Well, here’s our first look at Timothée Chalamet as Willy Wonka
He looks a whole lot like Timothée Chalamet as Willy Wonka
Aux News Willy Wonka
When Timothée Chalamet was first cast as this generation’s Willy Wonka in Paddington director Paul King’s new candy origin movie Wonka, we had a lot of questions. Questions like: “Why?” or “What?” or “Is the Timothée Chalamet Wonka just going to be a sensitive young man with long, dark hair wearing a top hat and a long coat?” Well, Chalamet has posted a photo of himself as Willy Wonka on social media and… yeah, it’s exactly that.
He has a top hat, he has a long coat, he has long Timothée Chalamet hair, he has a sensitive young man Timothée Chalamet face, all of the things we wanted to see! He’s even got a scarf and maybe some kind of fingerless glove, which are two things we didn’t even know we wanted. He does not appear to have any candy, which is concerning, and he also doesn’t seem to be torturing any children or enslaving anyone. Those are the things everybody knows that Willy Wonka loves, so hopefully that little side-eye he’s doing is going in the direction of some candy, spoiled children, or Oompa Loompas.
We don’t know much about Wonka, with this photo being the clearest indication yet that it’s even a real movie that will really come out, but the photo seems to imply an olde-timey vibe that might be more in line with the 1971 Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory movie with Gene Wilder than the more recent Johnny Depp movie. Timothée Chalamet is sort of the new Gene Wilder, right?
We don’t necessarily believe that, but there’s only so much to say about this picture. It seems to be snowing. Snow is fun. Sledding, skiing, snowmen. Sno-caps is a kind of candy. Do Oompa Loompas come from a snowy climate? Maybe this movie will finally reveal that they do.
147 Comments
This some Chuck Dickens lookin stuff.
I mean, it’s a low bar, but he at least looks better than Johnny Depp.
It’s from the 2 1/2 regretful years Charles Dickens wanted to be called “Chaz”
If he were in Philly, he’d be “Yo, my buddy Chal Dickins…”
This movie is gonna live or die depending on how it decides to handle the Oompa Loompas considering Wonka basically enslaved them.To make matters worse, in earlier editions of the book, they were from Africa…
Is there a single person in the Anglophone world that doesn’t know this about the Oompa-Loompas? Also, it’s a half-truth. The first editions of the book had illustrations of the Oompa-Loompas as African pygmies. They are never described as such. And why do people think he ‘enslaved’ them? When Mr. Wonka went to Loompaland and saw the terrible conditions in which the Oompa Loompas were living, he invited them to come and work at his factory to get away from the terrible country they inhabited and the creatures that preyed on them: namely, the Whangdoodles, the Hornswogglers, and the Snozzwangers.
Now if this was a real self-justifying British historian writing about a real people who had been “invited” to work in a factory because of “terrible conditions” at home, we could say: Ha ha invited, and it was the Empire that created the terrible conditions. But Willy Wonka is not a Director of the Honorable East India, he’s not Cecil Rhodes. He runs a fucking sweetie factory, possibly in another dimension. We don’t need to consider the implications of his industrial set up in the context of early 1960s British capitalism. He also doesn’t kill any children. That was Gene Wilder.
Just because the fictional character genuinely did things in a nice way in-universe doesn’t mean it doesn’t soften people up to the idea when looking back on historical cases. No one genuinely thinks that Willy Wonka, who does not exist, literally enslaved the Oompa-Loompas, but it’s still a bad look if it whitewashes the concept of bringing over workers from a much poorer, less able society compared to how that’s actually gone throughout real life.
Is there a single person in the Anglophone world that doesn’t know this about the Oompa-Loompas?First I’ve heard of it. Of course, I just saw the original movie way back in the 70’s or 80’s, and haven’t really paid much attention to it since (aside from seeing articles about new movies, like this & the Depp one.)
I know he doesn’t kill children but the whole thing with the Oompa Loompas does have a heavy colonialist subtext.
