Score for this episode of Voyager is 8 out of 10. Janeway's portrayal of a chocolatier really leans into her sadistic side, and Harry being characterised as a small child in desperate need of promotion to factory owner is very on-brand.
My favorite line from the film is "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men". It reminds me of something The Fourth Doctor said. "There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish every once in a while"
I will say that the whole "Joke with sometimes serious" and "serious with sometimes jokes" comparison is... a little unfair. I've watched you off and on since at least the oughts if memory serves and honestly... the contrast of acting like a clown, and the serious bits, make the poignant moments moment hit all the harder and the jokes all the more gutbusting. Keep it up man.
This is the version of Willy Wonka I grew up on and personally no other version but the original book even comes close to Wilder's performance. Depp gave it his damnedest, I'll give him that, but Wilder *lives* the role in a way that I don't think will ever be matched. This movie has a very special place in my heart 🥰
Yeah I too am often baffled by how many people assume that the kids straight up die. Like you said, them being retired to normal is even in the book m. And Dahl wrote some dark stuff like a kid getting turned into a mouse forever, so if he wanted he totaled could have given darker fates to the spoiled children.
Don't forget the prologue to The Witches, when Grandmama recounts other victims of various witches. A boy who was turned into a dolphin, a girl turned into a chicken and her family keeps her around and gathers her eggs to eat, a boy petrified into a stone statue and his family can only use him as a doorstop/cane rack. And the creepiest idea in the book and 1990 film adaptation is the girl stuck in the painting in her father's gallery, changing position when no one notices and aging -- living her entire lifetime in the painting until one day she disappears, leaving the reader/viewer to dread on that implication.
One problem with the test: "Never" is an awful long time to monitor someone to be sure they never sell you out. Supposing Charlie did not act up, and he kept it forever. How long does he have to refrain from selling it before WOnka is convinced the boy will not sell him out? Same with Violet and Augustus if they got them, and behaved? We know Veruca and Mike would have sold them away at once and lost immediately. It isn't really that much different from winning by default, by not getting thrown out for misbehaving.
You say Wonka's not a sociopath because, hey, Grandpa Joe is unconcerned about Veruca and Papa Veruca, too. Which makes me wonder if Chuck has somehow missed the "Grandpa Joe Was The Real Villain" meme.
It helps this film's final message that Wonka is...for lack of a better term, warm. He isn't completely oblivious to the goings on around him, and seems to have genuinely WANTED to give this factory tour to someone, not to show off his genius, he barely cares about that, but to share the dreams and imagination that went into it. The original book outright says he seems resentful of having to be around people, something it admits is not his strong suit, and the Burton version has a man who barely seems to acknowledge the things going on around him, causing him to come across as cold and harsh. Heck, in both the book and the Burton film the oompha loompas do most of the narrative lifting in both those versions, with Wonka serving more as an observer, like he's watching events play out from on high, rather than excitedly interacting with everyone around him to show this cool stuff off. It's a shame the author, who was notorious for being...not being anti-fun but more not being pro-joy didn't see it that way, and just kind of washed his hands of this and other adaptations. Mind, having read the sequel back in the day, which has 3 running plots, including one about aliens, maybe that's for the best.
A difference between Charlie and the other kids is when they break the rules, their parental figure tells them no ineffectually. In Charlie's case, his Grandpa is egging him on and doing it himself. Charlie is being obedient to his parental figure.
Gene's "Stop, Don't" always struck me as funny. As a kid, funny weird; as an adult, funny hilariously deadpan. On another note, I'm curious what Roald Dahl had against gum? I'm genuinely curious. Did chewing gum unalived his parents? Steal his prom date? Whatever the reason, it seems deeply personal
I don't think it is right to say that any child is a "lost cause". With 90% of their life before them, and their brains not even fully developed, any child can be reforged.
Maybe "beyond Wonka's powers to help", since the children are too young to separate from the parents who are directly causing their problems. Whereas Charlie proved himself capable of standing up to Grampa Joe and defying his attempts to make him (again) do the selfish thing.
I would argue that Augustus and Veruca aren’t ‘lost causes’ when compared to the other two children. Both of their behavioural problems stem from their parents, and they are traits than can improve as you get older. Augustus can learn to be less gluttonous, and Veruca can learn to be less demanding and selfish. Violet and Mike could also un-learn their traits, but would struggle more as bad manners and addiction to TV are harder things to shake off.
