|
|
Post by mouse on May 17, 2008 0:19:46 GMT -5
Willie Wonka didn't exactly enslave an entire species.. It was fair trade. They got cocoa beans and a place to live in trade to help him with his candy factory..
The fact that his punishments fit the sinners shows passion and drive and care. A hole lot better than some random killing. If someone should kill me one day I hope they put a lot of thought and plan into it and not just some random kill. it would make me feel special..
*is a little tired right now and might not be thinking straight*
|
|
|
|
Post by deathlynx on May 17, 2008 5:45:28 GMT -5
lol...Well, there's certainly logic to the counter Mouse, never fear...However, I would still like to debate the points...
1) True, not technically enslaved, more like indentured servitude...even still, there's a fine line between the two, especially when it seems clear that their decendants are also bound by the contract...Sure, it's a better place to live than where they used to live, and yes they'd probably have serious prejudice issues in modern society, but still the question is begged are they being paid other than room and board? If not, most world governments would take exception to the arrangement...
2) True, it does show dedication and passion to his beliefs, however, so does the killer in Seven...And in truth it's implied that the kids weren't actually killed (though they're never seen or heard from again in the story) there would be serious lawsuits for such blatant damages done to the children...
Then again, these days cops will tell you (unofficially of course) "if you shoot someone for breaking into your house, make sure to kill them, otherwise they would win a lawsuit against you, regardless of their criminal activities"
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 17, 2008 12:01:45 GMT -5
1) they are getting paid.. Getting paid in cocoa beans. Plus I don't think they are too unhappy with the arrangement. I think it is a very mutual relationship.
2) They signed a contract that Wonka is not for blamed in their mishaps. Plus the children didn't do as they were told going off and eating/drinking or going to places they weren't allowed. Their parents couldn't even control them. Hell some encouraged them.
In the end well at least in Charlie and chocolate factory you see the kids leaving the factory.
|
|
|
|
Post by deathlynx on May 18, 2008 0:13:37 GMT -5
True about the first, though there's still a lot of people who would boycott or whatnot for unfair treatment of workers... As to the second, hah! Those kinds of documents aren't worth the paper they're printed on, especially if it can be proven that there was intent on the part of the perpetratorI'm not saying they don't deserve comeupance, but even still it's the sign of an unstable mind to attempt what amounts to vigalanteism (especially when their "crimes" are moral and not legal)...Even Batman acknowledges that he's insane  I'd need to rewatch Wanka to see if they do in that one...Not surprised they do in Charlie since that's the one that's been softened from the book... |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 18, 2008 0:33:40 GMT -5
Huh? What do you mean soften from the book?
Wonka they did sign that big contract in the beginnng... Charlie it didn't..
Plus it didn't matter. Those kids were spoiled brats that got into stuff that they weren't allowed too.
It's like suing a company that has signs all over the place that say 'do not enter' 'dangerous' and they even have someone reminding you not to eat or go into this room and still someone goes in and gets hurt. It's not their fault the person is ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by deathlynx on May 18, 2008 2:40:44 GMT -5
From what I've heard, the book is much closer to Wonka than it is Charlie... As for suing, personally I agree, they got what was coming to them, but legally it would be very easy to sue a company even with signs like that...the legal justification is "if it's so dangerous then why wasn't it better guarded?" For instance, why weren't there any guard rails around the chocolate lake? Why have a gum that still has dangerous side effects sitting out in the open in a room that they are brought into? Though I have to give credit, at least he gave a token protestation when she went for the sorting squirrels..."No, wait, stop." Thoug it was funny because of how clearly he said it as a formality and not intent  |
|
|
|
Post by vampyre on May 18, 2008 7:48:55 GMT -5
I got the impression from both versions of the movie that Willie more or less set out to tempt the children through out the entire tour.
I don't know why he did it but he fully expected them to behave the way they did. Maybe he enjoyed their 'pain.' It kept the oopah loompas busy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ailishsmom on May 18, 2008 8:08:47 GMT -5
Wasn't it all a trial to see which one was worthy to run the factory?
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 25, 2008 14:37:34 GMT -5
Speed Racer: Good family film. Very entertaining. Funny. A lot of blue screen. Kind of felt like 3D people on 2D landscape.
Indiana Jones: Good family film. Very funny and entertaining. Lacked something. It seemed a little forced.
|
|
lvlocalgirl
Agent
just killin' time until dawn
Posts: 516
|
Post by lvlocalgirl on May 26, 2008 3:46:24 GMT -5
I have never seen the likes of WIlly Wonka debated so earnestly. My recent movie review is of "Magnolia" an older movie that I never went to see in the theater. Tom Cruise critically acclaimed for his performance, which I will give credit to. However, there was a fine and true reason I never went to see it in the first place. It was Crap! 3 hours I'll never get back and I have no one to blame but myself!! My DH wanted to watch it, it came from Netlfix, "Watch it with me," says he so there I am all cozy on the couch for a movie night....and it was crap! 3 bloody hours! And I was in my own house. I could have left. I have free will, but then it became a traffic accident, I had to find out just how bad it was going to get while all the while thinking, "It can't get worse than this. SOMETHING has to happen." But nothing truly does happen, not really. Ack!  |
|
|
|
Post by slayercat on May 26, 2008 7:24:41 GMT -5
I had to find out just how bad it was going to get while all the while thinking, "It can't get worse than this. SOMETHING has to happen." But nothing truly does happen, not really. Ack! What about the frogs!?!?! PLOP! There's another one! |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 28, 2008 19:08:35 GMT -5
More Movies in review:
Hulk: Good movie. Lots of actions and a good plot line. Don't stay after the credits for additional scene because they moved it to the very end of the movie before the credits
The Strangers: Another Live Tyler movie. Good suspense but it kind of fell flat. Seriously if we haven't learned anything from movies never stay overnight at a house in the middle of no where.
Wanted: GREAT! I love Angelina Jolie. She's hot as hell and there wasn't even any sex in the movie. The only nudity is 1 back shot and you get to see her ass.. oOoOo.. Most will think she wore skimpy outfits but she was far from that. Lots of action. Good plot though kind of predictable to a point. I didn't like the ending though.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayercat on Jun 28, 2008 20:43:45 GMT -5
I just saw "Wanted" this afternoon and really liked it. James McAvoy was very good as the reluctant hero. And the stunts with the cars were great!!! And Angelina is so fascinating to watch! It did have an odd ending but it was good. On a side note, the theater we saw the movie in had trouble with the air conditioning so it was stuffy and hot but we got free passes so all was not lost! |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 30, 2008 18:48:24 GMT -5
Just saw Wall E last night.
CUTE. Pixar is great. I swear there were more children than adults in the theater. I think I might have saw 5 kids in a packed theater. It's rated G so take your kids. You'll love it and so will they.
|
|
|
|
Post by vampyre on Jul 1, 2008 0:08:19 GMT -5
I want to see Wall E, Wanted and Hancock. Hancock starts today!! I might try and go see it even though i have to work againtomorrow night. Sleep is so over rated.
|
|
