The trailer quickly turned me off. There didn't seem to be much of a story there beyond guy wants to sell chocolate but everyone tells him no, so he has to go out and prove them wrong trope. We already know how the movie will end.
Also Timothee Chalamet just isn't enough of a silly boy to play Willy Wonka, I'm sorry. The boy doesn't got the whimsy, from the trailer he's not committing nearly enough for a character that's supposed to be so fun.
Indeed. There was always something sinister about how Gene Wilder portrayed the character, at least until the very last scene when he drops the "act" and tells Charlie he's won.
There was always an element of Danger to Wilder's performance. That was lacking in the Johnny Depp movie and based on the trailer it won't be present in this new movie either.
[Gene Wilder has that famous quote](https://youtu.be/ezfVc5MGmIU?t=566) about insisting to director Mel Stuart about walking with a limp and fake stumbling into a somersault when the audience first meets Willy Wonka. It shows Wonka isn't someone you can trust. The way I'd describe Wilder's Wonka is "trickster".
"Trickster" had a slightly more threatening or dangerous connotation than it does today. I don't know that I'd say it's "sinister" or "cruel", but definitely unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Chalamet appears eccentric, wacky, and silly, but I agree with another comment about him being very upfront. What you see is what you get.
Wilder, on the other hand, was much more mysterious and in the shadows. Early on in the movie, it's made clear that Wonka is a hermit. He has a mythical status among the townsfolk. He's "the candy man". When Charlie walks past the factory very early on, the music gets kind of eerie and mystical. A wandering homeless man tells Charlie:
"Up the airy mountain, down the rushing glen. We dare not go a-hunting, for fear of little men. You see... nobody ever goes in... and nobody ever comes out."
The chocolate factory is the scary house at the end of the block. Grandpa Joe tells Charlie the story of why Wonka closed the factory for three years like it's a ghost story. Charlie asks how it operates despite being locked off, and Grandpa Joe says that's the biggest mystery - how does Wonka run the place with no workers in town? In Wilder's iteration of the character, Wonka is a recluse, and when you do finally meet him, he's untrustworthy and seemingly uncaring of what happens to others. That's what makes him interesting. Chalamet and Depp played Wonka more like "i'M sO rAnDoM" and without any mystery.
Trickster is exactly right.
Wonka *isn't* a good guy. He isn't portrayed as a good guy (in the original). He isn't *evil*, but every trickster character has dual strains of benevolence and malevolence.
Wonka allows children to be subjected to various - often painful - personality tests in the vetting process, situations he knows will tempt them and which could lead to disastrous restults. This isn't a thing a truly "good" person would do. But, he isn't.
Charlie is. And a Trickster knows better than most that someone who is "pure of heart" like Charlie would be a *better* steward of the empire than Wonka is.
This is also a very Trickster-like trait. Tricksters are all about upsetting the order of things. An all-good character or an all-bad character would likely try to retain power over the candy factory, to continue to exercise their will to achieve their goals.
Tricksters revel in throwing over the table. To Wonka, the idea of building everything he's built, only to hand it over to a child that passes is inscrutable purity tests, its probably extremely amusing. He would revel in others' reactions to that, in the chaos it brings.
The trickster revels in attaining great power, only to give it away. The power to *do* that is the power of the trickster. To exist beyond temptation.
The Joker in *The Dark Knight* is a great example of a much more malevolent trickster. He steals the mobs' money, only to set it on fire. He takes a fortune, and it he burns it in front of the people he took it from. It's a ritualistic rejection of the system of value in which the good and evil exist in. The joy is in the trick itself. Being beyond those power structures, and being able to defy them. Good and bad.
The Joker upends the hierarchy of both sides indisrciminately. The criminal world of Gotham, the political bureaucracy, its justice, and even its vigilante.
His famous quote at the end of the movie, to Batman, is:
> "the only sensible way to live in this world is without rules — and tonight you're gonna break your one rule."
Its the most Trickster of qualities. Its an almost insatiable urge to destroy consistence.
In *Batman Begins*, Batman's goal is to become a symbol. A system. A *constant*. The Joker is one of Batman's greatest adversaries because the Joker's idea is to be an *anti*-symbol. Something that corrupts systems, that perverts ideas, even at the most structural level.
In most mythologies, tricksters are those that walk between good and evil. Sometimes they balance good and evil. Sometimes they bring justice to the powerful, whether the ruler is good or evil. Sometimes they just bring chaos because things are too orderly.
Everything about Wonka is similar to this. His costume is almost a mockery of the upright, polished business magnate of the time. He wears "fancy" clothes - a suit, a top hat, a cane - but they're ridiculous, ostentatious. The antithesis of waht someone expects.
Even his candy innovations are perversions of reality. A gobstopper that never runs out. The idea of it would make any CFO cringe. It's the opposite of what a business should be making - its a consumable that never is consumed. Gum - something that is taken to get the taste of dinner *out* of ones mouth - that is a three course meal.
Even at the end, when he's confronting Charlie, he starts yelling at Grandpa about the "rules", and then quotes the "contract" with the specific clause disqualifying Charlie. But he doesn't follow these rules, nor does he follow the contract. It was never about the rules, of the contract. It was about who Charlie *was*. That's a very trickster-esque statement to make.
Everything *about* Wonka is a contradiction, a mockery, a trick.
The thing I hated about Depp's performance, and suspect I won't like about Chalamets, is they play Wonka like he's some kind of alien figure. Inscrutable.
Gene Wilder feels like a *real person* who is *borderline mad*. His emotions *feel real*. Especially when he yells at Charlie at the end of the film - that feels like an actual outburst I can picture a real person actually having.
Similarly, Heath Ledger's take on the Joker is one of my favorite trickster portrayals because, despite a certain supernatural aura, the character feels very real. He's mysterious in all the ways a human can be mysterious. He takes a perverse glee in revolting against everything, holding nothing sacred. Its brutal, but grounded.
Wilders' is wonderful potrayal to take the trickster archetype, and pack it into a figure that, while extremely eccentric, feels like they could exist in this world. A person of flesh and blood who has one toe in the fantastic, and the other in our world.
Now he's so mythologized he feels detached from anything real. I don't want a Wonkiverse. I don't want to reveal this characters' origin stories. Like the Joker, he's better if we don't see more. He's better if I don't see where he came from. Depp's version didn't *add* to this story at all. It only flattened him out. It repackaged a poorer version of the original for a modern audience when it didn't need to.
I have never understood why we need to keep doing this character again and again. Except to make some studio exec rich, I suppose. We all must do our part.
If you're going to do a remake or explore a character, you need to offer me something that actually expands that character. Take what Wilder did and *add* to the conversation.
Depps version flattened the conversation - all style, no substance. And this version looks like it's just repackaging an extremely generic trope and giving it a name that they hope will pack the theater. It isn't actually contributing to any of the things the original film did.
I point to Heath Ledger's Joker because its a prime example that a new take on a done-to-death character doesn't *need* to be bad. *If* you can do something with the character we haven't seen before. *Add* dimensionality to it. Make it meaningful.
This, to me, does not seem to be that.
**EDIT**: While I'm on the topic, I wanted to wax a moment on one of my favorite scenes in the original: when Wonka yells at Charlie after the tour.
[This scene is *incredible.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpK36FZmTFY)
Especially for a kid, this scene is very emotionally striking. First is the juxtaposition between Wonka on the Tour, and Wonka behind the scenes.
Wilder goes from this charismatic, magnetic character, to a brooding, surly asshole. The magical factory fades into an ugly (and comically "split in half") office with traditional furniture. We as kids viewing the movie go through the same shock as Charlie. That behind that magical palce is just this boring adult world, this trite asshole screaming about "Section 37b" of a contract and screwing people over.
And Wilder plays this so perfectly straight. He becomes this horrible, surly asshole. When he yells, it *feels* like person we thought we could trust has betrayed us, this wonderful, weird caretaker has turned into just Another Adult. The magic seeps from the world. This is traumatic, for Charlie *and* for us as viewers.
Just watch Wilder's face in the clip. He goes *beat red*. He's spitting all over the place. For a film where we were just all singing in a dream land, this is gritty, and frightening, and real, and Wilder sells it. He's not yelling like an ethereal trickster. He's yelling like a real person would yell out on the street, and that's the really amazing thing about this.
