“Wow, the ‘Wonka’ trailer really has a weird tonal problem” links

True story: I avoided watching the Wonka trailer for 24 hours, so I’m just watching it for the first time now and… wow, they really got the tone wrong. They made this Roald Dahl character into a Disney hero? [OMG Blog]
Tom Cruise is a total pro at press junkets & movie promotion. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Joy Ride, a raunchy romp. [Pajiba]
Sara Bareilles’ glasses are awful & unflattering. [Go Fug Yourself]
Jennifer Lawrence went to a Pilates class in LA. [Just Jared]
Fox announces their fall premiere line-up. [Seriously OMG]
Iowa Republicans passed a six-week abortion bill. [Jezebel]
Camila Cabello is on vacation in Greece. [Egotastic]
This dentist is telling people to protect their teeth by avoiding citrus & bread? I mean, I get that dentists don’t want people to drink soda, but bread? [Buzzfeed]
Yikes, please stop getting vampire facials. [Towleroad]
Sofia Carson wore a cute Giambattista Valli dress. [RCFA]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

51 Responses to ““Wow, the ‘Wonka’ trailer really has a weird tonal problem” links”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Normades says:

    OMG Hugh Grant at the end!

    • sarah says:

      I’m shocked Celebitchy thinks this is the wrong tone. I think it’s adorable! Charming! Sweet! When I read these books as a child I fell in love. And I’ve hated every film adaptation since because they were all stupid scary. This is super-cute! I’m in!

      • bisynaptic says:

        I think it’s because the Willy Wonka of the books is *not* sweet. There is a sinister current running through his character.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      @NormaDes. OMG I was ambivalent about this movie until it showed Hugh. Now I’m definitely going to see it.

  2. North of Boston says:

    Of all the people I know or have heard of breaking a tooth, the top causes were hit in the face while play sports, eating popcorn (biting down on a hard kernel) and yes, eating crusty bread. Bread apparently had a combination of hardness, chewiness and stickiness that can wreak havoc, especially if you have teeth with cracks or other weaknesses.

    It may just be my friend group, but I’ve been on 4 different vacations where someone had to find an emergency dental appointment because they cracked a tooth on bread, rolls or bagels.

    • JackieJacks says:

      👆this!!! I had a coworker chip a front tooth on a roll.
      Plus my dental hygienist says that bread and carby foods will leave a film on teeth.
      I brush twice a day and I can say on the days after an especially carb filled day I definitely sense a difference in how my teeth feel when I run my tongue over them. And that’s after brushing before bed and then waking up the next morning. On days after I focus on lean proteins and veggies I can say it’s not the same as the carby days.

    • May says:

      @north, “Bread apparently had a combination of hardness, chewiness and stickiness that can wreak havoc, especially if you have teeth with cracks or other weaknesses.”. I once broke a molar after chewing on a candy cane. Talk about hard, chewy and sticky at the same time! Two opposing molars stuck together and when I finally managed to pull my teeth apart along came part of a tooth. Oh no!

      The dentist is absolutely right about the bread and I would imagine that the same holds true for pasta. I would think though that brushing after a meal with pasta or bread would help alleviate the problem. But brushing your teeth is no longer a simple affair.

      The prevailing thought is to not brush your teeth right after citrus or other acids but to rinse your mouth out with water and then brush your teeth after 30 minutes. I would imagine that the same would hold true for carbs. If you smoke, you should also not have a cigarette within 30 minutes of brushing your teeth (to combat staining).

      I just had this conversation with my dentist at my last check up. The proper routine is to brush your teeth first thing in the morning, wait at least 30 minutes to drink coffee and or eat, rinse your mouth out with water and then after 30 minutes you can brush your teeth again. He also said that some dentists are advocating not rinsing your mouth after you brush your teeth in the evening (or at all) if it has a beneficial ingredient for teeth, like fluoride. He says either not rinse it out at all or wait for at least 30 minutes to rinse your mouth out after brushing. Seriously, brushing your teeth has become so complicated. I am going to need to schedule this all on my phone with notifications!

  3. Ameerah M says:

    I hope this Wonka does well – if only to wipe that JD atrocity out of the collective memory

  4. Slush says:

    Yeah the Wonka movie looks……not like Willy Wonka.

    But I also don’t love the idea of getting to know his backstory? The whole thing is that he is a mysterious weirdo.