"The Candyman Can" was one of the only two songs that could get my brother and I to sleep when we were little. I think its a Pavlovian response that still makes me droopy to this day
Charlie makes his mistake because he's talked into it by Grampa Joe... And the same man tries to make him leave and take 'Slugworths' offer. Charlie proves himself the better man than his lazy scrounging elder.
There's a fan theory/joke that Wonka's office is the way it is because he was divorced, so his ex-wife took half of everything. Also, it's interesting to note that it's Grandpa Joe, not Charlie, that initiates the drinking of the fizzy lifting drink. Hating grandpa Joe is a bit of a meme.
I also liked the decision to make Charlie also make a mistake and eventually own up to it. It makes him a much more relatable and sympathetic protagonist, as opposed to the original book and Burton film.
"Elevator" was not the first thing that popped into my head when I heard "Wankabator" (Yes, that's how I heard it) To my defence, we've already established that "middle-aged white man on some kind of watchlist" is a theme in this movie.
A relatively recent take on Harry Potter is that... Cousin Killer Whale is *also* an abused kid. Malnourished (too much fatty food, hence why he's morbidly obese before reaching puberty), poorly socialized (he's a bully and a liar), self-entitled (gets upset when he doesn't receive more birthday presents than candles on his cake or thereabouts), and generally a terrible person. Sure, he grows out of it eventually, but that doesn't mean that his childhood was ideal. It's interesting how the Willy Wonka kids show signs of these same flaws... And that, when Charlie makes his mistake, it's *also* because of an adult steering him wrong.
Yeah, it definitely has the mid-twentieth century Boomber vibe of criticising the "kids these days" while letting the adults who were raising them completely off the hook.
The generous reading might be: rather than it being a story about children suddenly subjected to moral examination by a ruthless and pitiless god-character (as though that's a fair or reasonable thing to do to children), it could instead be read as a thesis that children do in fact have moral character independent of their parents' or guardians' control. Charlie's "passing of the test" wasn't meant to separate him from the other children as "more moral" but was rather a proof that children as a whole *can* be better than their parents. I admit it's a bit of a stretch, since Wonka appears to take some delight in the suffering he causes, and I doubt Roald Dahl was putting that much thought into the overall moral of the story.
Is that take really relatively recent? I mean Rowling may have unfortunate other views on twitter, but when she was first writing her books she was very clear about how much Harry's cousin is a product of his utterly wretched parents who as far as she is concerned are everything wrong with the upper middle class in the UK. This isn't subtext, this is just plain text right there on the page.
@@stryke-jn3kv That Dudley was the result of abysmally poor parenting was never in doubt, the relatively recent interpretation is that it was so poor that it qualifies as abuse. It left Dudley with poor health, poor education, and a worse life overall.
@@o0alessandro0o I'm pretty sure that in one of the later books Dumbledore calls out the Dursleys for abusing Harry and points out that they also abused their son.
Heh. That bridge Bill Murray is on in the Stripes clip played is just a few blocks from my work. I may or may not quote that scene every time i drive over it.
Thoroughly enjoyed this review Chuck! It's always interesting to see you cover things that seem outside the wheelhouse but you did a great job with this one. Funny, nice insights, great background video on the making of the film, and you actually made chocolate for it! It took me a few mins to figure that out, and I'm impressed. A good way to start my Monday, thanks for the review!
Theory: Wonkavision may have been intended as something of a premium service at a higher cost. You pay an extra fee for the convenience of getting instant chocolate & thus this covers the added expense of making larger bars.
Could also be a matter of scale. If a tiny chocolate bar is coming out of a million screens, you've likely made the investment back and then come. You've also made the laws of physics your bitch but that's already a factor here.
In the book, he says the idea is promotion. They'll broadcast the bar to everyone (how more than one person at a time, who knows) during a commercial, so they can taste for themselves and have proof that it's good. There are still other problems with that, but it has that kid-logic the rest of Wonka's schemes do. Along with the scientific explanation that since a TV image "is broken into pieces and reassembled" that an object could be too, which is indeed the idea of a replicator. broadcasting matter patterns instead of just EM signals.
It is true that we are who we are based on our parents. If a rich parent spoils their children rotten and lacks the ability to say No" to them, they'll think that's life is, that that child will go around thinking they deserve everything coming to them. As for Varok's fate, well, that'll be fine!