No it doesn’t, it has a heavy asylum seeker resettlement and employment program subtext. It’s popular today to assume every non-European culture was Utopian before “The Whites” came and fucked them up, but this is it’s own kind of colonialism (think “the magical natives”, the “noble savage” etc). The Oompa-Loompas were in a shit situation that they wanted to leave (getting eaten by Dahl’s made-up funny words) and Wonka provided them asylum and employment in the UK. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out in 1964. The inspiration for the Oompa-Loompas as a gag is not slavery. It’s worker resettlement programs. It’s legal immigration for economic purposes. They aren’t enslaved by Wonka, they are sponsored by him.Why does he use them? Because they are literally the only people he can trust not to leak his ideas to his competitors. Quentin Blake has a lot to answer for, colouring-in the Oompa-Loompas in brown and making everyone think Willy Wonka is a slaver as a result. (Though the reason people find it so easy to believe is probably because of Dahl’s anti-Semitism and his unapologetic “I used to be an empire builder working for an oil company in Africa!” autobiography…)
This is the most passionate defense of Oompa-Loompas I’ve ever heard of or thought possible. Maybe I’ll stick around this site for another week…maybe they’ll even fix Kinja??
Oompa loompa, doobadee ninja
Don’t wait around for them to unfuck Kinja
Oh yeah? Well explain this passage:A slight clinking behind me made me turn my head. Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking. Another report from the cliff made me think suddenly of that ship of war I had seen firing into a continent. It was the same kind of ominous voice; but these men could by no stretch of imagination be called enemies. They were called criminals, and the outraged law, like the bursting shells, had come to them, an insoluble mystery from the sea. All their meagre breasts panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered, the eyes stared stonily uphill. They passed me within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages.
[Not sure if joking or in the grip of a Martin Sheen style dopesick/DTs seizure… but I do know Heart of Darkness when I see it]…and I would have loved to see Marlon Brando’s take on Willy Wonka: “Chocolate has a face, and you must make a friend of chocolate. Chocolate and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.”(It’s actually amazing how well this works, right?)
Look, are you going to help me write my book report, or not?(Actually, now that you mention it – That’s a Willy Wonka movie I’d be excited to see)
Some more classic Wonka quotes:“You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.” – [at Charlie after perceived betrayal]“We train young men to drop fire on people, but food regulators won’t let me sell chocolate covered cotton because it’s obscene!” – [a Dahl/Conrad/Heller triple whammy reference for you there]And of course:Grandma Georgina: Your mission is to proceed to the Wonka Chocolate Factory with your grandson. Meet Wonka at the gate, follow him and learn what you can along the way. When you are able, infiltrate Wonka’s management team by whatever means available and terminate Wonka’s directorship.Grandpa Joe: Terminate Willy Wonka?!Grandpa George: He’s out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still selling candy to children.EDIT:
Omg I have to add this one: Mr Gloop: My butcher’s shop… Shit… I’m still only in my butcher’s shop… Every time I think I’m gonna wake up back in the factory. When I was home after my first tour it was worse. I’d wake up and there’d be nothing. I hardly said a word to my wife until I said yes to a divorce. When I was here I wanted to be there. When I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the factory. I’m here a week now, waiting for a mission, getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room I get weaker. And every minute Charlie squats in the factory he gets stronger. Each time I look around the walls move in a little tighter…
Willy Wonka, as he dies: The torrone! The torrone!I never knew I needed this crossover.
