Talk:Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This section needs rewriting, mainly because there is no actual synopsis contained in it. The other film and the book both have a description of the storyline, this does not. kevin 15:03, 01 August 2005

Television debut[edit]

I removed the section about the film's television debut because it's irrelevant. There was nothing notable about the film being shown on tv, other than the conflict with the football game. Other film articles don't have sections talking about their television debut. Why should this one? Can anyone make a case for its inclusion? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "irrelevant", but not "utterly irrelevant". Some movie entries do have sections on television showings. Hence I'm adding the text here, if someone wants to make a case beyond this. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The film made its television debut on November 23, 1975, on NBC. There was some controversy with the showing as the Oakland Raiders vs Washington Redskins (26–23) football game went into overtime, and the first 40 minutes of the movie were cut.[1] The film placed 19th in the TV Ratings for the week ending November 23, beating out The Streets of San Francisco and Little House on the Prairie.[2] The next TV showing of the film was on May 2, 1976,[3] where it placed 46th in the ratings.[4] Some TV listings indicate the showing was part of the World of Disney time slot.


  1. ^ "Raiders, NBC 0–2 in N.Y.; First Heidi, Now Willy Wonka". Los Angeles Times. November 24, 1975. p. C2.
  2. ^ "4 Movies Shake Up Week's Nielsen List". Los Angeles Times. November 26, 1975. p. 15.
  3. ^ "TV Guide Listings". Los Angeles Times. May 2, 1976. p. 10.
  4. ^ Williams, Ken (May 11, 1976). "Among Other Things". Journal-News. Hamilton, OH. p. 7.


I find it very strange that there would be a mention of the 2017 Tom and Jerry adaptation on this page, and no mention of the 2005 adaptation (not counting the redirect at the top of the page.) It was probably just an innocent omission, but it feels like favoritism. I'd suggest changing the "Animated Adaptation" section to "Adaptations" and adding a sentence about the 2005 version. Jmgariepy (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2005 movie is not based on this movie, it is based on the novel. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. Thank you, SummerPhDv2.0. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
All three works are based on the original novel, and you would be hard pressed to say that the 2005 movie took zero inspiration from the 1971 version of the movie. To take an example from Wikipedia, Superman (1978) mentions both Superman Returns and Man of Steel in a section titled Legacy. Even though both of those movies take the bulk of their work from the original comics and very little from the original Superman series, the original Superman movie cites these two movies as a continuation of its legacy. Encyclopedia articles don't just mention the inspiration for their work, they mention the things they inspire as well. Jmgariepy (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
What another WP article talks about is irrelevant. If you want to claim that the 2005 film is an adaptation of this film, you will need a source. There's no reason to mention it just because they are both based on the same source material. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be hard pressed to say a lot of things that the article does not say.
The sources say this movie and the 2005 movie are based on the novel, which is undoubtedly true and the respective articles say that. The sources do not list other inspirations and neither do we. I'd be shocked if there aren't dozens of films that inspired various aspects of every major film. We can't speculate in Wikipedia articles. That's what Intro to Film 101 is for. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems that everyone is heavily focused on the fact that I made the mistake of using the word 'adaptation' beforehand, and is trying to argue why this isn't an adaptation. So let me back up a step. Charlie is not an adaptation of Willy Wonka. I'm not claiming that's the case, so there's no need to argue against it. I'm rather sorry I even mentioned the fact that there's bound to be some sort of inspirational crossover, because it got everyone talking about the wrong thing. For the sake of this discussion, feel free to pretend that I don't believe any inspirational crossover exists between the two movies, because whether it does or not has no bearing on the thrust of my argument.
What I am arguing is that many, many pages on Wikipedia have a Legacy section. In the World War I page, they talk about World War II. On the Pet Sounds page, they talk about the Beatles. The best example of a movie that has nothing to do with the movie that came before it is Heavy Metal and Heavy Metal 2000. I checked, and Heavy Metal has has a Legacy section that mentions Heavy Metal 2000. If you don't know Heavy Metal, the Superman analogy from before still stands, though.
Legacy isn't always about direct homages. Sometimes the legacy of a work inspires a person to do the exact opposite thing, like how the Dahl estate was upset with the original Willy Wonka movie, and was eager to do a movie that was more of a direct translation to the book. Saying "Well just because other pages do it, doesn't mean we have to do it" isn't an argument against adding a Legacy section. It doesn't answer the question: "Is it appropriate for *this* page to have this section." Maybe it isn't. But, in my opinion, adding a sentence and a redirect better adds to the conversation about this movie, as opposed to takes away from it.
Jmgariepy (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The short answer: What do independent reliable sources say? - SummerPhDv2.0 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You will have to excuse me. I'm not being contrarian here, I'm just not sure what you're referring to. What do independent reliable sources say about what, exactly? I don't think you're asking for proof that the two movies were both based on the same book. Are you asking me to cite that the Dahl estate didn't like the first movie, and was on board for making another one? Technically, I could just use the same sources that are on the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Wikipedia page to support that assertion. One could also use that same page to prove that a number of actors and directors were interested in Charlie because of Willy Wonka. Those are two ways in which Wonka eventually lead to the making of Charlie.
But really, I wasn't arguing to copy and paste this information from the Charlie page here. People can read about that stuff on the Charlie page. I was just arguing that there should be a one sentence throwaway so that people who were reading this page could be made aware that a remake existed. Jmgariepy (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following you? The very top of the article mentions the 2005 film adaptation, in case a reader is looking for that film rather than this one. Could you provide an example of what you might like inserted? DonIago (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Edited girls nationality out[edit]

I edited out Veruca and Violet's nationalities as the article was reading "the spoiled American Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole), the gum-chewing British Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson)". Their nationalities were not correct. Violet is an American, not a Brit. The scene in which she is introduced specifically states that Violet is from Miles City, Montana. This is brought up again when on the day the winners finally get to tour the chocolate factory Violet's father is telling the television audeiance to come by his car dealership if their ever in Miles City. Aside from the fact that Veruca and her father both speak with a British accent, some of the terms used by them also suggest their British. Her father, in the scene that introduces the characters, uses a distinctively British use of the word bleeding when he tells Veruca he has "every girl in the bleeding staff hunting for ya" to find the golden ticket. He also offers a one POUND bonus for finding the ticket, where as an American would offer a one DOLLAR bonus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:300:BE78:DDC5:86E5:EFB0:5C1C (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Stuart[edit]

Delinked Peter Stuart for the third time, added a See note on his page ... any idea how to stop this happening? MartinSFSA (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I added an inline note here saying that he shouldn't be linked. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've removed him from the Cast; why was he even listed without a role? DonIago (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)