Roald Dahl's 1964 novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory seems to be a story that demands to be put to film. Two completely separate adaptions of this book were put to the big screen 34 years apart, before and during the age of the blockbuster. 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and 2005's Charlie & the Chocolate Factory both try to cater to the audiences of their times, and as a result end up being two remarkably different films.
NOTE: For the purposes of this blog I will be treating Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a remake/reboot to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory even though they are both technically reiterations of the same book. This just makes it easier to compare them.
Both of these films take a very different approach to the original source material; while Charlie... sticks closer to the events of the novel and as a result falls more into the goofy, fantastical elements of Dahl's book, Willy Wonka... made careful adaptations in order to make the film more realistic and doable in 1971. For example, in the novel and the 2005 film adaptation Veruca Salt is attacked by squirrels in the Nut Sorting Room, but in the 1971 movie she falls down a chute in the Golden Egg Room. This was likely done since it was unrealistic for filmmakers in the 1970s to accurately recreate this scene from the novel.
Both the realistic approach of Willy Wonka... and the fantastical approach of Charlie... have led to polarizing results, with Tim Burton, director of Charlie... finding the original film disappointing and Willy Wonka... lead Gene Wilder finding Burton's version of the film insulting. Roald Dahl also famously hated the original Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (and died before the release of Charlie...)
Tim Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could have never been made in 1971, as it relies heavily on special effects and CGI that were not available at the time in order to make Dahl's crazy world come to life. Things like the inside of the factory, the Oompa Loompas, Violet Beaureguarde's transformation and Mike Teavee's teleportation were all CGI'd in this version of the film, allowing a greater amount of creative control. In the 1971 version of the film, all of these scenes had to be done practically, or with the minimal SFX technology that was available.
I mean...they tried
Although I think CGI is definitely more fitting for the movie and really helped build the incredibly stylized world of Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the quality of the CGI in Charlie... isn't as good as it should have been, causing both movies to seem dated in their own special way.
Both movies also take a similar-yet-different approach to their characters. In Willy Wonka... each of the naughty kids are portrayed much more realistically, with their fatal flaws (greed, disobedience) simply being an aspect of their characters. I feel like the 2005 version of these kids are Flanderized, with Augustus being much fatter, Veruca being constantly bratty, Violet being over-competitive and athletic, and Mike Teavee being more violent and addicted to video games (which, I must say, is a nice touch to modernize his character). Charlie also feels watered down, and is mostly forgettable. Although I can appreciate these hyperbolized characters in a vacuum, their personalities are too big and end up drowning out Willy Wonka, whose quirks and oddities are supposed to lead the movie. There isn't that contrast between the "normal" people and Wonka that is really needed to show the magnificence of his mind and the factory.
Despite all of that, the biggest change in characters between the two movies is the portrayal of Willy Wonka. In the 1971 version, Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder) is a shifty, deranged yet charismatic character who always has something new and exciting up his sleeve... for better or for worse. Johnny Depp's version of Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory acts uncomfortably childish, completely nonsensically, and seems constantly out of touch with the world around him. The sheer over-the-topness of Depp's Wonka makes the character incredibly tiring and somehow one of the most annoying characters even when surrounding by obnoxiously naughty children.
Logically, these characterizations seem to align with the morals of both films. The more grounded and realistic cast of characters from Willy Wonka... makes the film work better as a cautionary tale that teaches kids to follow the rules and be kind, while the outlandish and absurd characters from the 2005 film make it almost feel vengeful; all of the kids in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory feel much more deserving of their punishments because of how ridiculously arrogant their characters are. I feel like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory accurately reflects how we as a culture have become more enticed by revenge fantasies; we care less about Charlie getting rewarded for his good deeds and more about how the other four kids get their pain and suffering. It's sick to want to watch kids get hurt, isn't it?
Personally, if my bias isn't clear already, I greatly prefer the original 1971 film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. While I do love aspects of the 2005 "remake," I can barely sit through the movie as a whole without feeling fatigued from it all. The whimsy and charm from the original movie, as well as a much better soundtrack, really makes it stick out to me as the superior version. The realistic setting of the original movie also makes much more sense to a story about something as profoundly unrealistic as a wild chocolate factory.
Critics seem to agree with me, too. While both movies are quite highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory received an astounding 91% from 46 reviews, while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, on 227 reviews, received an 82%. Not everyone seems to be on the same page as the critics though, as while audiences gave Willy Wonka... an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes, poor Charlie... only has a 51% from audience reviews. Talk about a disconnect.
But who cares about to art of a movie, right? Let's talk about what's most important: the art of the dollar. Since Willy Wonka before the age of the blockbuster, I didn't expect its profits to be amazing, and I was right. With an estimated $3 million budget, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory only pulled in roughly $4 million in revenue (or ~$500,000, depending on who you ask). The profits are pathetic compared to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which with a $150 million budget made almost half of a billion dollars worldwide ($478 million)! Aside from inflation, I feel like this large disconnect between the profits and critical success of these two movies is mainly due to the shift in how movies are released. The biggest change, as far as I can tell, is not only that Willy Wonka... was essentially released during a film-watching recession, but also the introduction of the concept of the international release. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory made just under half of its money domestically, with the remaining 56% or so coming from other countries. I think if Willy Wonka... came out at a better time and in the same blockbuster-widespread release, it would have similar a commercial performance to its successor.
NOTE: For the purposes of this blog I will be treating Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a remake/reboot to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory even though they are both technically reiterations of the same book. This just makes it easier to compare them.