Alright, let’s try some Danteso, overtaking us—they had come from
behind but were more swift—a crowd of [Loompas],
devout and silent, looked at us in wonder.Each [Loompa] had dark and hollow eyes; their faces
were pale and so emaciated that
their taut skin took its shape from bones beneath.I don’t believe that even [us Buckets]
had been so dried, down to [our] very hide,
by hunger, when [our] fast made [us] fear most.Thinking, I told myself: “I see the people
who lost [Loompaland], when [the wangdoodle] plunged
[its] beak into [Oompa’s] son.” The orbits oftheir eyes seemed like a ring that’s lost its gems;
and he who, in the face of man, would read
OMO would here have recognized the M.Who—if he knew not how—would have believed
that longing born from odor of a tree,
odor of water, could reduce souls so?I was already wondering what had
so famished them (for I had not yet learned
the reason for their leanness and sad scurf)
Jesus Christ that Tim Burton movie was such a fucking downer.
You’d think a multi-millionaire wouldn’t have much to find sad and disturbing in the world, but here we are…
Are we sure this is true about Blake? I’m just looking up his pictures, and if anything Charlie and his family look darker than the Oompa-Loompas:
You’re weird this is weird and yeah dude it has heavy colonialism implications. They don’t get to be asylum seeking refugees granted housing. They work and live in a factory.
They don’t get to be asylum seeking refugees granted housing. They work and live in a factory.That is literally how they are described in the text. Just because some idiot illustrator drew them as black 50 years ago doesn’t make them African slaves for all time.This is all your bias anyway. You’re assuming all foreign factory workers are miserable. You’re assuming all Africans, when out of Africa, are slaves. Neither is true.You’re so beaten down by billionaires and the capitalist owner class that you believe a factory worker is a worthless asshole, but at the same time also an oppressed minority, but at the same time you hate governments that oppose asylum seeker immigration. You basically just want to hate on old stuff. And that’s boring.
“You’re assuming all foreign factory workers are miserable.”You think factory workers who.live there are content and happy? Really? “You’re assuming all Africans, when out of Africa, are slaves.”I have not done that, only you have. You are weird.
You think factory workers who.live there are content and happy? Really?Who live where? What are you trying to say here? You’re just disagreeing with my reading of the Oompa-Loompas without providing an alternative. You’re saying they DON’T get to be don’t get to be asylum seeking refugees granted housing. So what are they?“You’re assuming all Africans, when out of Africa, are slaves.”I have not done that, only you have. You are weird.You’re leaning heavily on “weird” to try to make me feel dismissed but the best way to make me feel dismissed not to reply.Again though, this thread is about me disagreeing with a claim that Willy Wonka enslaved the Oompa-Loompas. I say he did not enslave them. You’ve stuck your oar in to claim they “don’t get to be asylum seeking refugees etc”. This disagrees with my reading, so why wouldn’t I assume you therefore think they are slaves? Do you NOT think they are slaves? In short: what’s your interpretation? Or are you just here to call people weird as if you think that’s some kind of insult? That’s weird.I do find it fascinating that nobody has identified the actual problem with Oompa-Loompas, caused by the 1971 Gene Wilder film.
At least he didn’t draw them with peyot and tzitzits.
You’re running into the Thermian Argument…Short version: You’re trying to get around criticisms of the text with an in-universe explanation that justifies why it happens in the text.While yes, the text says that Wonka was doing them a favor working in their factory. He basically did a White Man’s Burden and put them to work in what is effectively a company town.I understand you love the book, I do too. But you need to acknowledge this was written by a white Englishmen born in the early 20th Century. The fact that he saw no problem with depicting the Ooompa Loompa’s as African’s in illustrations of the book’s early editions kind of infers his biases.
I think Amfo’s saying that the Oompa Loompas were inspired by post-WW2 worker settlement programs as opposed to slavery. See the Windrush Generation as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_African-Caribbean_people#The_.22Windrush_generation.22
I had some dim memory of LaserFace1242 being from the UK or Australia, so I didn’t want to point this out and be accused of patronising them……though that Thermian Argument YouTube video link kind of takes the gloves off.