I always liked the idea that Wonka wanted/knew the kids would be “bumped off” one by one, not that it’s be hard to figure out each ones Achilles heel, as the boat and the car only have enough seats for the remaining guests. If some hadn’t been tempted and had to be taken away, they wouldn’t have all fit in the vehicles.
I could totally see Wonka building multiples of each vehicle to account for every possible party size. There are extra radiation suits before the TV room. I think Wonka's intentions was more testing the kids to see if they could rise above their faults. Only Charlie did in the end.
14:30 might explain why many of Disney’s movies have been rather hollow, but efforts like The Santa Clauses (mini series) are intelligently written and genuinely compelling (even to me who could care less about the first movie). They are both Disney, but the people behind them are different.
I once had the idea that each of the golden ticket winners were in some way representative of a biblical sin. Augustus was Gluttony, Veruka was Greed, Violet was Pride, and Mike was Sloth, which left Charlie with Envy. There's no Lust or Wrath, mainly because those sins more likened to being present in adults more than anyone below the age of puberty. One could easily argue that Mike's dad and Violet's mother each incorporate those two sins in the Tim Burton one (Violet's mother is hot for Wonka and Mike's dad is butthurt after his dismissal that Lumpaland doesn't exist is met with an equal dismissal of his logic).
The seven deadly sins aren’t biblical, that was something Dante came up with for the Inferno section of the Divine Comedy. There’s a biblical basis for all of them, but the popular idea of them is not reflective of the Bible itself.
Later adaptations try to rework this theory like making Violet's gum chewing more representative of pride/vanity and incorporating wrath along with sloth into Mike Teavee. In the 2005 film, Violet is clearly molded by her stage mom (a parenting style itself driven by vanity) to be an overachiever and value success and competition above all else (tying her gum chewing to beat a world record). In the broadway show, Violet is the icon of a media and commercial empire thanks to her capitalistic and talent agent father turning her "talent" of gum chewing into something marketable (a satire on talentless celebrities somehow still getting gigs and fashion and cosmetic lines). With Mike in the 2005 film, they made him smarter to comment on how current media allows kids to consume so much information all at once but his problem being that it left him so jaded and unimaginative that he cannot appreciate the wonders of the factory (and he also has a short fuse). In the broadway show, Mike is such a terror that the only way his parents can ensure he doesn't get into trouble is by putting him in front of the TV to babysit him, and his mother actually comes to think him getting shrunk is an IMPROVEMENT (it certainly prevents him from breaking into military bases and stealing tanks).
That just made me think of a Willy Wonka parody in Haley's On It, where it turns out the not-Pringles factory is actually run by dogs. "Weird Al" plays not-Wonka.
i feel like i have to add to the post bad egg bit about rhoal "literally a nazi" dahl's attitudes and as someone who was deeply traumatised as a kid by george's marvellous medicine "asshole child poisons his grandmother for not spoiling him" and a short story about alligators eating children who don't sleep fast enough MARKETED AS A BEDTIME STORY...his general attitude is just "anyone who in any way annoys me deserves death"... on behalf of the collection of kingdoms lumped under 'wales', i apologise for rhoal dahl, do not give his books to your kids...
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Score for this episode of Voyager is 8 out of 10. Janeway's portrayal of a chocolatier really leans into her sadistic side, and Harry being characterised as a small child in desperate need of promotion to factory owner is very on-brand.
Annoying Neelix moment is when he used the transporter to duplicate himself to create his personal ensamble dance number.
This the best & the most underrated comment in this section.
@@jamst5913 brilliant! 😂
It's too bad that the magic reset button will undo all this progress & we'll be back to this same plot next week.
🎶Ooompa loompa doompity dix
I’ve god some bad news for you Tuvix🎶
My favorite line from the film is "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men". It reminds me of something The Fourth Doctor said. "There's no point in growing up if you can't be childish every once in a while"
I will say that the whole "Joke with sometimes serious" and "serious with sometimes jokes" comparison is... a little unfair. I've watched you off and on since at least the oughts if memory serves and honestly... the contrast of acting like a clown, and the serious bits, make the poignant moments moment hit all the harder and the jokes all the more gutbusting. Keep it up man.