    • BeanieBean says:

      It looks a little like Pirates of the Caribbean, a little (or a lot) like Mary Poppins. Disney is just plagiarizing itself by now. Somehow or other I never encountered the Roald Dahl books as a kid, but I’ve seen a couple of the movies based on those books–Matilda & Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka. This doesn’t seem to resemble the book at all, but maybe that’s the point? Something a bit different (even if not visually)?

  5. Silent Star says:

    I think the Wonka movie looks pretty good. I would love to see Willy’s backstory (assuming they handled it well) and Timothée Chalamet is a good choice. I think it’s the orchestral score that all family friendly movies seem to be stuck with that is giving this trailer the cheesy Disney tone.

    • Ameerah M says:

      I think it looks fine too. I’m hoping that Timothee makes it his own and doesn’t to a retread of JH or Gene.

    • Slush says:

      I think it looks good too, in a vacuum. But I think what Kaiser means is that WW is kind of a dark and, frankly, mean person in the original movie (and Dahl books are always a little dark). So this origin story that has him as a bright, funny, hero is just not the anti-hero vibes we’re used to.

      • Ameerah M says:

        But I think that is what will make it compelling. Because what turned him into such a dark mean-spirited person? It didn’t happen in a vacuum. So if they address it and show us I think that will be really interesting. Hopefully they will give us a bit of that type of Cruella de Vil origin story for Wonka.

    • tealily says:

      I had Timothée Chalamet would be a great choice for this, but I’m not really into his performance, at least in the trailer. I guess I’ll reserve my opinion for the film itself, but based on the preview I’m not feeling it.

      • Lemons says:

        There is something about his voice that just doesn’t convince me for this role. Gene Wilder was so perfect in his weirdness and I’m getting…squeaky from Timothee

  6. HeyKay says:

    From what I can tell, lots of big name actors in supporting roles.
    Is that Hugh Grant as an Oompa Loompa?
    Looks like high budget sets, etc. but nothing in this trailer strikes me as Willy Wonka from the book or the Gene Wilder version.
    Not at all the tone I was expecting. This looks like a prequel to Willy Wonka. Nothing like the book, certainly.

    • Granger says:

      Yes, it’s a prequel. The tag line in the trailer is, “How Willy Became Wonka.”

  7. BeanieBean says:

    Sara Bareilles’ glasses are not the only thing wrong with that outfit.

  8. Nicegirl says:

    Bread too huh, dang.

  9. HeyKay says:

    Clicked on the link above to Tom Cruise vs. Toronto traffic, MI interviews.

    Cruise is a machine at PR, he is almost always “On” when doing openings for movies.
    He is in Work and Be Charming mode 100% in this interview.
    Is he in fact a split personality?
    One part complete lunatic in CoS personality. One part charming, polite, pushing the movie as if his very soul depends on him/it being successful.

    How DOES his mind work? I wish I was smart enough to crack the guys head open and figure him out. Far as I can tell Christian Bale nailed it “There is nothing behind those eyes”
    Some true disconnect. Spooky. I would not want to meet him IRL.
    I do think he has a death wish in doing those MI stunts, he has nothing else in his life to make him feel human.

    • ME says:

      This is a great comment. I watched that interview and was also wondering the same thing. Like, is this the same guy that jumped on Oprah’s couch lol? He was likeable in the interview. I also had no idea he used to live in Canada. He seems so interested in the interviewer and gave her all his attention. He was very nice to her. It’s so odd this is the same guy who hasn’t seen his own daughter Suri in years.

      • North of Boston says:

        My father was a public figure, admired and adored by many who felt truly seen by him. It was local, just in my state, but to this day people who find out he was my father will gush with stories of how much he meant to them, how he changed their lives for the better … grown men crying tears of joy about him. He was charming, he was a great guest on local shows.

        He also could NOT have been a worse combination of cruelly undermining, self-centered and coldly dismissive / disinterested in his relationships with me and my siblings, from the time we were young children. If one of us had a big win in our lives, he’d either ignore it or talk it down (which made us feel awful) or brag about it, drag us around to show off in a weird way (which made us feel awful). He’d go for months or years not making contact and when he did, it was often with some ulterior motive and he’d spend the entire time focused on something other than the kid in front of him… he had absolutely no interest in a genuine connection or relationship.

        It is not surprising to me – at all – that someone like TC can appear charming and friendly to perfect strangers in public yet have nothing to do with his child.

      • ME says:

        @ North of Boston

        Wow thank you for sharing. To think of it, I know people like that in my real life as well. Publicly come off as sweet and amazing to strangers, but are monsters to the people closest to them (which is usually family). There has to be a name for this disorder but I just can’t think of it.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Had that interviewer asked Tom how Suri is doing these days, she’d have seen a different side of him.