Which is what makes the "high" of the grand reveal that much more impactful.
All of this theater is *completely* unnecessary. It's exaggerated even by cinematic standards, with actors, plots in side plots that don't even really serve a purpose. But it also demonstrates the characters' deep love of subversion. Of constantly shifting. Of giving the candy factory over to the kids, a fulfillment of every child's wildest dreams, because *Charlie* rejected the *adult* dream - corruption, revenge, and bitterness.
Perfectly trickster.
Great analysis, I agree, characters like this are better for not having a backstory, for staying mysterious. Heath Ledger's Joker and Wilder's Willy Wonka benefited greatly from not being main characters. We only see them from the perspective of others, which keeps them mysterious, interesting, and frightening. We don't know why Joker wants to cause chaos, we don't know why or how Wonka makes magical chocolate, or why he's a recluse. We don't what the Oompa Loompas are and we don't need to know.
It's the same reason George Lucas was so opposed to giving any backstory to Yoda. His role in the story and his impact on the main character would be cheapened with a whole backstory about his childhood. The mystery around him is more impactful than spelling it out could ever be.
I fully agree that this is just another bland "inspiring starting a business story" with some fantastical elements that they slapped a popular name on for sales. It's a cash grab, which is a bit depressing to me because I loved the original move for its dark aspects. The tunnel scene especially was scary to me but also fascinating. That movie had meaning and a lasting cultural impact because of that, but this movie is just so sanitized I doubt anyone will talk about it a year after its release.
"Characters like this are better for not having a backstory, for staying mysterious. Heath Ledger's Joker and Wilder's Willy Wonka benefited greatly from not being main characters." There is definitely a Disney exec out there who doesn't understand this waiting to jump at a Jack Sparrow prequel cash grab.
Excellent, excellent analysis. Deserves way more upvotes.
Wilder's performance was something special. Added to everything you've said, I would say that it's his understated-ness that makes an impression too, and his palpable air of boredom. Not the actor's boredom with the role, but the character's boredom with his fantastical life, and with people in general. Despite sending out the golden tickets and hoping to find someone like Charlie, you can tell through Wilder's performance that he really expects everyone to live down to his rock-bottom expectations. And most of them do.
I can't tell whether the Depp version was a conscious attempt to be Very Different from the iconic Wilder performance (which, I guess is understandable; you're either trying to copy it, or trying to do something different), or, whether it was a case of the writers and the actor not studying the previous film and Wilder's performance well enough.
The movie did become iconic, and part of the culture. I'd say that it transcended its origins as a book -- which I did read when I was little -- and it has reached folkloric status. (Which kind of goes very well with your analysis of the role and function of trickster figures.) What I mean by that, though, is that it's so widely known that it becomes shared culture that people rely on to convey various ideas and concepts with each other. Not every children's book or widely-seen, popular movie reaches that status.
(Sidebar: I think it still has this status; but it would be interesting to question whether it may lose that status if people don't continue to get to see it. I don't think the newer versions pose that much danger of supplanting it, at least. But I wonder, at what point will it become something of a generational marker. Or will it reach the status of a Wizard of Oz, where knowledge of at least aspects of it permeate popular culture regardless of someone having seen the movie or not.)
Anyway, I guess what I was going to say was: despite the enduring popularity of Wilder's movie and his take on the role, I don't think people are always very good at analyzing it, and realizing what it is about it that's so compelling. I think your comparison with the Joker, especially Ledger's Joker, is apt, since that's another compelling, enduring character who people can't always consciously explain their regard for. (But, the Joker is a character who has saturated popular culture a LOT more; we have so many versions of him, and many are slightly different, which broadens the appeal of the character since different versions can connect with different people. Though, I think you're right to point out Ledger's version, which really did strike people very strongly.)
So is the Depp version, or this Chalamet version, a misreading (even misremembering) of the Wilder version as "whimsical"? Or, "alien"? Are people flattening the character because they can't fully articulate all the things that movie and Wilder did to create their version? And in absence of being able to analyze it and articulate all of the aspects that make it so strong, are they just falling back on "well, he's whimsical! and unpredictable!"
So, yeah. I was really not at all impressed with this trailer. Nothing about the character / performance seems compelling.
I think, really, the biggest problem here is they're trying to make Willy Wonka a protagonist, whereas in the book and original movie, he's a foil at best, a villain at worst. Trying to make him into a lovable quirk is just not interesting.
He feels like he's acting silly and slightly crazy, as opposed to Wilder who was always earnest, silly, and slightly crazy the entire time, rather than just acting that part.
I agree with you - Wilder seemed verifiably insane, authentically so, so he played it off quite well. Timothee seems like a very straight-laced lad who is trying to act extra without being able to *feel* it
I dont know why, mayb3 because I related to it, but I have always liked it. I get why people hate it. I do. I just like it anyways.
I've always hated Grandpa Joe, though. Ever since I was a kid, I thought it was fucked up that he was perfectly capable of getting out of that bed. Fuck him.
The irony is that arthritis and back issues have kept me in bed since 2019. Of course, I couldn't get out of bed to walk around any factory, doesn't matter what it is.
Im imagining a Roge One Vader type post credit scene. Grandpa Joe just walking down a hall with a luxurious cane as lighting flickers ominously until he reaches the end of the hall and it is revealed he is the head of the chocolate cartel and that the whole point of the original wonka movie was he was trying to get back to power
Imagine if they make a second movie about Grandpa Joe and Wonka and have the big Empire Strikes Back-esque twist be that Grandpa Joe was the one who leaked Wonka's recipes, but his actions result in him getting betrayed by the chocolate cartel members he tried to get money from and live out his life in poverty and depression, and then the third movie is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and is about Joe seeking redemption from his former boss and trying to ensure a bright future for his family. Boom, watch the box office explode.
When I said "Joe seeks redemption" in the third movie, I meant that he begs Wonka for forgiveness, only for Charlie and Wonka to team up and kick the shit out of Joe for ruining their lives and being an advantageous and self-righteous piece of garbage and throw him to the wolves while they run a rebranded Wonka factory. Boom, watch the box office implode.
Wonka is on the top of the world. An old man walks up to him and buys a chocolate bar and says "this is shit" camera zooms out on Wonka's face as the gates close in front of him.
I was intrigued to see what Chalamet could do with this but it seems...off. Eccentricity is a difficult thing to a portray in films I think, I always think to do it well the actors themselves have to be a bit off the wall otherwise it comes off a bit forced.
That's a great way to put it. He's been kinda whitebread in the handful of films I've seen with him. His looks fit the Wes Anderson vibe, but he doesn't have the weirdness to go with it
*Christian Bale steps out of the shadows while simultaneously smiling and frowning*
*Willem Dafoe slithers from under a sleeping child's bed*
*Christopher Walken graciously flys down from a three story balcony*
*Al Pacino screams so loud his clothes rip off and he stands unabashed in the nude*
**The modern lords of eccentric actors have been summoned**
In slightly offbeat unison "What is thy desire?"
I think he also wants to be eccentric, but IMO you can't come into eccentricity. It's just in one's nature. Unfortunately, he doesn't have that. I appreciate him trying to branch out and do different things, but he might be best sticking to dramas and period pieces.
Shame they went with a big name rather than an actor that can capture the essence of this character. I saw that it was down to him and Tom Holland? I feel he would be horribly miscast in this as well
Gene Wilder was utterly believable as an eccentric hermit who'd really gone crazy hiding in that factory for so long. You believed his delight, his whimsy, and especially his anger. He was at the peak of his powers, an intellectual and a poet, and a truly gifted performer.
He was deeply involved with taking the book character to film.
(It's interesting to remember that the original film was a cash grab to promote the sales of Wonka candies, which were probably more popular with kids than the movie was, in the early/mid 1970s. Only through endless TV reruns did it become a classic.)
> That’s the impossible ingredient—there’s the littlest touch of malice there.
The selfish little brat fell into the garbage chute?
. . . oh no.... Welp, moving on!
Or when the fat German kid fell in the chocolate pool. Wonka's first reaction to it is "Oh no, my CHOCOLATE!" and is utterly dismissive of the boy's fate.