This is the version of Willy Wonka I grew up on and personally no other version but the original book even comes close to Wilder's performance. Depp gave it his damnedest, I'll give him that, but Wilder *lives* the role in a way that I don't think will ever be matched. This movie has a very special place in my heart 🥰
And Chalomet was...something. Probably a mix of Wilder and Depp.
Yeah I too am often baffled by how many people assume that the kids straight up die. Like you said, them being retired to normal is even in the book m. And Dahl wrote some dark stuff like a kid getting turned into a mouse forever, so if he wanted he totaled could have given darker fates to the spoiled children.
Don't forget the prologue to The Witches, when Grandmama recounts other victims of various witches. A boy who was turned into a dolphin, a girl turned into a chicken and her family keeps her around and gathers her eggs to eat, a boy petrified into a stone statue and his family can only use him as a doorstop/cane rack. And the creepiest idea in the book and 1990 film adaptation is the girl stuck in the painting in her father's gallery, changing position when no one notices and aging -- living her entire lifetime in the painting until one day she disappears, leaving the reader/viewer to dread on that implication.
One problem with the test: "Never" is an awful long time to monitor someone to be sure they never sell you out.
Supposing Charlie did not act up, and he kept it forever. How long does he have to refrain from selling it before WOnka is convinced the boy will not sell him out?
Same with Violet and Augustus if they got them, and behaved?
We know Veruca and Mike would have sold them away at once and lost immediately.
It isn't really that much different from winning by default, by not getting thrown out for misbehaving.
You say Wonka's not a sociopath because, hey, Grandpa Joe is unconcerned about Veruca and Papa Veruca, too. Which makes me wonder if Chuck has somehow missed the "Grandpa Joe Was The Real Villain" meme.
It helps this film's final message that Wonka is...for lack of a better term, warm. He isn't completely oblivious to the goings on around him, and seems to have genuinely WANTED to give this factory tour to someone, not to show off his genius, he barely cares about that, but to share the dreams and imagination that went into it.
The original book outright says he seems resentful of having to be around people, something it admits is not his strong suit, and the Burton version has a man who barely seems to acknowledge the things going on around him, causing him to come across as cold and harsh.
Heck, in both the book and the Burton film the oompha loompas do most of the narrative lifting in both those versions, with Wonka serving more as an observer, like he's watching events play out from on high, rather than excitedly interacting with everyone around him to show this cool stuff off.
It's a shame the author, who was notorious for being...not being anti-fun but more not being pro-joy didn't see it that way, and just kind of washed his hands of this and other adaptations. Mind, having read the sequel back in the day, which has 3 running plots, including one about aliens, maybe that's for the best.
A difference between Charlie and the other kids is when they break the rules, their parental figure tells them no ineffectually. In Charlie's case, his Grandpa is egging him on and doing it himself. Charlie is being obedient to his parental figure.
Gene's "Stop, Don't" always struck me as funny. As a kid, funny weird; as an adult, funny hilariously deadpan.
On another note, I'm curious what Roald Dahl had against gum? I'm genuinely curious. Did chewing gum unalived his parents? Steal his prom date? Whatever the reason, it seems deeply personal
I always got the impression that it was one of his particular flavors of 'kids these days.'
I love the theory that Willy Wonka is the Doctor on his last regeneration.
Why is there nothing to hold onto in the room with the drink that makes you fly? Hell, why is there a giant death fan?
Because it's a not-very-secret test of character, just like the rest of the tour?
I don't think it is right to say that any child is a "lost cause". With 90% of their life before them, and their brains not even fully developed, any child can be reforged.
Maybe "beyond Wonka's powers to help", since the children are too young to separate from the parents who are directly causing their problems. Whereas Charlie proved himself capable of standing up to Grampa Joe and defying his attempts to make him (again) do the selfish thing.
I would argue that Augustus and Veruca aren’t ‘lost causes’ when compared to the other two children. Both of their behavioural problems stem from their parents, and they are traits than can improve as you get older. Augustus can learn to be less gluttonous, and Veruca can learn to be less demanding and selfish. Violet and Mike could also un-learn their traits, but would struggle more as bad manners and addiction to TV are harder things to shake off.
"The Candyman Can" was one of the only two songs that could get my brother and I to sleep when we were little.
I think its a Pavlovian response that still makes me droopy to this day
Pavlov? That name rings a bell...
@@jamst5913 I can't remember why and it's dogging me...
Just from the tone of the song it's practically a lullaby. Combined with the subject matter being children and candy and it just makes sense.
