Jump to content

Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Coco2596.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Quaker Valley Middle School is doing this play in sewickley, PA, Next weekend (March's second weekend)!!! 147.72.81.53 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The book was filmed as Willie Wanka and the Chocolate Factory, but Dahl never enjoyed the experience of creating the film and vowed not to allow further film versions of his work." -- The Article

Which source states this? I ask because the film was released in 1971 which would mean that Roald Dahl had made the comment sometime around then, however The BFG was turned into a movie in 1989 1 year before his death.

It's quite possible Roald Dahl changed his mind in the 9 years, but I thought I should bring some attention to it, because obviously he changed his mind later ;) --John Lynch 09:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well it's been over a month and no-one was able to offer any proof so I deleted it. If anyone can offer any proof that he said it (a reference or something) then free to put it back, but until that happens I recommend it be left out as the facts suggest that he didn't say it.
Perhaps this BBC news articleon the film is enough proof of Dahl's hatred of the original 1971 movie. --KindredPhantom (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)v吧v吧[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

Why does Chocolate factory redirect here, and not the R. Kelly album which is ACTUALLY called "Chocolate Factory"? 90.198.66.113 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book revision - Oompa Loompa ethnicity change

[edit]

If the book wasn't revised until 1973, who authorized the screenplay in 1970-71 that portrays the Oompa Loompas as round, colorful fantasy creatures? I think the article seems to contradict itself by not clarifying. Reading the article at face value, I would have assumed the movie adaptation in 1971 was true to the original text of the book since the book wasn't revised until 1973.

I think that an encyclopedia article on this book should definitely mention the fact that it had portions re-written and re-illustrated for the 1973 edition that changed the Oompa Loompas from African pygmies to figures with "rosy white skin" from Loompaland.

Article with before/after illustrations under movie fact #11

Paper written on the Oompa Loompa change for a Childrens Literature class

Twelve letters discussing the book, including one from Roald Dahl

I agree, I actually came to the page from another article looking for just that information!--Fluxaviator 09:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a very brief description of the changes in the 1973 edition in the new book revisions section, feel free to expand on it. Here is the link Eleanor Cameron criticisms in a long essay on children’s literature, along with the response from Roald Dahl.[1]--Fluxaviator 21:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-The Oompa Loompa ethnicity has a lot of relevance to me as a reader. For more than 9 years, me and my family actually owned (and continue to own) a copy of the first edition of the book where the Oompa Loompas are shown as black people. My brother's copy showed them as the fuzzy people they later gained fame as. We got them simultaneously from a second-hand book sale and I was bewildered (I was in third grade) as to the differences in illustration. I just concluded at that tender age that it was a misprint of the illustrations from another book, a pretty stupid one, as I look back on it, but of course, I was young. Later on, with my increased studies in post-colonial writing and race theory, I began to suspect that the difference in illustrations had something to do with a racial controversy that called for a change in the drawings of the Oompa Loompas. It was only a guess to me though, so I couldnt be conclusive as to that theory. Only recently, as I read about the movie and the book on Wikipedia, were my suspicions confirmed. Now as I look back on it, the idea of owning the original controversial copy begins to seem somewhat fascinating, yet very insidious and almost creepy. But my love for the book (one of my favourites as a child) has never diminished. But I probably wont read exactly in the same way anymore, and I'll probably get a chill down my spine the next time I look at my old "beloved" copy. I mean racism, especially in a children's book, isnt a very pleasant idea. -User: Afghan Historian

Racism or foreign aid? I think Dahl was indicating the latter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why is it racist? Because it mentions black pigmies that work in a factory? Why is that racist? They're not slaves or anything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.158.228 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's racist because of the way it portrays the relative roles of different races as masters (all white) and subservients (all black). And Wonka presumably runs the factory and "employs" them (I guess they live and work on-site, 24/7) because it's profitable for him to. He gains from their work. Very generous "aid" indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....and in return they are given housing and food. They can leave if they want, and according to the book and films, even have health care. I would say that's pretty damn generous employment.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that its not slavery...well i hope that was a joke. From what i remember from the movie, they came from a "horrible" place and were "rescued" by wonka so they could work in the factory (probably in exchange for food and shelter) that sounds like something a guy says to justify slavery. It's not like they just admitted that it was wrong back when they did it, they told themselves (and other probably) that they were saving the people by taking them away from a savage land full of canabalism and barbarism. Honestly that's what came to mind when watching the newest C&TCF movie but finding out that they were originally black pygmies in the book just blew my mind. I don't think its racist though, it could have been a very clever satire of how we justify horrible acts for such empty pleasures (candy, in this case) 174.42.206.246 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't judge past popular expression by modern sensibilities. They don't match up. You'll always make a wrong, and shallow or even irrelevant, interpretation. Also, let's keep "correctness" (political, social, etc.) off of Wikipedia, please. 71.35.103.206 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie unspoiled?