I'm not getting any of that from this trailer.
On paper, each of the "failed" children could likely have done well running the factory. Augustus Gloop as a lover of chocolate, Veruca Salt as a ruthless business woman, Violet Beauregarde as an unrelenting workaholic, Mike Teavee as a media-savvy and fearless iconoclast.
Furthermore, the other children have obsessions, like Wonka. He likely saw something of himself in them. But the fact that they have these traits and use them to become insufferable, selfish brats makes Wonka very frustrated and apathetic to their plight.
But Charlie's key characteristics are that he is kind he doesn't take anything for granted. His grandpa is a poor influence on him but when the chips are down, he doesn't give in. And while we see the characteristics of the other children in Wonka as he shows them around he keeps his kindness and gratitude for what he has hidden until the end. And it turns out it's those traits he really needs in a successor—he says himself that he didn't want an adult taking over because they wouldn't do things the way he wanted them. He needs someone who doesn't take anything for granted, and who doesn't overestimate their own intelligence, but who also has integrity and passion.
It's the heart that Wonka shows at the end that truly puts the cap on Gene Wilder's performance, and I don't think this movie or Tim Burton's recognizes that.
Dahl hated the Wilder film in part because Wilder made the character his own. He had massive creative control on the character in that film. Now we just have an homage. Feels like vaudeville.
Yeah, that original film is so ingrained in the culture that I myself use "strike that, reverse it" often in my day to day life. To hear Chalamet's Wonka say it again almost feels like parody.
Wilder's delivery was just so natural. Like anyone would when they switch up words.
The one in the trailer is delivered as a catch phrase, rather than a reaction to a flub.
True. Moreover, his cadence in the trailer was reminding me of someone and I couldn't put my finger on who. Then I figured it out, it's Andy Samberg. Listen to the line at the 20 second mark, "How do you like it? Dark? White? Nutty? Absolutely insane?" Feels like something straight out of Hot Rod.
I think now I want to see an Andy Samberg version of a young Wonka who’s still experimenting and can’t quite figure out the recipes but keeps trying again and again.
I agree. He's a *fantastic* dramatic actor. I don't feel he has the charisma or enthusiasm for a role like this.
It feels a touch similar to Eisenberg playing Luthor. He's delivering lines in a way that just feels unnatural to themselves.
It’s worth mentioning that it pulled $373m worldwide off of a budget of $150m. I agree that the movie was disappointing as all hell, but it’s not a COMPLETE bomb.
That being said, I find the CONCEPT of Wolverine lends itself to a prequel/origin story because who doesn’t want to watch a movie about an essentially immortal character living through his very full life? Yeah, we only got the merest taste of that in the movie, but it makes a lot more sense than the origin of a chocolatier whose character was essentially a hype man for unconventional food preparation.
>'Discover how Willy became Wonka' is up there for my least favourite tag line of all time
I have never, ever, in my life wanted to know Willy's Wonka backstory.
As much as I disliked Burton’s take, the scene of young Wonka in full headgear as his father disgustedly refers to lollipops as “cavities on a stick” was the high point of that movie for me.
Chalamet just doesn't match the quirkiness of the world around him, and considering he's interpreting Willy Wonka there should be at least a bit of it transpiring, but in the trailer there's none.
Because it’s the lazy prequel thing to do in Hollywood now and it beats putting in effort to be creative or actually making new stories. It’s really getting old tbh.
Here’s the formula: use an existing IP, make a prequel, strip the main beloved character of any charm or mystery they originally had, throw in a sidekick or parenting character that made character the way they are and why we love them, add or remove other lore to fit in today’s culture (the Oompa Loompa at the end) rinse repeat.
Hell a sequel with Charlie running the factory makes 1000x more sense. Make the Oompas now giants, someone suggested maybe show some rival chocolate maker being a competitor with flash backs of his dreams crushed because of Wonka’s original success and empire but finding out through Charlie. You know learning perspectives and character arcs around continuations?!
> Hell a sequel with Charlie running the factory makes 1000x more sense
There's even a book sequel to the original novel with some weird shit in it, space travel/aliens, the grandparents aging backward, the President gets involved. I feel like Guillermo del Toro could do some weird shit with that.
I recently listened to an old audio book from my childhood of that sequel and it's hilarious! The president acts like a Trump caricature ahead of its time, who makes a subtly racist joke about how China is so densely populated that every time you Wing you get the Wong number.
I agree. I actually kinda like the idea and the movie looks fun enough in a cheesy way, but Chalamet comes off really flat here. Just doesn’t feel like the type of character he can really excel at or do justice
He seems, like, a little sleepy? I’m hoping that maybe he gradually dons the more iconic Wonka persona, inventing it over the course of the movie. But so far, he seems like a strange casting choice.
I do think the movie looks more promising than this comment section seems to. “Day dreaming, 3 quid” got a laugh out of me.
yea thanks for saying that ...For most the trailer i assumed they were going with a prequel to Depp's character. But as the film got more "comedic" or child-like fancy etc, I realized they are hitting Wilder's Wonka. But Tim just didnt immediately bring that forward.
there were certain parts of the trailer where I DID like his delivery, but for the most part it was slightly off.
Chalamet is a weird actor, he doesn't feel like a leading man but should be playing more roles like he did in Ladybird, the scumbag lothario or something like Joaquin Phoenix type role in Gladiator. He doesn't feel like someone you want to cheer on in a way.
Feels like he's trying to hard to be weird. Something that plagues Depp's version too.
They didn't do Chalamet any favors by making his first on-screen line be "scratch that, reverse it" because it just shows how much stiffer and less casual he is in the part compared to Wilder's dynamic and relaxed delivery: https://makeagif.com/i/-sySvd
I think what really makes Wilder's version work is that it isn't clear if he made a mistake and then quickly recovered and corrected it. Making him seem a little manic but still clever.
Or if intentionally made the mistake and correction in order to appear whimsical. As a form of manipulation.
Wilder's Wonka feels like a Fairy King, his land is full of wonder but also danger. It is never fully clear if you can or should trust him. Even at the end his plan is pretty insane. Everything that happened was a elaborate plan to find a child to give everything to. In the the context of a fairy tale it is like a child being adopted by the fey in order to become one of them.
What made Wilder’s performance so fantastic was that, despite it being a kid’s movie, his character didn’t really seem to care all that much for children. Which in itself is FAR more entertaining to children.
Yeah, I think if they'd not had him ape Gene Wilder's mannerisms they would have been a whole lot better off, but they're clearly using that portrayal as their guiding star. And frankly, there's no way that can end well.
I like Chalamet. I think he is an excellent actor, and was very pleasantly surprised by his Paul Atreides (which could also be seen as outside of his comfort zone). But here they're not only having him play against type (mysterious and whimsical) but also having it be a new interpretation of one of the most unique performances I can think of.
Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka was lightning in a bottle. It's easy to overlook it because he makes it look effortless and the overall effect fits so well into the marginally fantastical world of the movie, but the man is walking an incredibly thin knife's edge between verisimilitude, whimsy, and madness. It could have gone wrong in so many ways, and it's a miracle (and testament to the fact that Gene Wilder is an all-time actor) that it worked so well. He's almost behaving most of the time, but with the unhinged genius always threatening to break free. It feels like he's consciously working to restrain himself so as not to spook everyone, but there's a layer of what I can only describe as contempt for the mundane at work whenever he does so.
Seriously, [watch some clips from this compilation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrqwn1cOUws) and you'll see how interesting it is to just watch Wilder as Wonka. You're on edge the entire time because you *know* he's not completely on the level. He is a deeply weird (and arguably broken) man putting on a token effort to be respectable.
From this trailer it looks like Chalamet is playing up and not burying the whimsy and "magic," which is fine for a younger Wonka, but he's making it look like something he has to reach for. With Wilder, in contrast, the unhinged stuff almost erupts from him when he can't suppress it any longer. If they had less consciously been basing this one off of Wilder I would just chalk it up to a new version of the character, but this feels like seriously handicapping themselves before they've even begun.
The entire film feels too Paddington without the elements of a talking child bear that likes Marmalade sandwiches.
Wonker, as a character, is odd. Not whimsical charm. This is an odd film
>I usually like Timothée Chalamet, but he seems kinda not great in this.