Charlie makes his mistake because he's talked into it by Grampa Joe... And the same man tries to make him leave and take 'Slugworths' offer. Charlie proves himself the better man than his lazy scrounging elder.
There's a fan theory/joke that Wonka's office is the way it is because he was divorced, so his ex-wife took half of everything.
Also, it's interesting to note that it's Grandpa Joe, not Charlie, that initiates the drinking of the fizzy lifting drink. Hating grandpa Joe is a bit of a meme.
I also liked the decision to make Charlie also make a mistake and eventually own up to it. It makes him a much more relatable and sympathetic protagonist, as opposed to the original book and Burton film.
He also earns the right not through his purity, but his honesty and accepting a just punishment. That's a good message for kids.
"Elevator" was not the first thing that popped into my head when I heard "Wankabator" (Yes, that's how I heard it)
To my defence, we've already established that "middle-aged white man on some kind of watchlist" is a theme in this movie.
His wife would like that...
A relatively recent take on Harry Potter is that... Cousin Killer Whale is *also* an abused kid. Malnourished (too much fatty food, hence why he's morbidly obese before reaching puberty), poorly socialized (he's a bully and a liar), self-entitled (gets upset when he doesn't receive more birthday presents than candles on his cake or thereabouts), and generally a terrible person. Sure, he grows out of it eventually, but that doesn't mean that his childhood was ideal.
It's interesting how the Willy Wonka kids show signs of these same flaws... And that, when Charlie makes his mistake, it's *also* because of an adult steering him wrong.
Yeah, it definitely has the mid-twentieth century Boomber vibe of criticising the "kids these days" while letting the adults who were raising them completely off the hook.
The generous reading might be: rather than it being a story about children suddenly subjected to moral examination by a ruthless and pitiless god-character (as though that's a fair or reasonable thing to do to children), it could instead be read as a thesis that children do in fact have moral character independent of their parents' or guardians' control. Charlie's "passing of the test" wasn't meant to separate him from the other children as "more moral" but was rather a proof that children as a whole *can* be better than their parents.
I admit it's a bit of a stretch, since Wonka appears to take some delight in the suffering he causes, and I doubt Roald Dahl was putting that much thought into the overall moral of the story.
Is that take really relatively recent? I mean Rowling may have unfortunate other views on twitter, but when she was first writing her books she was very clear about how much Harry's cousin is a product of his utterly wretched parents who as far as she is concerned are everything wrong with the upper middle class in the UK. This isn't subtext, this is just plain text right there on the page.
@@stryke-jn3kv That Dudley was the result of abysmally poor parenting was never in doubt, the relatively recent interpretation is that it was so poor that it qualifies as abuse.
It left Dudley with poor health, poor education, and a worse life overall.
@@o0alessandro0o I'm pretty sure that in one of the later books Dumbledore calls out the Dursleys for abusing Harry and points out that they also abused their son.
Heh. That bridge Bill Murray is on in the Stripes clip played is just a few blocks from my work.
I may or may not quote that scene every time i drive over it.
would be great to have Chuck do a review of Ready player one (book).
Thoroughly enjoyed this review Chuck! It's always interesting to see you cover things that seem outside the wheelhouse but you did a great job with this one. Funny, nice insights, great background video on the making of the film, and you actually made chocolate for it! It took me a few mins to figure that out, and I'm impressed. A good way to start my Monday, thanks for the review!
One of my favorite endings to a film.
Theory: Wonkavision may have been intended as something of a premium service at a higher cost. You pay an extra fee for the convenience of getting instant chocolate & thus this covers the added expense of making larger bars.
Could also be a matter of scale. If a tiny chocolate bar is coming out of a million screens, you've likely made the investment back and then come. You've also made the laws of physics your bitch but that's already a factor here.
Wonkavision is essentially a replicator.
In the book, he says the idea is promotion. They'll broadcast the bar to everyone (how more than one person at a time, who knows) during a commercial, so they can taste for themselves and have proof that it's good. There are still other problems with that, but it has that kid-logic the rest of Wonka's schemes do. Along with the scientific explanation that since a TV image "is broken into pieces and reassembled" that an object could be too, which is indeed the idea of a replicator. broadcasting matter patterns instead of just EM signals.