Yeah like I’m going to watch a patronising video about a thing that’s bullshit anyway. The Thermian Argument is a dumb idea – what’s to stop you claiming the Oompa Loompas are actually Sephardi Jewish Zwangsarbeiters? We know Roald Dahl was broadly anti-Semitic (or at least definitely anti-Zionist and anti-Israel).Let me flip this back on you though. The argument for why they are African is easy to understand – an illustrator named Faith Jaques drew them as a African-presenting in one of the editions of the book. (By the way – my apologies to Quentin Blake, who never drew them as brown-skinned or African-looking. And we need to “acknowledge” that Jaques was slapped on the wrist for those pictures back in the 1970s and you haven’t been able to get an edition with black Oompa-Loompas since.)Okay so that’s why you think they were “from Africa” in “some editions” of the book.What’s your evidence for them being slaves?
lol
So, I see what you’re saying and I don’t 100% disagree as seen in my earlier post, but I think one thing to consider is that you never see an Oompa Loompa outside of the factory, and no one’s ever seen one outside the factory or knows they exist, so it’s hard to imagine why not a single one would be like hey you know I’d like to take a walk one day and meet some people, or that not one was like you know what fuck this I want to go out and find my fortune, so from there you have to wonder what has Wonka done that convinced them to live and die entirely in his factory. Threats? Lies about how terrible the outside world was? Other forms of manipulation? That’s going to start getting into slavery territory…
Who’s driving the trucks, huh? Who’s driving the trucks?!Seriously though, this is taking it too far, isn’t it? You don’t see anything outside the factory except a sweet shop, a street, and Charlie’s house (the newer movie IIRC has shots inside the other kids’ houses as they are being introduced?). Nothing about Wonka’s factory makes sense in a real economy or society. Deciding that the Oompa Loompas must be slaves or indentured workers is just cherry-picking. What about Wonka being a piece of shit because he’s a billionaire? He must be a billionaire,right? What about his oppression of unions? He must have been a fearsome union-buster to be able to fire his entire British workforce, in the 1960s! His lack of safety standards? His dubious hygiene? His trained animal workers? His racist joke about what happens when you call China (in the sequel)? His massive influence over the US administration and space program, despite him being a citizen of (we assume) the UK? And so on… Look, AFAIC, the problem with Oompa Loompas is that the 1971 movie’s decision to use LP to depict them (while technically necessary I guess) has led to 2/3 generations of LP being called “Oompa Loompas” as an insult by people who were bored of using “Munchkin” (another Hollywood gift.)Then Tim Burton goes and doubles-down by using a brown LP to depict ALL of the Oompa Loompas, instead of using the CGI available to him to depict them as tiny humans. We’re probably lucky there isn’t a “Chokalet-wallah” joke in there…
I don’t think it’s taking it too far if this is the question we’re considering. I get that it’s not fun to explore the deep darkness of favorite childhood movies (and that’s not sarcasm, I really do), but since the question is on the table we might as well follow it through.We don’t see much outside the factory, but everyone on the tour expressed surprise when first seeing them, and they ran the gamut of financial status and education level and none of them had ever seen or heard of an Oompa Loompa, and I feel a bit sure that if there were any orange little people with green hair walking around, having regular jobs in the US or Europe (wherever the hell the factory is), it would have made news. So based on that I feel comfortable saying that they all lived and died in the factory.If you want to talk about his status as a billionaire and what that means, or how he would deal with unions, or any of the other things you listed there’s no reason you can’t? Discussing this one issue doesn’t mean you can’t talk about others, nor does it mean that you must talk about them.