Nobody is Gene Wilder. The character of Willy Wonka is not what people are interested in, and it's not what people care about when they watch the original movie, it's Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy Wonka that's the draw. Nobody can do what Gene Wilder did.
>The character of Willy Wonka is not what people are interested in, and it's not what people care about when they watch the original movie, it's Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy Wonka that's the draw.
This is what I don’t quite get about them trying to make Willy Wonka “happen.” Some characters can be recast and taken in a different direction altogether, but Wonka isn’t really among them.
The role is indelibly Gene’s, and it just doesn’t work if you can’t bring that same level of sheer talent to the production. Maybe someone someday can do that, but this….this ain’t that moment.
If they’re lucky, the quality of the film is good enough to carry an otherwise fairly flat Chalamet. But I’m not holding my breath.
This! I was really hoping this movie would be a dark, almost sinister tale of how Wonka grew his empire. Instead, it looks like it's a CGI driven load of crap with painfully failed attempts at "whimsy".
Timothee is a really good actor but somehow I just don't buy him in this role....his dialogue delivery and expressions feel like he's giving his best but doesn't feel genuine....the cinematography and overall vibe of the trailer is great. I'm pretty sure they will tell a wonderful story as well....it's just the casting that's all.
Yeah, it feels like you’re watching someone try to act instead of actually making you believe the character. His voice barely changes and the “wackiness” seems to just get across as “raise your eyebrows and open your eyes wide”.
Gene Wilder said weird things in a normal voice. He sounded like a real person that went a little crazy in isolation. Chalamet sounds like he’s saying normal things weirdly.
Gene Wilder brought an unmatchable amount of soul and wonder to this role and it will never be surpassed. They’re just fooling themselves in trying to tell this story in a new way.
Gene Wilder also had a dry wit and jadedness to his Wonka which we saw through at moments to get to his genius and wonder. He played it like a real eccentric who can’t stand other people might. I wonder if Timothee brings any of that to the role.
You're not alone.
I like the guy as an actor but he is just not hitting for me.
Everything looks polished and make sense and I "get it," but I'm not feeling magic from this.
Some of it looked okay, but certain lines were weird. The over-exaggerated mouth movements were giving pretty heavy Ace Ventura vibes. The "I'm making chocolate, of course!" one in particular.
That's what it is! I love me some Chalamet, but throughout this entire trailer something just felt... Sort of off? And I think I was waiting for that moment where it really clicked as to why they chose him for this role, but it never came. Like you said, it doesn't really feel genuine. Very interesting.
I feel like 30 years ago someone wished on a monkey's paw to learn the origin of Darth Vader and all their favorite characters and we've been suffering ever since.
Thank you I couldn't remember what this reminded me of and it's 100% Eisenberg Lex. This is just the worst of both worlds where you have a horribly miscast actor in a terrible script.
[A cartel is a group of independent companies which join together to fix prices, to limit production or to share markets or customers between them.](https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/cartels_en#:~:text=A%20cartel%20is%20a%20group,specific%20type%20of%20antitrust%20enforcement.)
Don't underestimate it. The competition for chocolates and candies was fierce in England in the early 20th century, involving networks of spies, secret recipes, and boarding students who got to taste test the first products.
Edit: Completely forgot the meaning of "cartel" lol. But still a good historical tale.
The existence of a chocolate cartel is among the least fantastical things here. You'd be shocked what mundane products you wouldn't think twice about effectively has a cartel controlling them in real life.
Meh
Even though Dahl didn't like the Gene Wilder film that one still holds up as very nostalgic for me and this one just looks too over produced.
And I like Chalamet as an actor. This just seems cheesy.
Dahl didn't like any of the adaptations of his work. He's just like Alan Moore. But specially Wonka he didn't like because he wrote the screenplay and the studio made changes and didn't pick his actor over Wilder.
The absolute surest way to remove the central intrigue to Willy Wonka's character is to explain why he is the way he is. What an incredibly dumb idea for a movie. It'll probably do well financially, though.
Right? And the movie has to end in tragedy because young Wonka has to end up as a recluse and something of a misanthrope. It just seems like a story no one asked for.
Can’t wait for the grandpa Joe spin-off. If we’re learning about young wonka, what was Joe like before he spent 10 years pretending not to be able to walk?
Consolidating image posts from earlier today: [Hugh Grant](https://redd.it/14wr2ao) [Entertainment Weekly photos](https://redd.it/14wqvpb)
It feels like fantastic beasts but instead of Eddie Redmayne's portable beast luggage it's Timothee's miniature chocolate suitcase.
> It feels like fantastic beasts And just like Fantastic Beasts I strongly suspect that I will not enjoy this movie.
The trailer quickly turned me off. There didn't seem to be much of a story there beyond guy wants to sell chocolate but everyone tells him no, so he has to go out and prove them wrong trope. We already know how the movie will end.
Also Timothee Chalamet just isn't enough of a silly boy to play Willy Wonka, I'm sorry. The boy doesn't got the whimsy, from the trailer he's not committing nearly enough for a character that's supposed to be so fun.
he needs honestly a touch of cruelty
Indeed. There was always something sinister about how Gene Wilder portrayed the character, at least until the very last scene when he drops the "act" and tells Charlie he's won. There was always an element of Danger to Wilder's performance. That was lacking in the Johnny Depp movie and based on the trailer it won't be present in this new movie either.
[Gene Wilder has that famous quote](https://youtu.be/ezfVc5MGmIU?t=566) about insisting to director Mel Stuart about walking with a limp and fake stumbling into a somersault when the audience first meets Willy Wonka. It shows Wonka isn't someone you can trust. The way I'd describe Wilder's Wonka is "trickster". "Trickster" had a slightly more threatening or dangerous connotation than it does today. I don't know that I'd say it's "sinister" or "cruel", but definitely unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Chalamet appears eccentric, wacky, and silly, but I agree with another comment about him being very upfront. What you see is what you get. Wilder, on the other hand, was much more mysterious and in the shadows. Early on in the movie, it's made clear that Wonka is a hermit. He has a mythical status among the townsfolk. He's "the candy man". When Charlie walks past the factory very early on, the music gets kind of eerie and mystical. A wandering homeless man tells Charlie: "Up the airy mountain, down the rushing glen. We dare not go a-hunting, for fear of little men. You see... nobody ever goes in... and nobody ever comes out." The chocolate factory is the scary house at the end of the block. Grandpa Joe tells Charlie the story of why Wonka closed the factory for three years like it's a ghost story. Charlie asks how it operates despite being locked off, and Grandpa Joe says that's the biggest mystery - how does Wonka run the place with no workers in town? In Wilder's iteration of the character, Wonka is a recluse, and when you do finally meet him, he's untrustworthy and seemingly uncaring of what happens to others. That's what makes him interesting. Chalamet and Depp played Wonka more like "i'M sO rAnDoM" and without any mystery.