It is true that we are who we are based on our parents. If a rich parent spoils their children rotten and lacks the ability to say No" to them, they'll think that's life is, that that child will go around thinking they deserve everything coming to them. As for Varok's fate, well, that'll be fine!
I always liked the idea that Wonka wanted/knew the kids would be “bumped off” one by one, not that it’s be hard to figure out each ones Achilles heel, as the boat and the car only have enough seats for the remaining guests. If some hadn’t been tempted and had to be taken away, they wouldn’t have all fit in the vehicles.
I could totally see Wonka building multiples of each vehicle to account for every possible party size. There are extra radiation suits before the TV room. I think Wonka's intentions was more testing the kids to see if they could rise above their faults. Only Charlie did in the end.
Charlie wasn't the only one who didn't fail... he was the only one who apologized and showed some maturity.
@@hariman7727 There's a distinction between 'not having faults' and 'rising above them.'
14:30 might explain why many of Disney’s movies have been rather hollow, but efforts like The Santa Clauses (mini series) are intelligently written and genuinely compelling (even to me who could care less about the first movie). They are both Disney, but the people behind them are different.
Great review, Chuck. You put some serious analysis in there after all ;D
I once had the idea that each of the golden ticket winners were in some way representative of a biblical sin. Augustus was Gluttony, Veruka was Greed, Violet was Pride, and Mike was Sloth, which left Charlie with Envy. There's no Lust or Wrath, mainly because those sins more likened to being present in adults more than anyone below the age of puberty. One could easily argue that Mike's dad and Violet's mother each incorporate those two sins in the Tim Burton one (Violet's mother is hot for Wonka and Mike's dad is butthurt after his dismissal that Lumpaland doesn't exist is met with an equal dismissal of his logic).
"He gives people the freedom to make bad choices in spite of his warnings" would be a fair description of God too. You might be onto something.
The seven deadly sins aren’t biblical, that was something Dante came up with for the Inferno section of the Divine Comedy. There’s a biblical basis for all of them, but the popular idea of them is not reflective of the Bible itself.
Later adaptations try to rework this theory like making Violet's gum chewing more representative of pride/vanity and incorporating wrath along with sloth into Mike Teavee. In the 2005 film, Violet is clearly molded by her stage mom (a parenting style itself driven by vanity) to be an overachiever and value success and competition above all else (tying her gum chewing to beat a world record). In the broadway show, Violet is the icon of a media and commercial empire thanks to her capitalistic and talent agent father turning her "talent" of gum chewing into something marketable (a satire on talentless celebrities somehow still getting gigs and fashion and cosmetic lines). With Mike in the 2005 film, they made him smarter to comment on how current media allows kids to consume so much information all at once but his problem being that it left him so jaded and unimaginative that he cannot appreciate the wonders of the factory (and he also has a short fuse). In the broadway show, Mike is such a terror that the only way his parents can ensure he doesn't get into trouble is by putting him in front of the TV to babysit him, and his mother actually comes to think him getting shrunk is an IMPROVEMENT (it certainly prevents him from breaking into military bases and stealing tanks).
@@magnusprime962 The Seven Deadly Sins were Catholic theology long before Dante wrote his political allegory.
1:53 Mike Teavee asked the same thing in the book. Wonka's response: I do wish you wouldn't mumble, I can't hear a word you're saying.
Living with dogs makes it clear that it takes very little effort to make something lickable.
Ruff! 🐶
That just made me think of a Willy Wonka parody in Haley's On It, where it turns out the not-Pringles factory is actually run by dogs. "Weird Al" plays not-Wonka.
Waiting for the follow ups, Willy Wonka and the Health and Safety Executive then Willy Wonka and UK Border Force
The sad part is that may be better than the ACTUAL wonka followup story we got…
@@myriadmediamusingsI don’t know, I rather enjoyed Great Glass Elevator. It wasn’t perfect, but it was an exciting romp
So next week is the 2005 version.
Is it about the bunny?
i feel like i have to add to the post bad egg bit about rhoal "literally a nazi" dahl's attitudes and as someone who was deeply traumatised as a kid by george's marvellous medicine "asshole child poisons his grandmother for not spoiling him" and a short story about alligators eating children who don't sleep fast enough MARKETED AS A BEDTIME STORY...his general attitude is just "anyone who in any way annoys me deserves death"...
on behalf of the collection of kingdoms lumped under 'wales', i apologise for rhoal dahl, do not give his books to your kids...