      • ME says:

        @ BeanieBean

        I bet that’s one of the “off limits” topics they aren’t allowed to ask him. I did see a TMZ video of him this week with his son Conner though. I wonder why he has a relationship with him but not Suri?

      • Deering24 says:

        Heh–“a love object with no love in him” seems to cover guys like Cruise right well. They live to feed off public adoration, but can’t give love to save their lives. He always reminds me of that great Fritz Leiber story, “The Girl With The Hungry Eyes,” about an irresistible media sensation who inspires insane desire/love, but is image only–and drains her fans dry. https://sciencefictionruminations.com/2022/02/20/future-media-short-story-reviews-fritz-leibers-the-girl-with-the-hungry-eyes-1949-and-a-bad-day-for-sales-1953/

    • Christine says:

      I’m with you, I am fascinated by the dual personalities of Tom Cruise, and I would not want to meet him in real life.

      Even without the Scientology stuff, which is awful, there’s just something very strange about him, that I can’t put my finger on. What are the odds that every single reporter at a press junket would have, not just a positive experience, but it sounds like they had fun with the man, and yet he has nothing to do with Suri, and made sure Nicole Kidman was iced out of their kid’s lives? He works overtime to be viewed as kind, except for family things, and it’s bizarre.

      I wish science could study his brain.

      • HeyKay says:

        Me too, I’d truly like to know how this mans mind works.
        There has to be some kind of name for it.
        Tom Cruise came from a severely dysfunctional childhood, which he used to talk about years ago, he attended something like 12 or 14 different schools, rotten Father, poverty for years.
        We all know the details of his personal life.
        But, is it a split personality? Is he a narc? Schizophrenia? Sociopath?
        The easy answer is Control Freak obvs. + IDK what.

      • Lorelei says:

        @ME, it seems like he “got” Conner and Isabella in the divorce and Nicole has nothing to do with them. It’s so sad. At least Katie got to see what to avoid.

      • MR says:

        @ME @Lorelei It is because of Scientology. Connor and his other daughter are scientologists. Nicole Kidman and Suri are not. So Nicole Kidman’s kids will have nothing to do with her, and Tom will not have anything to do with Suri. The church calls them “supressive persons” or some BS like that.

      • Christine says:

        I remember the gossip around Tom and Katie’s divorce was that her lawyer dad had protected her from losing any kids, likely via prenup. Oh, the irony, if only Tom was a good dad, like Katie’s, he would care that Conner and Isabella don’t have a relationship with Nicole Kidman, because of him, and he doesn’t have one with Suri, also because of him.

        But HEY!!!!! He’s awesome in an interview, so all is forgiven.


    • lucy2 says:

      Same here. There is something really, really off about him. It’s all a movie star veneer, and I think we’ve seen glimpses behind that when he let the COS flag fly. Whatever his deal is, he’s the defacto head of a dangerous cult that abuses people.

    • Normades says:

      I have a friend who is a hwood makeup artist and has worked on several really well known shows. She says most of the actors are really nice because they reallllly want you to like them. That’s Tom, he really wants them to like him.

      • Deering24 says:

        Hee. As aspiring celeb Roxie Hart so aptly notes in Chicago:

        “Mmmm, I’m a star!
        And the audience loves me!
        And I love them
        And they love me for loving them
        And I love them for loving me
        And we love each other
        And that’s because none of us
        Got enough love in our childhoods
        And that’s showbiz

  10. LeonsMomma says:

    What is missing from this trailer is any indication that it has any of the subtle subversiveness of Dahl’s book or the Gene Wilder movie. Granted not all was subversive, but still.

    At least it isn’t that horrific Johnny Depp version.

  11. tigger says:

    that wonka trailer looks so off…

  12. EvenRain says:

    Timmy’s lines readings are… not great.

    Relatedly, I think it might help if he changed his timber or diction up more. Not asking him to do the full Elvis though. I wonder how he’ll sound as Bob Dylan.

  13. Plums says:

    I don’t know what to think of the Wonka trailer. It’s this weird blend of self aware and totally earnest that I don’t know if it works, plus the point that Willy Wonka is not a feel good holiday movie character and it’s kind of strange to sanitize him to be such. Dahl characters are dark and kind of creepy, not Christmas heroes.