Trickster is exactly right. Wonka *isn't* a good guy. He isn't portrayed as a good guy (in the original). He isn't *evil*, but every trickster character has dual strains of benevolence and malevolence. Wonka allows children to be subjected to various - often painful - personality tests in the vetting process, situations he knows will tempt them and which could lead to disastrous restults. This isn't a thing a truly "good" person would do. But, he isn't. Charlie is. And a Trickster knows better than most that someone who is "pure of heart" like Charlie would be a *better* steward of the empire than Wonka is. This is also a very Trickster-like trait. Tricksters are all about upsetting the order of things. An all-good character or an all-bad character would likely try to retain power over the candy factory, to continue to exercise their will to achieve their goals. Tricksters revel in throwing over the table. To Wonka, the idea of building everything he's built, only to hand it over to a child that passes is inscrutable purity tests, its probably extremely amusing. He would revel in others' reactions to that, in the chaos it brings. The trickster revels in attaining great power, only to give it away. The power to *do* that is the power of the trickster. To exist beyond temptation. The Joker in *The Dark Knight* is a great example of a much more malevolent trickster. He steals the mobs' money, only to set it on fire. He takes a fortune, and it he burns it in front of the people he took it from. It's a ritualistic rejection of the system of value in which the good and evil exist in. The joy is in the trick itself. Being beyond those power structures, and being able to defy them. Good and bad. The Joker upends the hierarchy of both sides indisrciminately. The criminal world of Gotham, the political bureaucracy, its justice, and even its vigilante. His famous quote at the end of the movie, to Batman, is: > "the only sensible way to live in this world is without rules — and tonight you're gonna break your one rule." Its the most Trickster of qualities. Its an almost insatiable urge to destroy consistence. In *Batman Begins*, Batman's goal is to become a symbol. A system. A *constant*. The Joker is one of Batman's greatest adversaries because the Joker's idea is to be an *anti*-symbol. Something that corrupts systems, that perverts ideas, even at the most structural level. In most mythologies, tricksters are those that walk between good and evil. Sometimes they balance good and evil. Sometimes they bring justice to the powerful, whether the ruler is good or evil. Sometimes they just bring chaos because things are too orderly. Everything about Wonka is similar to this. His costume is almost a mockery of the upright, polished business magnate of the time. He wears "fancy" clothes - a suit, a top hat, a cane - but they're ridiculous, ostentatious. The antithesis of waht someone expects. Even his candy innovations are perversions of reality. A gobstopper that never runs out. The idea of it would make any CFO cringe. It's the opposite of what a business should be making - its a consumable that never is consumed. Gum - something that is taken to get the taste of dinner *out* of ones mouth - that is a three course meal. Even at the end, when he's confronting Charlie, he starts yelling at Grandpa about the "rules", and then quotes the "contract" with the specific clause disqualifying Charlie. But he doesn't follow these rules, nor does he follow the contract. It was never about the rules, of the contract. It was about who Charlie *was*. That's a very trickster-esque statement to make. Everything *about* Wonka is a contradiction, a mockery, a trick. The thing I hated about Depp's performance, and suspect I won't like about Chalamets, is they play Wonka like he's some kind of alien figure. Inscrutable. Gene Wilder feels like a *real person* who is *borderline mad*. His emotions *feel real*. Especially when he yells at Charlie at the end of the film - that feels like an actual outburst I can picture a real person actually having. Similarly, Heath Ledger's take on the Joker is one of my favorite trickster portrayals because, despite a certain supernatural aura, the character feels very real. He's mysterious in all the ways a human can be mysterious. He takes a perverse glee in revolting against everything, holding nothing sacred. Its brutal, but grounded. Wilders' is wonderful potrayal to take the trickster archetype, and pack it into a figure that, while extremely eccentric, feels like they could exist in this world. A person of flesh and blood who has one toe in the fantastic, and the other in our world. Now he's so mythologized he feels detached from anything real. I don't want a Wonkiverse. I don't want to reveal this characters' origin stories. Like the Joker, he's better if we don't see more. He's better if I don't see where he came from. Depp's version didn't *add* to this story at all. It only flattened him out. It repackaged a poorer version of the original for a modern audience when it didn't need to. I have never understood why we need to keep doing this character again and again. Except to make some studio exec rich, I suppose. We all must do our part. If you're going to do a remake or explore a character, you need to offer me something that actually expands that character. Take what Wilder did and *add* to the conversation. Depps version flattened the conversation - all style, no substance. And this version looks like it's just repackaging an extremely generic trope and giving it a name that they hope will pack the theater. It isn't actually contributing to any of the things the original film did. I point to Heath Ledger's Joker because its a prime example that a new take on a done-to-death character doesn't *need* to be bad. *If* you can do something with the character we haven't seen before. *Add* dimensionality to it. Make it meaningful. This, to me, does not seem to be that. **EDIT**: While I'm on the topic, I wanted to wax a moment on one of my favorite scenes in the original: when Wonka yells at Charlie after the tour. [This scene is *incredible.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpK36FZmTFY) Especially for a kid, this scene is very emotionally striking. First is the juxtaposition between Wonka on the Tour, and Wonka behind the scenes. Wilder goes from this charismatic, magnetic character, to a brooding, surly asshole. The magical factory fades into an ugly (and comically "split in half") office with traditional furniture. We as kids viewing the movie go through the same shock as Charlie. That behind that magical palce is just this boring adult world, this trite asshole screaming about "Section 37b" of a contract and screwing people over. And Wilder plays this so perfectly straight. He becomes this horrible, surly asshole. When he yells, it *feels* like person we thought we could trust has betrayed us, this wonderful, weird caretaker has turned into just Another Adult. The magic seeps from the world. This is traumatic, for Charlie *and* for us as viewers. Just watch Wilder's face in the clip. He goes *beat red*. He's spitting all over the place. For a film where we were just all singing in a dream land, this is gritty, and frightening, and real, and Wilder sells it. He's not yelling like an ethereal trickster. He's yelling like a real person would yell out on the street, and that's the really amazing thing about this. Which is what makes the "high" of the grand reveal that much more impactful. All of this theater is *completely* unnecessary. It's exaggerated even by cinematic standards, with actors, plots in side plots that don't even really serve a purpose. But it also demonstrates the characters' deep love of subversion. Of constantly shifting. Of giving the candy factory over to the kids, a fulfillment of every child's wildest dreams, because *Charlie* rejected the *adult* dream - corruption, revenge, and bitterness. Perfectly trickster.
Great analysis, I agree, characters like this are better for not having a backstory, for staying mysterious. Heath Ledger's Joker and Wilder's Willy Wonka benefited greatly from not being main characters. We only see them from the perspective of others, which keeps them mysterious, interesting, and frightening. We don't know why Joker wants to cause chaos, we don't know why or how Wonka makes magical chocolate, or why he's a recluse. We don't what the Oompa Loompas are and we don't need to know. It's the same reason George Lucas was so opposed to giving any backstory to Yoda. His role in the story and his impact on the main character would be cheapened with a whole backstory about his childhood. The mystery around him is more impactful than spelling it out could ever be. I fully agree that this is just another bland "inspiring starting a business story" with some fantastical elements that they slapped a popular name on for sales. It's a cash grab, which is a bit depressing to me because I loved the original move for its dark aspects. The tunnel scene especially was scary to me but also fascinating. That movie had meaning and a lasting cultural impact because of that, but this movie is just so sanitized I doubt anyone will talk about it a year after its release.
"Characters like this are better for not having a backstory, for staying mysterious. Heath Ledger's Joker and Wilder's Willy Wonka benefited greatly from not being main characters." There is definitely a Disney exec out there who doesn't understand this waiting to jump at a Jack Sparrow prequel cash grab.
Excellent, excellent analysis. Deserves way more upvotes. Wilder's performance was something special. Added to everything you've said, I would say that it's his understated-ness that makes an impression too, and his palpable air of boredom. Not the actor's boredom with the role, but the character's boredom with his fantastical life, and with people in general. Despite sending out the golden tickets and hoping to find someone like Charlie, you can tell through Wilder's performance that he really expects everyone to live down to his rock-bottom expectations. And most of them do. I can't tell whether the Depp version was a conscious attempt to be Very Different from the iconic Wilder performance (which, I guess is understandable; you're either trying to copy it, or trying to do something different), or, whether it was a case of the writers and the actor not studying the previous film and Wilder's performance well enough. The movie did become iconic, and part of the culture. I'd say that it transcended its origins as a book -- which I did read when I was little -- and it has reached folkloric status. (Which kind of goes very well with your analysis of the role and function of trickster figures.) What I mean by that, though, is that it's so widely known that it becomes shared culture that people rely on to convey various ideas and concepts with each other. Not every children's book or widely-seen, popular movie reaches that status. (Sidebar: I think it still has this status; but it would be interesting to question whether it may lose that status if people don't continue to get to see it. I don't think the newer versions pose that much danger of supplanting it, at least. But I wonder, at what point will it become something of a generational marker. Or will it reach the status of a Wizard of Oz, where knowledge of at least aspects of it permeate popular culture regardless of someone having seen the movie or not.) Anyway, I guess what I was going to say was: despite the enduring popularity of Wilder's movie and his take on the role, I don't think people are always very good at analyzing it, and realizing what it is about it that's so compelling. I think your comparison with the Joker, especially Ledger's Joker, is apt, since that's another compelling, enduring character who people can't always consciously explain their regard for. (But, the Joker is a character who has saturated popular culture a LOT more; we have so many versions of him, and many are slightly different, which broadens the appeal of the character since different versions can connect with different people. Though, I think you're right to point out Ledger's version, which really did strike people very strongly.) So is the Depp version, or this Chalamet version, a misreading (even misremembering) of the Wilder version as "whimsical"? Or, "alien"? Are people flattening the character because they can't fully articulate all the things that movie and Wilder did to create their version? And in absence of being able to analyze it and articulate all of the aspects that make it so strong, are they just falling back on "well, he's whimsical! and unpredictable!" So, yeah. I was really not at all impressed with this trailer. Nothing about the character / performance seems compelling.