[edit]

Each of the children pose as an allegory for the various vices found within the personalities of children in those days. Charlie is clearly outlined as the ideal child, humble, kind, and "unspoiled."

Charlie and Grandpa both drink an experimental drink which makes the pair lighter-than-air and causes them to nearly tangle with (in the movie version) a rather vicious looking ceiling extractor fan. Understandably, this sentence is near here nor there in terms of NPOV as it's simply describing the books views on Charlie, but is Charlie actually unspoiled? MrD 13:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie and Grampa Joe drink the fizzy drink (?) on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I believe that in the book, they just described the effects of the beverage but no one actually had some.--Fito 19:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


If my memory holds, this is only present in the movie, not in the book. EvanED 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanED (talk • contribs)
Yeah, there is just something fundamentally wrong with Charlie from the first film. Every time I see him say "I fooled you, didn't I?", it scares me. He says it like he's about to kill them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonka products?

[edit]

Where is the list of products mentioned as manufactured by Willy Wonka cross-referenced by book and movies? My gods, this is Wikipedia, people, there needs to be a list article for every little thing. —Ashley Y 08:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wonka Products were around way before the 2005 film. This article suggests that Wonka was brought about afterwards. In fact, wasn't the original film made to market this? Wesker256 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Numbers

[edit]

I noticed that RedLightGreen has about 50 different editions of the book listed, most with ISBNs. Should these all be listed in the ISBN section? I added the ISBN for the edition I own. 203.45.114.193 12:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Sins

[edit]

The articles on Augustus Gloop, Violet Beauregarde, etc., attempt to identify the four bad children with the seven deadly sins. I think this is silly. For one thing, there are four of them, not seven. For another, the identification doesn't always work. It's trivial to identify Augustus with gluttony and Veruca with greed, but even the author of these sections of the articles isn't sure what to do with Violet.

I think these sections, which are not factual, but represent the literary opinions of the author, should be removed. -- Dominus 03:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but actually they were there to represent the worst qualities of children at the time. But I do think that they do represent the Seven Deadly Sins. As for Violet, I thought her problem was always chewing gum, but she is also obnoxious.- JustPhil 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR No Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.80.238 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Violet's sin was Pride. She constant brags about her achievements and is dismissive of her competitors. Obviously has a sense of superiority, etc.

ok, so then what was mike tvs sin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.82.10 (talk • contribs)

Sloth - mhocker

Mike - Lust. Very weak connection I know, but would fall under addiction. Violet - Greed. Wants to win everything. Veruca - Envy. Has to have what everyone else has. Augustus - Gluttony. Quite obvious Weaselboy246 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion vote on table of differences

[edit]

Please note, the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is being considered for deletion. Any deletion or merging resulting from that, may effect this article. You may wish to visit the AFD page to have input. --rob 18:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic. When I originally read this article with User:Year_2144/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory intact, it was more informative and entertaining. I've read the book and seen both movies. The table reference to differences between the three may hold no new information, but it inspired me a great deal. I believe that those that have seen the movie (or movies) may be moved to read the book from browsing the differences, and to remove this from the main article is a terrible loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs2750 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD page mentioned resulted in a KEEP decision, but a second AFD resulted in a DELETE decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.226.100 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Page needed?

[edit]

Currently there are 3 pages with the names Charlie and the Chocolate Factory:

1. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) 3. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (video game) - I am working on this one at the moment, but it seems to have a lot of potential...

- and lets not mention Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which a lot of people get confused with... but this wouldn't be on the disambiguation page anyway, would it?