No my point is that author’s original intent in this text (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) is to create a magical chocolate factory of pure imaginay-she-un, but continually slap readers upside the head with the grotesque implications of behaving badly while in a world of pure imaginay-she-un. The Oompa Loompas are a sight gag. They are a cool feature. They are a bit of ornate zoofoolzlry (as Dahl might say). Not explaining the geopolitics of their situation or worrying about the implications of visas or who holds their passports in how big of a safe, is a privilege of reading a children’s book. That said, there are plenty of micro-ethnicities who get special immigration status that nobody ever hears about except the town where they settle – because it’s like 50-200 people who are all (broadly) related. As to the way the Oompa Loompas don’t leave the factory… I mean, it’s a massive property with possibly hyperdimensional inner spaces that are larger than the surrounding coal-and-mud-coloured 1960s UK industrial slum. Why would they leave?IIRC in the sequel, Dahl reveals Wonka has essentially recreated all the best parts of Loompaland somewhere deep in the Calabi-Yau manifold that is the factory at large. “Factory” in the context of CATCF and CATGGE is merely a metaphor. Chocolates come out… from another dimension. Anyway, if we ignore that, remember that people don’t leave jobs that pay well and where the boss is generous. The Oompa Loompas have responsibility for almost everything except the confabulation of new tastacular experimentalifications [insert song here]. There’s no evidence they are unhappy with conditions or pay. Again I seem to recall Wonka gives them the feedstock and equipment to grow their very particular food (probably snozzcumbers or something).So what Wonka is actually doing is providing protection, helping maintain a tribal/racial identity, while offering meaningful work. Some people don’t WANT to have to run companies or think up new chocolate flavours. They want to have a comfortable life and a workplace where singing is allowed.
Well, that’s true enough if that’s as deep as you want to go (which is totally fine!), but studying literature isn’t just about studying the author’s intent. That’s a part of it, yes, but you also study what the text itself says, what that conveys despite the author’s intent, what about the author’s worldview might have informed what they wrote and what biases might have crept in despite the intent. If you don’t want to go go there, again that’s totally fine! But why get bent out of shape if other people do? Can you just ignore it and scroll past? And if you grant that children are going to walk away with lessons about what happens if they misbehave, can you accept that they might also walk away with ideas about how short or differently colored people ought to be treated, and can you accept that other people might want to consider the implications of that? And can you at least accept that using physical difference as a “sight gag” might be considered to have its own set of problems that some people might want to discuss? And if you can’t accept that, can’t you let other people discuss it even if it doesn’t interest you?Do any of those micro-ethnicities’ immigration status require them to stay and work on the property of a white man for the entirety of their lives? If not I’m not seeing how this relates. As for why they would want to leave even though the accommodations are lavish, which, we don’t see where they spend their free time, or even know if they have free time. We only see them laboring. Why would a slave want to leave a beautiful plantation (so beautiful that white folks have weddings at them left and right!)? Well, because they don’t live in the beautiful part, and what time they do spend in the beautiful part is providing free labor and being abused. Furthermore, even if they did live in the beautiful part, there’s plenty of literature and media dedicated to exploring the fact that a gilded cage is still a cage.“Anyway, if we ignore that, remember that people don’t leave jobs that pay well and where the boss is generous”Assuming the job pays well (or at all) and the boss is generous, you still don’t have to stay on the property and never leave for your entire life. Most people would not accept employment terms that require never leaving the property for life.But all that said, you could be right. This could be exactly what the OLs want. I’m suspicious, because American slaveowners also claimed to be providing safety and protection and refuge from the savage Africa, but let’s say Willy Wonka is officially the first truly benevolent slaveowner. It’s still worth discussing, because there’s still plenty of evidence to the contrary. You may have a counterarguemnt but the idea isn’t as stupid or ridiculous as you’re trying to make it seem.
