Comments on: Just Say No to Wonka

By: Diga NÃO ao Wonka ! « La pause-café

Diga NÃO ao Wonka ! « La pause-café — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:46:57 +0000

[...] publicado no sítio « Overthinking It », e que faz uma breve análise, que pode ser conferida AQUI, do filme « Willy Wonka e a Fábrica de Chocolates » [...]

By: whenclamsattack

whenclamsattack — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:06:51 +0000

im closing the book on this one. the article has earned itself 1 dig and the honor of truly stirring up some comment-forum controversy.

guest contributor, i think you have made your point clear. the article states exactly what it needs to state, and there is no more or less than what’s here. if someone has a better, more complete analysis i challenge them to post it.

in summation: why overthink? why not. for the hyper-critical reactions to the article and film i quote the following:

ITS ALL THERE BLACK AND WHITE CLEAR AS CHRYSTAL. YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!

I SAID GOOD DAY

By: Links « Stuff

Links « Stuff — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:49:47 +0000

[...] Charlie and the Drug Factory. [...]

By: Windywoo

Windywoo — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:02:44 +0000

Really, who are all these morons coming to a site called overthinkingit.com and telling him he’s reading things into it that aren’t there? Who lacks even the tiniest bit of intelligence and humour to see that the entire point of this site is to produce ridiculous analysis?

By: Kev Dooley

Kev Dooley — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:11:29 +0000

Genius! Next, let’s do one of these on The Wizard of Oz! WTF with the flyin’ monkeys?!? Let’s overthink that!!

By: Nark

Nark — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:37:35 +0000

Just to clarify Augustus/Veruca, lets put it this way. Augustus’ gluttony could have been HORRIBLE and DISGUSTING in the movie, and he could have been just as nasty about it as Veruca, actually all the kids could have been nastier, but they chose to let some of the vices be worse than others, and everyone acts kind of accordingly. Augustus’ gluttony as judged as not so bad, which is insightful and true to life.

By: Nark

Nark — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:25:33 +0000

Gab, yeah maybe you’re right the characters don’t overtly sympathize with Augustus more than Veruca, but I think Charlie does, and like the article says the audience is definitely put in a position to. He was just a fat kid who wanted to eat and was given candy, was it really so wrong? Veruca went that extra mile, and her vice was deemed much more egregious. After all, she might or might not have been incinerated, which is a lot worse than having to be juiced or whatever.

And some of you are taking your hatred a little too far. The writer never said that this was the intention of Dahl or even the writers of the film. He just said the matches are there, and if you think about it it makes sense. Many movies that endure, especially children’s stories, have many correlations to things we intuitively know or see in society, hence why they endure. The pothead, the LSD kid, the coke fiend and the blue collar drinker are all archetypes that are perceived certain ways and are perceived to come to certain ends and theyre all represented here pretty well. It’s interesting.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:52:44 +0000

If you(the author) are implying that Roald Dahl intended Agustus to represent marijuana rather then a gluttonness conscious free candy lover id have to strongly disagree. i think he meant all the characters to re[resent what is already plain to see about each character. There is no way Charlie Bucket represents alcohol, that just doesnt make sense.

By: James

James — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:29:01 +0000

So does that make Willy Wonka the drug pusher looking to hire a protege to take his place, but wants someone who won’t get caught up, himself, into sampling the merchandise?

By: thetasteofreason

thetasteofreason — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:56:39 +0000

Also, as someone who has, shall we say, “experimented” with all the aforementioned substances, I can see the connections being made and find it quite an entertaining thought, to say the least.