So, what do you think? should there be a disambiguation page for the 3 "charlies" or should it be left as it is? your suggestions please! :) --Rachel Cakes 09:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I would like one disambig page for all four articles (including 1971 film). Call it Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (disambiguation) since there are to many links to existing article, then show a link at the very first line on all four articles:

Some people know there was a 1971 film, but don't realize it had a different name. Often with disambig pages, we list things that are mistakenly known by a name, as means to aid people finding what they're looking for. --rob 10:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I like the title Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (disambiguation). thanks for clearing the willy wonka disambig part, up for me. people do get confused between the book, the 1971 film, the 2005 film and the video game, when searching for it on wikipedia, at least. i am surprised there wasn't already a disambiguation page... --Rachel Cakes 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Play

[edit]

I'm pretty sure there is a CatCF book written as a play -- a stage play. Does anyone know where I can find out more about this? --QQQ (11-17-05)

There is a play, a musical called Willy Wonka Junior. It has mainly the same songs as the film, but some scenes are changed, ie the last one, and all of the kids have a song instead of just Veruca. I know, 'cause I'm doing it, lol. :P 75.49.81.148 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)TheRussianLunchLady[reply]

Working for Cadbury

[edit]

Roald Dahl never 'worked' for Cadbury, he simply took part in market research. The article implies that he worked for Cadbury aged 13, and was amazed by the machinery, when in fact, according to the article cited, he just imagined this, as opposed to experiencing it first hand.

I, on the other hand did, somewhat later than the period the author talks about, in the 1980s, as a dealer in the Group Treasury, initially handling the GBP cashflow before finishing as Chief Dealer. I therefore had a close relationship with the Cadbury brothers, which actually started some years earlier.
The important thing to remember in tbeir dealings with the Rowntree Family is that both were long-established Quakers, from the early days of the movement. They would never in a million years act aggressively: I, though most definitely Christian, was of the more muscular variety, having turned an unsolicited job offer from the SAS down in favour of them. That meant that I was the ideal shield against aggressive Americans in the Cola Wars. When one ended in jail thanks to the speed of my riposte, they backed off and backed down. Don't co fuse the two, please.
One testimony of that period could come from the composer John Rutter, whose fathee freelanced on the research side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.231.225 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the little monsters

[edit]

Thought you guys might care about the Snozzwangers getting deleted mabey. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snozzwangers 131.7.52.17 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were other fictional creatures listed as well. Why was it deleted exactly and where can I go to get the names and References? FourtySixNtwo 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Teevee

[edit]

In light of this "lost chapter" does anyone think perhaps Mike was added in more recently than the original version? He seems quite anachronistic... Back in the 60s there was barely any TV to watch at all, just like one cowboy show and that was all... and while a lot of people tune in obsessively at that one time period every day, that was it. Broadcast was over for the day, if I remember my history correctly. I don't think they even abbreviated it "T.V." at the time. Perhaps I'm wrong and that was more indicative of the 50s? Either way it always struck me as odd that the kids' vices are so unbalanced. Being spoiled and gluttonous are surely several orders of magnitude worse than habitually chewing gum and enjoying Howdy Doody. Of course, in the end, the thing that does them in is all the same thing.. being way too uncareful and blundering into an easily-avoidable death trap. I wonder what Dahl would have to say about the warning labels they put on things these days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seven deadly sins

[edit]

I noticed statements in this article and those on each of the children, linking them to the seven deadly sins. This reads like someone random person's speculation (especially in the use of words like "seems" and "appears"). These observations will need to be sourced reliably, or removed. WP:NOT for rubbishy fan-theory speculation.--Drat (Talk) 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said much the same thing in 2005, but the comments were accidentally deleted. I have restored them above. -- Dominus (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury's = Will Wonka's chocolate factory

[edit]

I'm not surprised Roald Dahl was inspired by the Cadbury's chocolate factory. I worked at their Bournville factory many years ago and when I later read the book I always thought it seemed just like the Cadbury's factory I use to work in where weird and wonderful machines would constantly swirl around in unusual and often seemingly unnecessary ways. Though, I never saw a chocolate river, unfortunatly.

Considering he lived nearby, Cadbury's probably was his inspiration for the book. Also, just like with Willy Wonka in the book, it is also pretty undisputed that Cadbury's make the worlds tastiest chocolate!