Willy Wonka... (1971, left) and Charlie... (2005, right)
Both of these films take a very different approach to the original source material; while Charlie... sticks closer to the events of the novel and as a result falls more into the goofy, fantastical elements of Dahl's book, Willy Wonka... made careful adaptations in order to make the film more realistic and doable in 1971. For example, in the novel and the 2005 film adaptation Veruca Salt is attacked by squirrels in the Nut Sorting Room, but in the 1971 movie she falls down a chute in the Golden Egg Room. This was likely done since it was unrealistic for filmmakers in the 1970s to accurately recreate this scene from the novel.
You gotta do what you gotta do.
Both the realistic approach of Willy Wonka... and the fantastical approach of Charlie... have led to polarizing results, with Tim Burton, director of Charlie... finding the original film disappointing and Willy Wonka... lead Gene Wilder finding Burton's version of the film insulting. Roald Dahl also famously hated the original Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (and died before the release of Charlie...)
Tim Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could have never been made in 1971, as it relies heavily on special effects and CGI that were not available at the time in order to make Dahl's crazy world come to life. Things like the inside of the factory, the Oompa Loompas, Violet Beaureguarde's transformation and Mike Teavee's teleportation were all CGI'd in this version of the film, allowing a greater amount of creative control. In the 1971 version of the film, all of these scenes had to be done practically, or with the minimal SFX technology that was available.
Dream? Fully realized.
Neither of these scenes look....right
Wonka sticks out here... as he should
Everyone here looks a little crazy, and Wonka blends in
Despite all of that, the biggest change in characters between the two movies is the portrayal of Willy Wonka. In the 1971 version, Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder) is a shifty, deranged yet charismatic character who always has something new and exciting up his sleeve... for better or for worse. Johnny Depp's version of Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory acts uncomfortably childish, completely nonsensically, and seems constantly out of touch with the world around him. The sheer over-the-topness of Depp's Wonka makes the character incredibly tiring and somehow one of the most annoying characters even when surrounding by obnoxiously naughty children.
Logically, these characterizations seem to align with the morals of both films. The more grounded and realistic cast of characters from Willy Wonka... makes the film work better as a cautionary tale that teaches kids to follow the rules and be kind, while the outlandish and absurd characters from the 2005 film make it almost feel vengeful; all of the kids in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory feel much more deserving of their punishments because of how ridiculously arrogant their characters are. I feel like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory accurately reflects how we as a culture have become more enticed by revenge fantasies; we care less about Charlie getting rewarded for his good deeds and more about how the other four kids get their pain and suffering. It's sick to want to watch kids get hurt, isn't it?
They even included an additional scene just to make fun of the kids again! With great CGI, too
Personally, if my bias isn't clear already, I greatly prefer the original 1971 film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. While I do love aspects of the 2005 "remake," I can barely sit through the movie as a whole without feeling fatigued from it all. The whimsy and charm from the original movie, as well as a much better soundtrack, really makes it stick out to me as the superior version. The realistic setting of the original movie also makes much more sense to a story about something as profoundly unrealistic as a wild chocolate factory.
Critics seem to agree with me, too. While both movies are quite highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory received an astounding 91% from 46 reviews, while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, on 227 reviews, received an 82%. Not everyone seems to be on the same page as the critics though, as while audiences gave Willy Wonka... an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes, poor Charlie... only has a 51% from audience reviews. Talk about a disconnect.
Can't fight the facts.
But who cares about to art of a movie, right? Let's talk about what's most important: the art of the dollar. Since Willy Wonka before the age of the blockbuster, I didn't expect its profits to be amazing, and I was right. With an estimated $3 million budget, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory only pulled in roughly $4 million in revenue (or ~$500,000, depending on who you ask). The profits are pathetic compared to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which with a $150 million budget made almost half of a billion dollars worldwide ($478 million)! Aside from inflation, I feel like this large disconnect between the profits and critical success of these two movies is mainly due to the shift in how movies are released. The biggest change, as far as I can tell, is not only that Willy Wonka... was essentially released during a film-watching recession, but also the introduction of the concept of the international release. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory made just under half of its money domestically, with the remaining 56% or so coming from other countries. I think if Willy Wonka... came out at a better time and in the same blockbuster-widespread release, it would have similar a commercial performance to its successor.
Come get your Golden Ticket to the theatres!
Finally, one of the most unique things about both of these films is their advertising campaigns. About a month before the release of the original movie, Nestlé launched The Willy Wonka Candy Company and started selling candy under this name. Nestlé provided a shocking amount of commitment to this campaign, carrying the Wonka name on its candies until mid-2015. Wonka was able to seep his candy business into the real world, with products like Sweetarts, Everlasting Gobstoppers, Laffy Taffy and Nerds becoming Halloween staples. When the remake came along in 2005, the marketing team basically followed in the footsteps of the original, re-releasing Wonka bars under the Wonka name and using real candy to advertise their movie. I also distinctly remember a Wendy's kid's meal tie in.
This marketing campaign is surprisingly innovative for its time, and reminds me of the classic Star Wars bananas that are seen everywhere today. I don't think that there's been a movie tie-in that has had such a lasting impact on a brand before, to the point where Wonka candy has almost nothing to do with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the franchise) except the name. It's a perfect beginning to the mass-advertising of movies in the Blockbuster Age, and an amazingly weird campaign that perfectly reflects the movies that it advertises.
Comments
Post a Comment