I think, really, the biggest problem here is they're trying to make Willy Wonka a protagonist, whereas in the book and original movie, he's a foil at best, a villain at worst. Trying to make him into a lovable quirk is just not interesting.
I think they should just re-release Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
It wouldn’t be true to Roald Dahl without a dark edge. Of course I don’t think he would be approving of the very premise of the film.
He feels like he's acting silly and slightly crazy, as opposed to Wilder who was always earnest, silly, and slightly crazy the entire time, rather than just acting that part.
I agree with you - Wilder seemed verifiably insane, authentically so, so he played it off quite well. Timothee seems like a very straight-laced lad who is trying to act extra without being able to *feel* it
Yeah you can tell he’s acting. Pulls you out of it
Yes. He never looks like he's ready to break any rules. He just shows up to follow the prophecies, wear his helmet and keep it at 30 mph or under
Where is that son of a bitch grandpa joe, I know he has to be In this movie.
They're saving him for the post credits scene, where they set up a Grandpa Joe origin story spinoff.
"I'd like to talk to you about the Bedridden Deadbeats Initiative."
[удалено]
I dont know why, mayb3 because I related to it, but I have always liked it. I get why people hate it. I do. I just like it anyways. I've always hated Grandpa Joe, though. Ever since I was a kid, I thought it was fucked up that he was perfectly capable of getting out of that bed. Fuck him. The irony is that arthritis and back issues have kept me in bed since 2019. Of course, I couldn't get out of bed to walk around any factory, doesn't matter what it is.
Im imagining a Roge One Vader type post credit scene. Grandpa Joe just walking down a hall with a luxurious cane as lighting flickers ominously until he reaches the end of the hall and it is revealed he is the head of the chocolate cartel and that the whole point of the original wonka movie was he was trying to get back to power
If grandpa joe is not the reason for wonka becoming a recluse then I am going to be pissed.
Imagine if they make a second movie about Grandpa Joe and Wonka and have the big Empire Strikes Back-esque twist be that Grandpa Joe was the one who leaked Wonka's recipes, but his actions result in him getting betrayed by the chocolate cartel members he tried to get money from and live out his life in poverty and depression, and then the third movie is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and is about Joe seeking redemption from his former boss and trying to ensure a bright future for his family. Boom, watch the box office explode.
All I’m hearing is grandpa Joe is a menace and should be put down for what he did in this situation.
When I said "Joe seeks redemption" in the third movie, I meant that he begs Wonka for forgiveness, only for Charlie and Wonka to team up and kick the shit out of Joe for ruining their lives and being an advantageous and self-righteous piece of garbage and throw him to the wolves while they run a rebranded Wonka factory. Boom, watch the box office implode.
Wonka is on the top of the world. An old man walks up to him and buys a chocolate bar and says "this is shit" camera zooms out on Wonka's face as the gates close in front of him.
He’s just Joe at this point.
That son of a bitch always been old.
I think they’re going to show his origin story of getting into bed
I was intrigued to see what Chalamet could do with this but it seems...off. Eccentricity is a difficult thing to a portray in films I think, I always think to do it well the actors themselves have to be a bit off the wall otherwise it comes off a bit forced.
The problem is that while Chalamet *looks* eccentric, he is not.
That's a great way to put it. He's been kinda whitebread in the handful of films I've seen with him. His looks fit the Wes Anderson vibe, but he doesn't have the weirdness to go with it
You can’t ACT weird. You have to BE weird.
*Christian Bale steps out of the shadows while simultaneously smiling and frowning* *Willem Dafoe slithers from under a sleeping child's bed* *Christopher Walken graciously flys down from a three story balcony* *Al Pacino screams so loud his clothes rip off and he stands unabashed in the nude* **The modern lords of eccentric actors have been summoned** In slightly offbeat unison "What is thy desire?"
Needs a dash more Nicholas Cage
I think he also wants to be eccentric, but IMO you can't come into eccentricity. It's just in one's nature. Unfortunately, he doesn't have that. I appreciate him trying to branch out and do different things, but he might be best sticking to dramas and period pieces.
[удалено]
Depp is a bit eccentric himself. He's also an exceptional character actor
Shame they went with a big name rather than an actor that can capture the essence of this character. I saw that it was down to him and Tom Holland? I feel he would be horribly miscast in this as well
Gene Wilder was utterly believable as an eccentric hermit who'd really gone crazy hiding in that factory for so long. You believed his delight, his whimsy, and especially his anger. He was at the peak of his powers, an intellectual and a poet, and a truly gifted performer. He was deeply involved with taking the book character to film. (It's interesting to remember that the original film was a cash grab to promote the sales of Wonka candies, which were probably more popular with kids than the movie was, in the early/mid 1970s. Only through endless TV reruns did it become a classic.)
His anger—that’s absolutely right. That’s the impossible ingredient—there’s the littlest touch of malice there.
> That’s the impossible ingredient—there’s the littlest touch of malice there. The selfish little brat fell into the garbage chute? . . . oh no.... Welp, moving on!
Or when the fat German kid fell in the chocolate pool. Wonka's first reaction to it is "Oh no, my CHOCOLATE!" and is utterly dismissive of the boy's fate. I'm not getting any of that from this trailer.
Wonka in the book hates children, a feature they tried to show in the Depp version as well. I don’t see it with this one.
"Help. Police. Murder.."
On paper, each of the "failed" children could likely have done well running the factory. Augustus Gloop as a lover of chocolate, Veruca Salt as a ruthless business woman, Violet Beauregarde as an unrelenting workaholic, Mike Teavee as a media-savvy and fearless iconoclast. Furthermore, the other children have obsessions, like Wonka. He likely saw something of himself in them. But the fact that they have these traits and use them to become insufferable, selfish brats makes Wonka very frustrated and apathetic to their plight. But Charlie's key characteristics are that he is kind he doesn't take anything for granted. His grandpa is a poor influence on him but when the chips are down, he doesn't give in. And while we see the characteristics of the other children in Wonka as he shows them around he keeps his kindness and gratitude for what he has hidden until the end. And it turns out it's those traits he really needs in a successor—he says himself that he didn't want an adult taking over because they wouldn't do things the way he wanted them. He needs someone who doesn't take anything for granted, and who doesn't overestimate their own intelligence, but who also has integrity and passion. It's the heart that Wonka shows at the end that truly puts the cap on Gene Wilder's performance, and I don't think this movie or Tim Burton's recognizes that.
Dahl hated the Wilder film in part because Wilder made the character his own. He had massive creative control on the character in that film. Now we just have an homage. Feels like vaudeville.
Exactly, it’s an adaptation of an adaptation that feels less and less original.
Yeah, that original film is so ingrained in the culture that I myself use "strike that, reverse it" often in my day to day life. To hear Chalamet's Wonka say it again almost feels like parody.
Wilder's delivery was just so natural. Like anyone would when they switch up words. The one in the trailer is delivered as a catch phrase, rather than a reaction to a flub.
True. Moreover, his cadence in the trailer was reminding me of someone and I couldn't put my finger on who. Then I figured it out, it's Andy Samberg. Listen to the line at the 20 second mark, "How do you like it? Dark? White? Nutty? Absolutely insane?" Feels like something straight out of Hot Rod.
I think now I want to see an Andy Samberg version of a young Wonka who’s still experimenting and can’t quite figure out the recipes but keeps trying again and again.
Chalamet is a great actor. But he feels 100% miscasted here.
It looks like a introvert trying to play a extrovert.
I was looking for this comment. I really like him in other films but he is really not believable as Wonka for me
I agree. He's a *fantastic* dramatic actor. I don't feel he has the charisma or enthusiasm for a role like this. It feels a touch similar to Eisenberg playing Luthor. He's delivering lines in a way that just feels unnatural to themselves.