Synopsis

[edit]

Have done a small re-structure, entering the sub-title "synopsis". Previously this section flowed on as part of the introduction which wasn't really appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Charlie's Chocolate Boy"

[edit]

As I was looking through my Willy Wonka Junior script, I noticed that there was nothing on Wikipedia about the original drafts of the book. The play isn't that famous, so there isn't an article on it. PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT, it has some backround on the original idea for the novel that isn't anywhere here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.81.148 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 75.32.107.110 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) TheRussianLunchLady[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I modified a sentence that implied the 2005 remake was more faithful to the book than the earlier film. This seemed POV, and had no citation or reference to back it up. If it can be proved there is consensus for the statement, then it should be put back in but as far as I have been able to determine (from film review sites) neither film is considered to be completely faithful to the written work (or appreciably "more" faithful than the other). 64.172.226.100 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the second film is closer to the original. In the original book, Wonka's hair is brown. Also, the book doesn't include anything about fizzy lifting drinks or Slugworth except for a small blip. However, you could counter that with the fact that there isn't anything about Wonka's backround in the first book. It's up to debate, but I personally think that the first one is better, while the second one is closer to the book. 75.32.107.110 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) TheRussianLunchLady[reply]

What's Kongerevyen 1930???

[edit]

Okay, I was on IMDB, and I looked up the character "Willy Wonka" and found there was some film from 1930 called, "Kongerevyen 1930." WHAT IS THIS??? It sayed the characters were the same as in the books and movies, but isn't that impossible because the book was written in 1964? It's some Danish film. WHAT IS THIS??? 75.39.216.100 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)TheRussianLunchLady[reply]

Synopsis part

[edit]

Reckon that it should be in past tense rather than present tense; this is novel... --125.24.91.248 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-racist revision? When?

[edit]

"...regarding the original portrayal of the Oompa-Loompas as black pygmies, although Dahl did revise this later."

What's the citation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.15.140 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added information

[edit]

I had a script to Willy Wonka with some added information about the book, but someone keeps deleting it. Who is doing it? I can verify it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.45.248 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions for additions:

(i) a link to the story of the early drafts of the book: http://www.roalddahlmuseum.org/uploads/Charlie%20and%20the%20Chocolate%20fact.pdf

(ii) the Puffin Post reprint of the "Lost Chapter" (which apparently originally appeared in its pages in 1973, 32 years before the Times published it "for the first time"): http://www.puffinpost.co.uk/ppost/island/images/Dahl.pdf

Bonsaman Bonsaman (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I've run across two - though there are likely more - articles dedicated to the characters (Violet Beauregarde, Veruca Salt). These articles aren't sourced, so there's no indication that they are individually noteworthy. I suggest we condense each of the articles into their key points and merge them with this one. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the redirect but didn't see any of the information in the Violet Beauregarde article merged into this article. Perhaps I missed something? I'm reverting the redirect. The individual character articles have useful information, I think they merit their own pages. Perhaps I'm mistaken, can other editors chime in? 12.231.43.220 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing your revert back. The merge tag has been up for weeks without objection. Basically the article contained zero sourced information, so there's nothing to merge. If you'd like to add information to this article, help yourself, but the other article has no business existing in Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an oversight. Rklawton (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does oversight mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.68.171 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the article in question should have been merged with this one at the same time the other articles were merged. Rklawton (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mr. Bucket?

[edit]

Mr. Bucket, Charlie's father redirects to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but "Mr. Bucket" per the article (not to be confused with Mr. Bucket) is Charlie's grandfather, is he not? In the Synopsis it says, "One evening, the headline of Mr. Bucket's evening paper states that Wonka is holding a worldwide contest...." The only "Mr. Bucket" introduced up to this point is either Grandpa Joe or Grandpa George. Why then is the direct from Charlie's father and not from Charlie's grandfather?—Biosketch (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and "Main Rooms" are so inspired by the films

[edit]

The plot and "Main Rooms" sections are too much inspired by the cinematographical versions instead of the book itself,I think.For example,"Fifteen years prior to the beginning of the story,Willy Wonka opened the largest chocolate factory(...)".This reference isn't in the book,but in the 2005 film."(...)and a TV studio-like room with a giant 'Wonkavision' camera(...)".The name of the camera isn't mentioned in the novel,"Wonkavision" is the name given to it in the 1971 version. "(...)everything in this room[the chocolate room]is edible:the pavements,the bushes,even the grass.There are trees made of taffy that grow jelly apples,bushes that sprout lollipops,mushrooms that spurt whipped cream,pumpkins filled with sugar cubes instead of seeds,jelly bean stalks,and spotty candy cubes".In the book,it's described as having only"green meadows on either side of the valley" and "graceful trees and bushes(...)growing along the riverbanks—weeping willows and alders and tall clumps of rhododendrons with their pink and red and mauve blossoms.In the meadows,(...)thousands of buttercups." Only in the films that there are another sweets,besides these.And so go on,much of both sections are influenced by them,whereas in the article about the novel we should edit using the BOOK as a first reference,NOT the films.Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.208.72 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just made a quick revision regarding squirrels vs golden geese before reading your comment, however I don't have the novel to accurately clean up the entire synopsis. I agree that much of the article is written according to people's memories of the novel (which naturally has been 'enhanced' by the movies, especially the first). If I am able to source the novel (Kindle maybe) I will come back and clean it up. — Nik Rolls (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the different rooms have been placed on the page talking about Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:22, November 6 2012 (UTC)

Noticed a possible small error or oversight, do not know how to resolve.

