> …some aspects of the story are baffling from the vantage point of trying to understand how Willy Wonka and his competitors act. First, given the value of the information inside the chocolate factory to Wonka‟s competitors, it is surprising that they did not try to win golden tickets to enter and spy in the chocolate factory. They could, in theory, have bought up hundreds of thousands of candy bars just as Mr. Salt did to indulge his daughter, Veruca, to maximize their chances of winning a ticket worth its credential in gold.
Seems the Slugworth who was up against Timothee “Lil’ Timmy Tim” Chamalet’s Wonka read this paper in the years since Gene Wilder’s Wonka (and Ronald Dahl’s)—and wised up to the corporate espionage side of the golden ticket racket…
Then again, he made the competitively-shrewd move to recruit rather than plant agents: there’s a lesson in there for us all, no?
MarkusQ · 10h ago
c.f. The Candymakers, W. Mass et al
FridayoLeary · 7h ago
>Second, it is surprising to see that Wonka put little to no restriction both on who could win the contest and on what the winners could see inside the factory and do with that information after they left.
The author is making an unjustified assumption that Wonka had no contingencies in place. Consider the sadistic cruelty he shows towards children, and the fact that he's not worried about law enforcement. And consider his narcissistic personality.
There's more then enough evidence to suggest that he would and could ruthlessly silence any of the competition winners who would dare to leak his secrets.
That, really is the best method of preserving your trade secrets, and the reason why willy wonka is so successful.
RodgerTheGreat · 4h ago
The 1971 Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory adaptation seems to strongly hint at the interpretation that Wonka planted the golden tickets deliberately, rather than distributing them randomly, which is of course why "Arthur Slugworth" is always right around the corner when a ticket is discovered.
Malazath · 4h ago
Or, he's 'whimsical' and child-like. Someone that may not have been able to be a child when they were young.
Who knows though; is up for interpretation.
FridayoLeary · 4h ago
Even as a child i was disturbed by Wonkas cruelty. The spiteful nature of Dahl comes through in all off his books. He was an excellent writer and i've read all of them, but my parents made it clear that i shouldn't draw any moral lessons from them.
AStonesThrow · 4h ago
> Consider the sadistic cruelty
Well, I uh, can't do that if I don't see it.
I think Wonka's character is a great way to personify the distant coldness of the industrialized corporate bosses of Dahl's day and our own.
I can't honestly say that Wonka exhibited any sadism or cruelty. He simply acted as a corporate boss. He was distant, apathetic, unemotional. His Oompa-Loompas were there to do his bidding and nothing more. The children he invited in, well, he CYA'd with the initial contract, [that's why he's unworried about law enforcement, in civil matters], and the misfortunes they met were definitely not at his own hand. They were simply "occupational hazards" from inexperienced and careless persons getting too close to the industrial machinery.
Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt, even while lacking regret or remorse. And he was often right there to give assurances to the parents, about the incinerator or the squeezing process or something. Wilder's comic portrayal was masterful as he remained aloof, with a thousand-year-stare in those closeups; his business patter undisturbed by the strange happenings around him; he simply didn't care about this world and was floating in an executive bubble that no other character could understand. He was a politician with no stake in human suffering.
As far as showing off trade secrets -- won't read TFA but -- Wonka was essentially giving a Guided Tour for the entire plot. The kids straying from the path, were all meeting misfortune when they did it. They saw what they saw when they saw it, and then they were ushered onwards. Slugworth's entire plan revolved around reverse-engineering a prototype, and that's all he could do!
Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? Especially after four were chewed up in the machinery quite early on
A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.
WalterBright · 2h ago
> Wonka's character is a great way to personify the distant coldness of the industrialized corporate bosses of Dahl's day and our own.
I just took the movie at face value, and while Wonka was an odd character, I didn't look for a deeper meaning beyond being a fairy tale where everyone got what they deserved.
FridayoLeary · 4h ago
That is certainly a perspective i didn't consider. It's been a long time since i last read the books. But i don't agree with you that that's all there is to Wonka.
>Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt
No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be.
>A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas
Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke)
>or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.
What of it? Everyone needs a successor. Otherwise when he gets old and infirm, the oompah loompahs and the squirrels will rise up against him and throw him down the garbage chute into the incinerator. Although he did discover immortality so that shouldn't even be a problem.
>Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day?
The article quotes Wonka where he asserts that his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.