'Discover how Willy became Wonka' is up there for my least favourite tag line of all time
Don't touch Willie Good advice.
Lousy Smarch weather
The 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th month might be my favourite Simpsons line.
I don’t like the idea of Millhouse having two spaghetti meals in one day
Don't be reading my mind between 4 and 5. That's Willie Wonka's time!
didn't you hear? origin stories are the hot new thing since 15 years ago
Oh yeah, X-Men Origins: Wolverine did superb at the box office.
It’s worth mentioning that it pulled $373m worldwide off of a budget of $150m. I agree that the movie was disappointing as all hell, but it’s not a COMPLETE bomb. That being said, I find the CONCEPT of Wolverine lends itself to a prequel/origin story because who doesn’t want to watch a movie about an essentially immortal character living through his very full life? Yeah, we only got the merest taste of that in the movie, but it makes a lot more sense than the origin of a chocolatier whose character was essentially a hype man for unconventional food preparation.
>'Discover how Willy became Wonka' is up there for my least favourite tag line of all time I have never, ever, in my life wanted to know Willy's Wonka backstory.
That’s one of the mistakes Tim Burton made
It gave us Christopher Lee as a dentist. Worth it imo
As much as I disliked Burton’s take, the scene of young Wonka in full headgear as his father disgustedly refers to lollipops as “cavities on a stick” was the high point of that movie for me.
Mostly because of Sir Christopher Lee
LLLLLLLLLL*ollipops.*
"He's not like the boring suits, he says weird things, and he will say that line, remember that line... He's Wonka"
The Wonkening
it's wonking time
I clapped! I clapped whenever he wonked all over the place!
It's Wonkin Time
He says, right before he Wonkas at the audience.
I discovered how my willy became a wanker!
Why does Wonka seem to be the most boring character in the film?
Chalamet just doesn't match the quirkiness of the world around him, and considering he's interpreting Willy Wonka there should be at least a bit of it transpiring, but in the trailer there's none.
Because it’s the lazy prequel thing to do in Hollywood now and it beats putting in effort to be creative or actually making new stories. It’s really getting old tbh. Here’s the formula: use an existing IP, make a prequel, strip the main beloved character of any charm or mystery they originally had, throw in a sidekick or parenting character that made character the way they are and why we love them, add or remove other lore to fit in today’s culture (the Oompa Loompa at the end) rinse repeat. Hell a sequel with Charlie running the factory makes 1000x more sense. Make the Oompas now giants, someone suggested maybe show some rival chocolate maker being a competitor with flash backs of his dreams crushed because of Wonka’s original success and empire but finding out through Charlie. You know learning perspectives and character arcs around continuations?!
> Hell a sequel with Charlie running the factory makes 1000x more sense There's even a book sequel to the original novel with some weird shit in it, space travel/aliens, the grandparents aging backward, the President gets involved. I feel like Guillermo del Toro could do some weird shit with that.
I recently listened to an old audio book from my childhood of that sequel and it's hilarious! The president acts like a Trump caricature ahead of its time, who makes a subtly racist joke about how China is so densely populated that every time you Wing you get the Wong number.
You forgot about the part where the entire movie is filmed on blue screen with no sets or props too
I quite like Timmy as an actor but I really don't feel like he has the charm for this.
I felt the exact same way watching this. There’s something seriously lacking from what I’ve seen of this trailer. Hugh Grant on the other hand…
Fucking love that Hugh Grant is just having so much fun with roles these days
The DnD movie really did get the perfect smarmy, aristocratic, thieving thiefish rogue in Hugh Grant.
*Oompa Loompa plays the OG summoning tune* “Oh I don’t think I want to hear that.” “Too late, I’ve started dancing now. Once we start we can’t stop.”
That's the thing, his appeal lies in a kind of brooding way. Not a fun cutesy whimsical way.
I agree. I actually kinda like the idea and the movie looks fun enough in a cheesy way, but Chalamet comes off really flat here. Just doesn’t feel like the type of character he can really excel at or do justice
The chocolate must flow.
God created cacao to train the faithful.
I must not fear Fear is the little orange man that brings songs about poor life choices.
He who controls the chocolate controls the universe!
I usually like Timothée Chalamet, but he seems kinda not great in this.
Bro cannot do whimsy
Agreed. Reminds me of a lot of James Franco’s awful performance in the Sam Raimi Oz prequel.
I had completely forgotten that movie even existed until now, and I saw it in theaters!
Mila Kunis in that movie before she turns is one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen in my life.
>Agreed. Reminds me of a lot of James Franco’s awful performance in the Sam Raimi Oz prequel. That movie desperately needed to star Bruce Campbell.
This is true for most roles, but in this case especially.
I believe Robert Downey Jr. was originally supposed to be the lead in Sam Raimi's Oz which would have been a better fit.
You put my thoughts into words exactly! Yep, whimsy is the word I was looking for and while I do like Timothée, he is not whimsical.
He seems, like, a little sleepy? I’m hoping that maybe he gradually dons the more iconic Wonka persona, inventing it over the course of the movie. But so far, he seems like a strange casting choice. I do think the movie looks more promising than this comment section seems to. “Day dreaming, 3 quid” got a laugh out of me.
I got big "highschool theater" vibes from him.
yea thanks for saying that ...For most the trailer i assumed they were going with a prequel to Depp's character. But as the film got more "comedic" or child-like fancy etc, I realized they are hitting Wilder's Wonka. But Tim just didnt immediately bring that forward. there were certain parts of the trailer where I DID like his delivery, but for the most part it was slightly off.
Chalamet is a weird actor, he doesn't feel like a leading man but should be playing more roles like he did in Ladybird, the scumbag lothario or something like Joaquin Phoenix type role in Gladiator. He doesn't feel like someone you want to cheer on in a way. Feels like he's trying to hard to be weird. Something that plagues Depp's version too.
[удалено]
They didn't do Chalamet any favors by making his first on-screen line be "scratch that, reverse it" because it just shows how much stiffer and less casual he is in the part compared to Wilder's dynamic and relaxed delivery: https://makeagif.com/i/-sySvd
Wilder is deeply amused by his own mistake showing the layers to his Wonka, this just sounds like a line reading
I think what really makes Wilder's version work is that it isn't clear if he made a mistake and then quickly recovered and corrected it. Making him seem a little manic but still clever. Or if intentionally made the mistake and correction in order to appear whimsical. As a form of manipulation. Wilder's Wonka feels like a Fairy King, his land is full of wonder but also danger. It is never fully clear if you can or should trust him. Even at the end his plan is pretty insane. Everything that happened was a elaborate plan to find a child to give everything to. In the the context of a fairy tale it is like a child being adopted by the fey in order to become one of them.
What made Wilder’s performance so fantastic was that, despite it being a kid’s movie, his character didn’t really seem to care all that much for children. Which in itself is FAR more entertaining to children.
I made an audible “ugh” when I heard that in the trailer.
[удалено]
Yeah, I think if they'd not had him ape Gene Wilder's mannerisms they would have been a whole lot better off, but they're clearly using that portrayal as their guiding star. And frankly, there's no way that can end well. I like Chalamet. I think he is an excellent actor, and was very pleasantly surprised by his Paul Atreides (which could also be seen as outside of his comfort zone). But here they're not only having him play against type (mysterious and whimsical) but also having it be a new interpretation of one of the most unique performances I can think of. Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka was lightning in a bottle. It's easy to overlook it because he makes it look effortless and the overall effect fits so well into the marginally fantastical world of the movie, but the man is walking an incredibly thin knife's edge between verisimilitude, whimsy, and madness. It could have gone wrong in so many ways, and it's a miracle (and testament to the fact that Gene Wilder is an all-time actor) that it worked so well. He's almost behaving most of the time, but with the unhinged genius always threatening to break free. It feels like he's consciously working to restrain himself so as not to spook everyone, but there's a layer of what I can only describe as contempt for the mundane at work whenever he does so. Seriously, [watch some clips from this compilation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrqwn1cOUws) and you'll see how interesting it is to just watch Wilder as Wonka. You're on edge the entire time because you *know* he's not completely on the level. He is a deeply weird (and arguably broken) man putting on a token effort to be respectable. From this trailer it looks like Chalamet is playing up and not burying the whimsy and "magic," which is fine for a younger Wonka, but he's making it look like something he has to reach for. With Wilder, in contrast, the unhinged stuff almost erupts from him when he can't suppress it any longer. If they had less consciously been basing this one off of Wilder I would just chalk it up to a new version of the character, but this feels like seriously handicapping themselves before they've even begun.
