff and has taken some daring swings. Many don't even manage that.

Just wanna say, even though I don't personally like the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" movie (mostly because of the Wonka character and how Burton/Depp/anyone else envisioned him), though I do enjoy some of the songs and sometimes feel guilty liking ANYTHING from the movie based on what I take as the general reaction to it from those in my age group, this sentence is ending anyway. And I also appreciate how you took a thoughtful approach to its re-adaptation, going back to the source. I never read the book, and yet I grew up on the Wilder version and love it to this day, and still greatly prefer it. But you nonetheless really opened my eyes as to why the 2005 movie is the way that it is, from the approach to the songs, to the filmmaker's decision to focus on Wonka and his past. Until now, I dismissed that whole part of the third act; I hadn't realized it was based in something not just rooted in the source material, but in a new, more modern take on the story and Wonka's character, and not just as a way to let Depp Depp more and Burton to do more daddy issues while justifying an excuse to put Christopher Lee front and center in one of his movie. All of my initial reactions to the movie back in 2005 were the absolute worse. I can now both walk back most of those judgments, and thus not dwell in the hatred of so much media (and remakes in particular) as I did so much in my twenties. I've been following your work for over a decade now, Chuck. You've never disappointed me. I'm happy you're still producing, and that you're still giving me greater appreciation for whatever works you touch. Your Trek reviews have been part of the running audio background of my work and play for years, but these newer works (you seriously researched and experimented with making your own chocolate?) make it clear you've always been one of the absolute best of the c.2010 online rant/snark industry. In that you transcended, long ago. And you're still going, better than ever.

I can't believe you managed to make me reconsider my opinion on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

The earlier bit about adaptations interests me because it got me thinking: what do you do when the work you want to adapt is impractical to adapt faithfully? For example, a completely accurate adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wouldn’t work today because it’s a mystery everyone already knows the answer too. Its twist is so famous that most don’t even realize before reading that it is a twist. How would you do a faithful adaptation of that while not boring the viewers? Or look at Dracula. It’s a collection of diary entries, letters, and newspaper articles strung together to tell a story. That wouldn’t work for film. I think my opinion on the matter comes down to this: Martin has a point about people in Hollywood arrogantly assuming that they can do better than the original. However, that’s not always the case and frequently changes have to be made to better reflect both the medium and the culture. The people in charge should do so with care and respect though, not letting their power go to their heads.

Why did you use the Star Trek open?

Which raises the question. Will Chuck look at 'Wonka'?

To paraphrase Movie Bob - "It doesn't matter how good of an actor Mike Myers is, or how perfectly he can recite the most serious scenes from Hamlet, if he's doing the Shrek voice at the same time, it's going to be funny and you'll laugh." In my opinion, the same thing applies to Burton's adaptation - it doesn't matter how fantastical the world, or how good the performances/effects/songs/etc., if it starts with the premise that Wonka hates children, then that's a bad angle and I can't get into the movie. This Wonka is not a mad genius, he's very explicitly a victim of childhood abuse, who chooses to perpetrate that abuse onto other children, for ENTIRELY selfish and possibly criminal reasons. And the redemption/reconciliation arc is so thinly sketched, and only really enters the story with any force so late in the narrative, that it only tells me the writers and editors behind this didn't see the messaging of their story clearly enough to fully engage with it. This is not a bad adaptation, this is a bad angle to take on the story. There's a lot to enjoy here, and in fact, a lot that is excellent. It just started with a bad premise, and didn't follow through well enough to indicate they even understood that premise.

I think for movies and tv in particular I think that it's not just the people rewriting not being skilled enough to do their own stories but also they aren't really given the chance to do so, since the big studios seem increasingly unwilling to give untested ideas a chance. I guess some screenwriters just take whatever chance they have to make a story "their own" though I really wish they wouldn't, and also wish they would have the chance to tell their own story

As someone who read the book as a child before seeing either film, I felt both films were pretty even. Both deviate from the book by similar quantities to me. It has always been interesting to me how much the Tim Burton version is hated by people who only saw the first film.

Film adaptations are an effort to do that three-course meal chewing gum. Some of them just get rid of the blueberry dessert and thus avoid problems.

I don't mind a movie director wanting to make a story their own. Art begets art and that's not a bug, it's a feature. What I do mind, is the director giving the movie the same name as the source material to trick me into watching. Either make a reasonably faithful adaptation, or admit that it's your own creation and trust that it can stand on its own merits.

I also have to admit that I prefer the movie with Gene Wilder in it.

I detested near the ending of Burton's film, where Wonka is forcing Charlie to choose between living with his family, or living in the Chocolate factory. The idea that a character who seemed a little too close to Michael Jackson, wanted to keep a child as his companion (without the rest of his family) was uncomfortable for me. Also, did Wonka have to have daddy issues? There's a reason some have said the film should be called "Finding Neverland Ranch".

Thrill me.

The Burton version makes Wonka an easy-to-be "I do not want to see that character much" which is not good as the focus character. Compare their introduction Gene's Wonka entrance with the hobbling and roll at the end. It showing the something is odd and hidden him. While Burton was puppets with a bad song and the puppets that caught fire. I do like the ideal that Gene's Wonka lost all trust in other with a person stealing his recipes until Charlie returned the gobstopper. That why some says his pure imagination version has a sad undertone to it.

It's a bit hypocritical, not to mention a bit late in the game, for Martin to whine about his adaptions, isn't it! After all, he's never bought anything new, just been in the right place, the right time, both in terms of books and screen versions. But I digress. The Book version (before being censored by "sensitivity readers"), remains by far and away the best version in my eyes, followed by the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Gene Wilder *is* Wonker in my eyes, although Deep Roy, most definitely has taken the spot of the Omppa Loompas(?).

I unironically would like a horror movie based on the book, also an anti capitalist satire by Boots Riley

"There's a difference between 'changing stuff to fit the medium' and 'changing stuff because you think you know better than the creator'". And yet anime and video game localizers think they're the same thing.

I find it disturbing that the joke criticism of "why are they singing?" Are taken so seriously, and when fiction operates on its own international logic has to explained to full grown adults like they are 5 years old. Maybe pushing immersion in media was a mistake.

An interesting question arises how would you communicate the difference to a potential audience? Should the trailer for the movie say “a new adaptation based on the book” so a person like me realizes it’s and might actually consider seeing such a thing? Also if someone says does a new adaptation of The Indian in the Cupboard (I think it was a book) . . . How does someone make it worth watching the new adaptation when the previous one is decent quality and you don’t know if the new one would be?

if anything, this emboldens my hatred of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because my reasons are not "I hate it as a poor adaptation of the book", I just hate it as a film. The tone, performances, visuals, dialogue, directing, and unwanted and unnecessary events and character focus are ALL things that I don't gel with at all. The movie may lean far into developing Wonka as a character, but I hate how it was done, and it also doesn't land with me because I also don't like this Wonka as a character. Even if Charlie And The Chocolate Factory was the only movie I knew, the only adaptation of this book that ever existed or was the only one I grew up with.... I am pretty sure I would still hate it just as much. The movie as it is, annoys me on a personal level, and would never sit through it again, willingly.