As for why they would want to leave even though the accommodations are lavish, which, we don’t see where they spend their free time, or even know if they have free time. We only see them laboring. There are two Wonka books, remember. Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator shows the Oompa Loompas in more detail. There are entire levels which are painstaking recreationg of Loompaland without the predators.If anything the book inculcates in children the idea that bosses have responsibility for the welfare of their workers. Wonka wants something from the Oompa-Loompas (an industrial espionage proof workforce) and to get it he has to provide conditions so amazing they include an entire underground recreation of his workers’ entire country. (Minus the made up predators.)The book also shows that “primitive” societies and cultures are valid and don’t need to sacrifice identity to benefit from Western commerce. The Oompa-Loompas have their own traditions and hierarchies – Wonka doesn’t make them convert to Christianity or live in neat little worker dorms or houses. The Loompaland level is how the OL’s want it.Now, does still Wonka exploit the Oompa Loompas? Yes, because it’s still a bourgeoisie/proletariat capitalist relationship which is inherently exploitative. And can you at least accept that using physical difference as a “sight gag” might be considered to have its own set of problems that some people might want to discuss? I’ve already addressed that re the use of LPs in the two existing films but nobody seems to care because it’s not “Roald Dahl promotes slavery!”And if you can’t accept that, can’t you let other people discuss it even if it doesn’t interest you?Why pivot to an ad hominem suddenly? Isn’t this about Roald Dahl and wether or not he blithely described the Oompa Loompas in terms that an antebellum slaveowner would recognise? How am I limiting anybody discussing it, in any way? This kind of comment makes you come across as worrying you don’t have a very strong argument so you’re just resorting to “I have a right to my opinion…”
“This kind of comment makes you come across as worrying you don’t have a very strong argument so you’re just resorting to ‘I have a right to my opinion…’”Okay, so that’s where we’re going. The part where we claim there are ad hominems that don’t exist that my “argument” is therefore so weak. I’m uninterested in that, but you carry on. You can have the last word, but I’m moving on.
Not his portrayal of Wonka, Gene Wilder himself! What a monster!
“Whangdoodles, the Hornswogglers, and the Snozzwangers.”They sound like…really racist terms my Grandparents might have used.
Yes, it’s foolish to interpretively politicize everything. Wonka is actually very much a truthful moralist hiding underneath his oddness (he keeps his word to Charlie, too, even though he didn’t need to). If he said he invited the Oompa-Loompas to be free of their horrible land, I’ll take his word for it. Besides, the OLs outnumber him a 1,000 to one. If they wanted to leave, they would just leave and the cops would find Wonka tied up in his office in red Twizzlers.
I get how it seems slavery-like, but isn’t it explained that they chose to come and work for him? I mean…yes, I get that there’s a segment of our population that says that about the US’s enslaved people, but I could see how it could work if you don’t think about it too much.
Fourth Doctor: Origins
The only way this movie could be worth anything at all is if Wonka only discovers candy as a third act answer to how he can most efficiently dispense his signature Saw jr. style of poetic justice punishments to the children of the world.
The alternate plot was “Sweet Justice”, many of the victims lose a foot.
Because they become diabetic?
and the Ghost of Wilfred Brimley helps them?
Let’s not forget how he enslaves an entire tribe(?) to work, sing and dance for him. Apparently this is a controversial opinion according to someone here.
I don’t know anything about how he did it; I only know that he did it.
apparently the plot of this one is how they ended up with him?!
Bah
Boo
Are we sure this isn’t him as Fagin in Oliver Twist?
The Artful Hipster.
Fagin the Brooklynite.
“Please, sir: is this gruel gluten-free?”
Nah, this doesn’t seem especially antisemitic.
Wrong Dickens story. 😉
No no he uses children.
Yep that’s Timothee Chamalamadingdong in a funny hat.
Heh heh. You said dong.
Where do we see Timothée Chalamet in 20 years? Will he continue to delight us in every other quirky role or is he the next Johnny Depp?
On the one hand, it could certainly go in that direction role-wise. On the other hand, he seems like dramatically less of an utter shitweasel than depp, so I hope he does better. It wouldn’t shock me if he ends up in a similar space to Pattison or DiCaprio, working with auteurs to make interesting films to the slight bafflement of a general public that mostly remembers him as the buzzy-but-overexposed pretty-boy of the moment. (Though frankly, that’s exactly the career trajectory I’m picturing for Tom Holland, so he probably has dibs on it.)