[edit]

Good day all, i'm a passer-by not accustomed to Wikipedia's rules and regulations. I've possibly noticed a small error or perhaps a bit of clumsy phrasing, but for fear of damaging the article i have refrained from editing the page.

On this page, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, under the paragraph "Differences between the book and the movies", in the "1971 film" section, the sixth noted difference reads "• There is no chain connecting the gates together. Plus the gates are not iron, they are metal."

This statement is in a way incorrect, for iron is a metal. I don't have the orgininal book, nor a copy of the 1971 movie adaptation handy i'm afraid, so i cannot tell if this is a direct quote for instance, or if the movie specifically states they are made from "metal" or "a metal"

If the latter is the case i would suggest something along the lines of "• There is no chain connecting the gates together. The gates are no longer specified to be iron, but rather an undisclosed metal."

Au revoir! 77.166.200.185 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed another error or oversight

[edit]

Under Plot "One day, Charlie sees a fifty-pence coin (dollar bill in the US version) buried in the snow"

Fifty pence coins did not exist in 1964 when this book was published - UK decimal coinage introduced in 1971, before that the UK used LSD aka Pounds Shillings & Pence, my guess is probably a ten shilling note was written by Dahl.

FYI UK coins system called LSD with Lira and denari (Roman currency) and shillings from German currency - 12d = 1s and 240d = £1 (spot the L in the UK pound sign). 10s (10 shillings converted to 50p in 1971 decimalisation programme.

Either way the value on the wiki page must be wrong and need checking and changing Ianmurray5 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books suggests the version brought into "The Puffin twentieth-century collection of stories" uses a half-crown, which was only worth a quarter of the coin in the revised version - a 50p would be a lot to find lying around in the early years of decimalisation. Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer have a copy of the book to hand but my recollection is that Charlie found a two-shilling coin. If nothing else, five bob for a bar of chocolate? Mr Larrington (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Wonka's Chocolate Factory

[edit]

While the factory is indeed notable, this article is unsourced cruft without any rationale for its notability outside the franchise. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK publishing date

[edit]

According to this cited in the article, the UK version wasn't published until 1967, 3 years after the US version (not in the same year as currently written in the article). DHN (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Four play

[edit]

The reference to a Radio Four adaptation is marked citation needed. I know it happened, because I was in it, but for all these years I haven't been able to find any references to it or find a recording. I wish I could give a better citation, but I did not imagine three days in the BBC Manchester Recording Studies!

Jgharston (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Radio Times archive project has caught up with my memory, and is referenced by the article. Hurray! Jgharston (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.251.164 (talk) [reply]

Toothpaste cap screwer

[edit]

Should this article point out that Charlie's father worked as a toothpaste cap screwer? Vorbee (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cringey willy Wonka play

[edit]

So I stumped on a play called Willy Wonka Jr on YouTube AND IT IS VERY HORRIBLE. WHY DID THEY MAKE A SONG ABOUT THE GUM AND THE BLUEBERRY TRANSFORMATION WHY DOES WILLY WONKA SING PURE IMAGINATION TWICE I HATE THAT PLAY ITS HORRIBLE VIOLET IS SO TEXAS I HATE HER ACCENT GIVE HER ANOTHER STEREOTYPE BRITISH FOR EXAMPLE AGUSTUS HAVING A COLD IS USED SO MUCH AND WHY DO THE KIDS SING OOMPA LOOMPA ITS LIKE A CULT I HATE THIS PLAY 2600:4040:7271:5400:315F:C9EF:F376:D5FF (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting Gobstopper

[edit]

In the synopsis, the part of Charlie stealing (and then returning) the everlasting gobstopper - so passing the test, is missed out. This is a shame, as it is an important part of the tale as well as Dahl's usual dark plot twist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.237.223 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What awards did the movie receive

[edit]

Willy wonka Abdullah 2446 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory&oldid=1238776053"