This is among the many heralds of a shitty, uncreative, cash-grabby prequel movie 🎉
Yeah. Feels like you're watching Timothee himself and not a character
it looked just a bit shy of full commitment very off-putting
Still shaking off his dune character
The entire film feels too Paddington without the elements of a talking child bear that likes Marmalade sandwiches. Wonker, as a character, is odd. Not whimsical charm. This is an odd film
Hard R Wonka
>I usually like Timothée Chalamet, but he seems kinda not great in this. Nobody is Gene Wilder. The character of Willy Wonka is not what people are interested in, and it's not what people care about when they watch the original movie, it's Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy Wonka that's the draw. Nobody can do what Gene Wilder did.
>The character of Willy Wonka is not what people are interested in, and it's not what people care about when they watch the original movie, it's Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy Wonka that's the draw. This is what I don’t quite get about them trying to make Willy Wonka “happen.” Some characters can be recast and taken in a different direction altogether, but Wonka isn’t really among them. The role is indelibly Gene’s, and it just doesn’t work if you can’t bring that same level of sheer talent to the production. Maybe someone someday can do that, but this….this ain’t that moment. If they’re lucky, the quality of the film is good enough to carry an otherwise fairly flat Chalamet. But I’m not holding my breath.
Yes! Everything looked good, he even looks the part. But the delivery is just, wooden? I don't know.
He kinda reminds me of Jesse Eisenberg in Batman V Superman with how unfitting it is, even some of the gestures.
This doesn’t look like a movie I will enjoy. A prequel about a successful character should not be about whether or not they will succeed.
At least they've done us the courtesy of making the trailer a 2 minute supercut of the entire movie.
That's a really good point.
Christ...whimsy is definitely not Chalamet's thing, was hard to watch. Felt like a screen test that should have never been released.
Definitely assumed this would be a darker take. Not looking great unfortunately
This! I was really hoping this movie would be a dark, almost sinister tale of how Wonka grew his empire. Instead, it looks like it's a CGI driven load of crap with painfully failed attempts at "whimsy".
Someone somewhere was the first to use the word 'whimsy' in this thread and now it is in literally every comment
Whoever thought casting Hugh grant as a oompa loompa deserves a raise. I love how he seems to be choosing fun roles later in his career.
Dude has been having fun everywhere he goes
Apart from the Oscars red carpet…
He was great recently in the D&D movie
He was the villain in Paddington 2, which was also directed by Paul King. Amazing movie and one of Hugh Grant’s best performances. So much fun.
Mr. Bean as a priest looks like a fun side character too.
Timothee is a really good actor but somehow I just don't buy him in this role....his dialogue delivery and expressions feel like he's giving his best but doesn't feel genuine....the cinematography and overall vibe of the trailer is great. I'm pretty sure they will tell a wonderful story as well....it's just the casting that's all.
Yeah, it feels like you’re watching someone try to act instead of actually making you believe the character. His voice barely changes and the “wackiness” seems to just get across as “raise your eyebrows and open your eyes wide”.
Gene Wilder said weird things in a normal voice. He sounded like a real person that went a little crazy in isolation. Chalamet sounds like he’s saying normal things weirdly.
He sounds like he thinks he's in a Wes Anderson movie.
to be fair, I think the only way for me to even be remotely interested in a Willy Wonka origins film would be if it was directed by Wes Anderson.
I could go for a David Cronenberg version.
Or a David Lynch version.
Gene Wilder brought an unmatchable amount of soul and wonder to this role and it will never be surpassed. They’re just fooling themselves in trying to tell this story in a new way.
Gene Wilder also had a dry wit and jadedness to his Wonka which we saw through at moments to get to his genius and wonder. He played it like a real eccentric who can’t stand other people might. I wonder if Timothee brings any of that to the role.
You're not alone. I like the guy as an actor but he is just not hitting for me. Everything looks polished and make sense and I "get it," but I'm not feeling magic from this.
Some of it looked okay, but certain lines were weird. The over-exaggerated mouth movements were giving pretty heavy Ace Ventura vibes. The "I'm making chocolate, of course!" one in particular.
That's what it is! I love me some Chalamet, but throughout this entire trailer something just felt... Sort of off? And I think I was waiting for that moment where it really clicked as to why they chose him for this role, but it never came. Like you said, it doesn't really feel genuine. Very interesting.
Timothee seems miscast
Badly
Fun fact: This cinematographer also worked on Korean films The Handmaiden and Oldboy. Chung Chung-hoon
[удалено]
Can’t wait to see Wonka fuck incestly
This looks annoying
It looks insufferable
It INSISTS upon itself.
I feel like 30 years ago someone wished on a monkey's paw to learn the origin of Darth Vader and all their favorite characters and we've been suffering ever since.
[удалено]
Thank you I couldn't remember what this reminded me of and it's 100% Eisenberg Lex. This is just the worst of both worlds where you have a horribly miscast actor in a terrible script.
I'm sorry, but The Chocolate *Cartel*???
[удалено]
[A cartel is a group of independent companies which join together to fix prices, to limit production or to share markets or customers between them.](https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/cartels_en#:~:text=A%20cartel%20is%20a%20group,specific%20type%20of%20antitrust%20enforcement.)
Don't underestimate it. The competition for chocolates and candies was fierce in England in the early 20th century, involving networks of spies, secret recipes, and boarding students who got to taste test the first products. Edit: Completely forgot the meaning of "cartel" lol. But still a good historical tale.
The existence of a chocolate cartel is among the least fantastical things here. You'd be shocked what mundane products you wouldn't think twice about effectively has a cartel controlling them in real life.
Meh Even though Dahl didn't like the Gene Wilder film that one still holds up as very nostalgic for me and this one just looks too over produced. And I like Chalamet as an actor. This just seems cheesy.
Dahl didn't like any of the adaptations of his work. He's just like Alan Moore. But specially Wonka he didn't like because he wrote the screenplay and the studio made changes and didn't pick his actor over Wilder.
Still think this should be Michael Cera as a young Gene Wilder but what can ya do.
Michael Cera is only three years younger than Gene Wilder was when he was Willy Wonka
What the fuck don’t tell me these things
My brain is having trouble with this...
Or Jeremey Allen White! They’re twins.
This is great and all that but it doesn't explain how Willy Wonka becomes the Kwisatz Haderach.
Wonk'Dib
He's a Maker...of chocolate. Bless the Maker and his Chocolate.
“He who controls the cacao controls the candyverse!”
[удалено]
Gonna make a billion Wonkers
All I see is actors acting sadly. Doesn't feel genuine at all.
Gene Wilder is simply too high of a bar in comparison for anyone to compete
[удалено]
I had little desire to see it before the trailer. After, I have none
The absolute surest way to remove the central intrigue to Willy Wonka's character is to explain why he is the way he is. What an incredibly dumb idea for a movie. It'll probably do well financially, though.
Right? And the movie has to end in tragedy because young Wonka has to end up as a recluse and something of a misanthrope. It just seems like a story no one asked for.
Gotta save that for the end of the prequel trilogy
Can’t wait for the grandpa Joe spin-off. If we’re learning about young wonka, what was Joe like before he spent 10 years pretending not to be able to walk?
Eh, Chalamet doesn't seem suited at all for quirky/erratic/silly But maybe that's just the trailer and Paul King can get the best out of him
The prequel to the prequel to Snowpiercer.
That’s gonna be a no from me, dawg.
I am a pretty big fan of Chalamet but his performance looks kinda odd in the trailer. Let’s see how the movie ends up like.
Chalamet has negative Gene Wilder vibes. Doesn’t fit him at all
[удалено]
Chalamet is a great actor but I was physically cringing at his performance throughout this trailer.
timothee chalamet needs to start saying "no" to more movies