Holland doesn’t have the good taste.
Unsure about Holland because he’s already been dabbling in heavier stuff like The Devill All the Time and Cherry.I think what helps is that while he’s a pretty boy, he has a face that goes grizzled with relatively little work. I think it’s the chin? In Chaos Rising – which is a shit movie to be fair – he looks like he’s about to wrestle “Stone Cold” Steve Austin into the fucking ground and they achieved that with just cutting his hair short.I’m betting Holland will be playing gangsters and serial killers by the time he’s 35 and puts on some weight.
I just want him to play alongside Tom Hollander, where Holland takes up an apprenticeship at Hollander’s failing London gunmakers and revitalises it with his crazy, Gen Z designs.Call it…Holland & Hollander.
I’m telling you – Bond.
Goddamn that makes so much sense.
Didn’t Johnny Depp last twenty years or so? That’s the lifespan of quirk.
The difference between Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp is that Wilder embodied quirk in so many different roles, whereas Depp has made a career out of playing the same. damn. role. every. single. time. He’s Jack Sparrow in every role he plays.
Having an issue and being critical of Depp always putting a quirky spin on his characters makes sense. Thinking he’s playing Jack Sparrow in every one of those roles is just plain idiotic.
In complete fairness, he’s only Jack Sparrow in every role from about 2003 onwards. He has a bit more range in his roles before then.Well… he’s kind of a fragile rebellious pretty-boy in a lot of them, granted, but it’s still a bit different.
You mean he’s drunk?
I don’t think his Willy Wonka was Jack Sparrow. His Wonka was small in voice and movement and general affect. Jack Sparrow was huge in all the ways.
No, not quirk. I’m into string theory Johnny Depp.
Playing Batman in yet another series reboot, because we need to see his parents get shot in the alley again, plus Asa Butterfield can win an Oscar for playing the Joker role.
Mate, just look at him. He’s gonna be dead of typhus or the croup or consumption or ague in fifteen.
He’s already the next Johnny Depp.
Who cares, just show us how all the Oompa Loompas got to the factory and where they came from.
I once saw an Oompa Loompa in a cage…and it wasn’t moving. Scared the hell out of me! True story.
I saw an Oompa Loompa drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic’s
did you happen to get the number of his tailor?
So, is this gonna be some Wonka vs Slugworth thing, or……?
Is this based on the Black List script where Wonka was a WW1 soldier?
That’s just how little Timmy dresses, though.
Spirit, say the child will be spared…from such unfortunate sartorial decisions?
Am I soon going to despise Chalamet as I grew to despise Depp?
I always find it odd when new creators take a character like Wonka, set them in a different time period, and then put them in almost the same clothes, like a guy like Willy Wonka only has one style. I mean, imagine the sort of variety you’d actually find in Wonka’s wardrobe. But nah, purple coat, brown hat, brownish floofy neck accessory, done.
It’s his trademark uniform. Like Colonel Sanders’ white suit which was also many decades if not a century out of date. Do you want to see the 2021 Colonel Sanders in a track suit and backwards Skoal cap? The answer is— surprisingly— yes. Yes I do.
what are the chances of rastafying Col. Sanders by oh say 10%?
You rang?
KFC Spain is doing it right
I mean, if this is a prequel to Wilder’s Wonka it sort of works. If Wilder had worn a wide-lapeled brown polyester leisure suit and super-wide tie to meet the kids in 1971, it would make sense for Chalamet’s Wonka to wear something just as typically circa-1950 but…that’s not the direction he went.
Just thinking it was a bit on the nose. Did he dress like this before he owned a chocolate factory?
When you’re dressed like that you pretty much don’t have a choice but to go into the confectionery business.
Maybe he’s not actually in character. Maybe it’s a behind the scenes shot.
Make it a cyberpunk pvc clad Willy Wonka you cowards.
And his oopma-loompas are the unaugemented underclass! Without implants you’re nobody in the cyberpunk future!