WalterBright · 2h ago
> his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.
But it doesn't mean that those secrets would be discoverable via the tour.
AStonesThrow · 3h ago
> No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be.
Damn straight, and as a demonstration of moral ethics for an audience of young children, Dahl exploits our instincts to be thrilled/pleased when someone who's really bad gets exactly what they deserve.
Key factors in each character's demise is that they didn't die -- they weren't really maimed, injured, or in pain, per se, and we were always left with hope in their recovery.
But they all "got their just desserts" in a literal way. Their character sketches were thoroughly drawn as corrupt, indecent, egged on by bad parents, destined for Hell essentially. So yeah, the audience is gleeful and cheers and we revel in this cartoon violence, and we experience it completely differently from Wonka's attitude [hopefully], and when we compare ourselves to the folks on the page, we get to know ourselves better.
https://youtu.be/cRRMmb5cK0I?si=SoNzN-57mFlu6eDI
Seems the Slugworth who was up against Timothee “Lil’ Timmy Tim” Chamalet’s Wonka read this paper in the years since Gene Wilder’s Wonka (and Ronald Dahl’s)—and wised up to the corporate espionage side of the golden ticket racket…
Then again, he made the competitively-shrewd move to recruit rather than plant agents: there’s a lesson in there for us all, no?
The author is making an unjustified assumption that Wonka had no contingencies in place. Consider the sadistic cruelty he shows towards children, and the fact that he's not worried about law enforcement. And consider his narcissistic personality.
There's more then enough evidence to suggest that he would and could ruthlessly silence any of the competition winners who would dare to leak his secrets.
That, really is the best method of preserving your trade secrets, and the reason why willy wonka is so successful.
Who knows though; is up for interpretation.
Well, I uh, can't do that if I don't see it.
I think Wonka's character is a great way to personify the distant coldness of the industrialized corporate bosses of Dahl's day and our own.
I can't honestly say that Wonka exhibited any sadism or cruelty. He simply acted as a corporate boss. He was distant, apathetic, unemotional. His Oompa-Loompas were there to do his bidding and nothing more. The children he invited in, well, he CYA'd with the initial contract, [that's why he's unworried about law enforcement, in civil matters], and the misfortunes they met were definitely not at his own hand. They were simply "occupational hazards" from inexperienced and careless persons getting too close to the industrial machinery.
Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt, even while lacking regret or remorse. And he was often right there to give assurances to the parents, about the incinerator or the squeezing process or something. Wilder's comic portrayal was masterful as he remained aloof, with a thousand-year-stare in those closeups; his business patter undisturbed by the strange happenings around him; he simply didn't care about this world and was floating in an executive bubble that no other character could understand. He was a politician with no stake in human suffering.
As far as showing off trade secrets -- won't read TFA but -- Wonka was essentially giving a Guided Tour for the entire plot. The kids straying from the path, were all meeting misfortune when they did it. They saw what they saw when they saw it, and then they were ushered onwards. Slugworth's entire plan revolved around reverse-engineering a prototype, and that's all he could do!
Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? Especially after four were chewed up in the machinery quite early on
A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.
I just took the movie at face value, and while Wonka was an odd character, I didn't look for a deeper meaning beyond being a fairy tale where everyone got what they deserved.
>Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt
No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be.
>A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas
Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke)
>or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.
What of it? Everyone needs a successor. Otherwise when he gets old and infirm, the oompah loompahs and the squirrels will rise up against him and throw him down the garbage chute into the incinerator. Although he did discover immortality so that shouldn't even be a problem.
>Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day?
The article quotes Wonka where he asserts that his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.
But it doesn't mean that those secrets would be discoverable via the tour.
Damn straight, and as a demonstration of moral ethics for an audience of young children, Dahl exploits our instincts to be thrilled/pleased when someone who's really bad gets exactly what they deserve.
Key factors in each character's demise is that they didn't die -- they weren't really maimed, injured, or in pain, per se, and we were always left with hope in their recovery.
But they all "got their just desserts" in a literal way. Their character sketches were thoroughly drawn as corrupt, indecent, egged on by bad parents, destined for Hell essentially. So yeah, the audience is gleeful and cheers and we revel in this cartoon violence, and we experience it completely differently from Wonka's attitude [hopefully], and when we compare ourselves to the folks on the page, we get to know ourselves better.
No comments yet