  14. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    (Strong feelings alert!) Ronald Dahl was a horrible person and a brilliant writer of children’s books (his adult books are bonkers). The trouble with sanitizing any whisper of “mean” out of kids’ books is that encountering the mean and scary in books is one important way children learn to manage their fears. And the sanitizing of books makes for terrible writing—no stakes to the plot, no drama. I saw an expurgated version of the Twelve Dancing Princesses recently where instead of the princes being put to death if the guessed incorrectly they were sent off with no dinner. 🙄 Also, after Gene Wilder’s perfect and iconic performance, they just need to stop. The only thing Dahl-like in that trailer is Hugh Grant. If they had to do another Wonka movie, Hugh would’ve made a much truer Willie.

    • manda says:

      The original willie wonka movie, which I guess was charlie and the chocolate factory (?), scared the pants off me when I was about 5, and I refused to finish watching it (it was the scene of charlie and his grandfather floating up towards the fan). I thought it was a scary movie and was upset with my parents for showing it to me, and I didn’t see it again until I was in my 20s. By then, I really didn’t care and so the movie isn’t a big thing for me like other people my age (mid to late 40s). That being said, I do find it disappointing they keep doing this because gene wilder was all they really needed. It annoys the crap out of me that they won’t pay for original content

    • AnneL says:

      I agree. Dahl was my son’s favorite author when he was a kid. It was only later that we found out he was a horrible Anti-Semite (we’re Jewish). I guess we shouldn’t have been surprised, but we were.

      That said, he was a great writer of children’s stories. And the subversiveness, the undercurrent of real menace, was a vital part of what made them compelling. The combination of darkness and whimsy, generally with happy endings.

  15. HeyKay says:

    I clearly remember reading the book.
    And being pulled into the story due to the plot of the Grandparents who were so poor.

    I grew up in poverty. Sleeping on a mattress on the floor, with 2 brothers on a full mattress on the floor, other side of the same room, for years. We slept in our clothes, blankets and winter coats on top bc Minnesota winters were brutal.

    A prequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, no matter how well done, just does not really interest me much.

    Hugh Grant, kept under a glass dome as a dancing Oompa Loompa has got to be the highlight tho.

    The original with GW, was best. But I never thought it was a movie for young kids, more 10+.

  16. Kirsten says:

    Unpopular opinion: Timothy Chalamet is not that great of an actor. I think he gets by on having an interesting look, but there’s not a lot of talent there.

    • C says:

      I actually LOVE him but, uh, he is not good in this.
      I guess he is very good in intense dramatics and sometimes humor but this was no transformation or anything, lol. This looks very low effort on his part.

    • AnneL says:

      I concur. I don’t get the hype about him.

  17. AnneL says:

    I guess I’m the only person who didn’t hate the Johnny Depp version. However I feel about Depp as a person, I do think he’s a very good actor. Or was. He might have lost his touch for good.

    For the record, I grew up on the Gene Wilder version. My kids watched the JD version. We also read and listened to Dahl’s original version together (we had a recording of RD reading some of his stories). Honestly? Neither film version got the character of Willie Wonka quite right.

    But in a lot of ways, I preferred the Johnny Depp version. I thought Charlie and the Bucket family, as portrayed in that film, were far more endearing than they were in the earlier film. Helena Bonham Carter as his mother was perfect. Perfectly imperfect, in the sense that she didn’t look like her hair was lacquered with a ton of hair spray. I thought the original Charlie was kind of annoying.

    I don’t really have a desire to see this movie because I’m not wowed by Chalamet. Also, I was fine with the background story they gave Willie Wonka in the the Johnny Depp version. His father was a dentist who didn’t let him eat candy. Makes sense to me.

  18. teehee says:

    I’m not impressed by the trailer. The character- is… too reserved? I mean compared to the original, Timothy is not intriguing enough. It looks like he’s acting, whereas when Gene played it, it was Gene being that way— it was convincing.

  19. Shawna says:

    I’m a day too late for this, but I’ve actually read the book Dahl wrote as the prequel. I like the sidekick in the trailer, and Hugh Grant was funny, but both characters are there to gloss over the fact that Wonka enslaved and imported the Oompa Loompas.

    Also, where’s our Jeremy Allen White Wonka sequel?

    • Tree says:

      In order to keep selling books there has been a shift to rewrite them. This is them whitewashing Dahl. They are taking out the “ambiguous” bits.

      • Shawna says:

        It’s so important not to whitewash racism! We have to look unflinchingly at the historical record, and literature is a big part of that. Progress requires understanding past injustice, not sweeping it under the rug.