It’s worked for Captain Crunch all these years
Plus, we only see Willy Wonka on a single day when he’s making a public apperance.
I’d always assumed these were the practical clothes any chocolatier would wear to work. I’ve always expected that if I ever got to meet Jacques Torres, he’d be dressed like that. Are you suggesting this isn’t so?
I guess they didn’t want to use him for James and the Giant Peach….Cause he gon fuck dat peach.
Jason Biggs told him vag smells tastes feels like warm peach pie.
Did anyone ask for this? Or the Depp remake?
gross
Did not know about this. “Will Wonka” was never a good story. Please stop re-making it. The first one only marginally worked because of Gene Wilder. Johhny Depp’s imitation of a pervy Anna Wintour lent the flick the excitement and engagement of a deflated beach ball.
I’d watch the beach ball sequence in Dark Star numerous times in a row before I’d agree to watch the Depp Wonka once. Of course, that wasn’t deflated and it had little feet.
Wow. [Just watched] That was riveting, but not nearly as good as that very rare trope you just used. Kudos.
I don’t even know what trope I used!
I don’t even own a trope!
Trope ‘er? I barely know ‘er!
F-me. I cant think of the name either, but Vonnegut was masterful with it.
In England it’s spelt Wanker
“Timothée Chalamet is sort of the new Gene Wilder, right?”I’m assuming that was in jest, but even in jest how fucking dare you.
Chalamet has a beautiful, soulful face, but in this picture he looks like Jack the fucking Ripper.
Chalamet has a beautiful, soulful punchable face,
I think this entire project is a pointless waste of time, but I got to give it to Chalamet; dude can rock a top-hat, cravat and frock-coat combination.
That’s the Victorian-era-starving-kid look he’s got that’s pulling in the weight.
“Hm. You wouldn’t think that a huge candy factory would be run by a 16 year old boy…….”
Hard pass on this.
yep, just as creepy as promised.
If he tones down Johnny Depp’s “possible pedophilia” vibe, I’m in favor.
You’ll never beat Wilder’s Wonka, so stop trying.
Oh, it’s Timothy Chalam- zzzzzzzzzzzNo, I don’t want to seem mean, but he is one of the least interesting actors around. He is a Xerox of himself from film to film. I’m genuinely hoping DUNE will change my opinion.
I have absolutely no reason to think this and no information to back it up, but something about Chalamet’s dead eyes just make me instinctively hate him and assume that he is a horrific monster.
The man has skeletons in his closet and I pray upon his downfall!
How does the age dynamic work here? Timmy Chamboree looks like 15 year old, so are Charlie and all the kids going to be toddlers?
It’s a prequel
It’s a prequel story about all his pre-factory adventures. He just dresses the same because he’s a comic book character or something.
Is Willy Wonka like the Tommy Wiseau of candy?
Twink makes Twinkies
Sweet. Now, get with the kid murdering already.
The one thing he doesn’t have is a sense of humor. Chamalet is far better suited for a My Left Foot prequel than this.
To everyone doubting this, I would like to remind you all that this is from the director of the Paddington movies.We’re in good hands.
Better Willy Wonka Casting Choices:
Aidy Bryant (Willamena Wonka! Come on have an imagination.)
Fortune Feimster
Kristen Schaal
Tig Notaro
Michaela Coel
Ali Wong
Melissa McCarthy (Sure, sure her husband could be an oompa loompa)
Jerry Seinfeld
Tracy Morgan
Ronny Cheng
Ken Jeong
Katt Willams
Richard Ayaode (Bring the story back to the UK!)
Christ, it’s like Dickens!Gonzo is stalking me through this comment thread, Ringu-style. He gets bigger and closer every time I see him.
GAAAH!|
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
What? Why?
You gotta love that they took the “expanded origin story” part of Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that everyone hated and said, “Hey, let’s make a whole movie outta that.”