To think that Wonka was unnecessarily sexual for a kids film?

[Bambooshoot]

Just seen Wonka with my son snd really enjoyed it, (loved High Grant as an Oompa Loompa, even though I usually don’t like him, he was perfect!!) . . . but I was wondering why they needed to shoehorn some weirdly sexual stuff into a kids film?

I’m talking about why they had to make the other chocolatiers so demonstratively sexual (dancing with fans up their arses/crowbarring in homosexuality etc) instead of just making them wonderfully evil, (which is quite possible to do), and why all that nonsense with the couple running the workhouse getting all steamy, and him in shorts and close ups of him bending over etc? The original film had nothing on a sexual level unless I missed it, and I can’t see why it was needed here, my son didn’t find it funny, just “cringe” and he hated the bit where they kissed at the end. What was it for? I thought it kind of spoiled the film. I used to be very open minded, have I just become a massive prude in my (relatively) old age?!!

Child is 8, and yes, apart from the bits that were described as “cringe” (the workhouse couple/lederhosen bits and the kissing part)

Like PPs I think we must have watched a different movie OP...

DH and I actually commented leaving the cinema that it's a proper old fashioned magical family film, the baddies are more stupid than sinister, there's no real frightening peril.. (unlike the trailer for the new Ghostbusters film, that seems a lot darker than the original).

Aside from the absolute silliness of the posing in the Lederhosen I didn't pick up any kind of 'sleaziness' or sexuality at all Didn't occur at all that any of the 3 baddies were supposed to be gay??

well just focus on that!

Surely he’s aware the some men are attracted to men and some women are attracted to women?.

and presumably he’s seen many films where kissing has been involved?

was this film the most sexual he’s ever seen? and the only one with a homosexual character in it?

OP has decided the baddies were homosexual because of some camp dancing they did. Probably says more about her than the film to be honest. The film didn't do anything to teach children that people of the same sex can love each other because there is no way of knowing from the film the social orientation of majority of the characters and those that we know are all heterosexual.

Looks like OP would get on with ardith, they can froth about gay people together.

Wow, I've just got home from watching it and did not get that from it at all. It's a mild, jolly musical, with funny baddies, goodies with sad backstories, lots of singing dancing bright colours and humour my 6 year old found funny. We all enjoyed it, kids are 6 and 11. Some of the plot went over my 6 years olds head but she enjoyed the whole thing and came out singing the oopa lumpa song. The sort of film you watch to cheer you up on a rainy afternoon.

That's right , in the original film , all four Grandparents share a bed .

😆❤️

I'm a bit disappointed to read the thread, I have no interest in Willy wonka, but since the blue Chanel adverts I have suddenly developed an interest, saw your thread title and thought maybe I'll go see after all.

I haven't seen this film, so am just addressing the general point. Why do you think children's films should have sexual references even if they go over (most of) the children's heads? What's the purpose? Even if there are references for the adults - which again, why? why can't it be just a children's film? - why do these have to be sexual?

I took my 6 year old to it and it was fine. She was a bit sad at the sweet-poisoning incident but that was about it. I don't think I would take a 3 year old, but I didn't see anything that would be inappropriate for a primary school child. I didn't clock any sexual overtones from the chocolate cartel, just the dancing you would expect in a musical. And the landlady stuff was more silly than sexy. This whole thread is a bit baffling!

if it said “children’s film” then you’d have a point

it’s a film on general release with a PG rating

I am really glad to read all the other comments I was genuinely worried I fell asleep in the cinema and dreamed the movie 😂

Same! Just got back from seeing it, found it delightful !

PGs are children's films. The next step up over PG is a 12, so PGs are films which should be fine for children under that age. I'm not claiming it's the Teletubbies, but PGs are generally aimed at children sort of 8-10, no? This is a content rating and it might be a film that people over that age enjoy - Paddington is a PG film, largely for children, though one that adults can enjoy, but that too has a couple of sexual references.

I actually find animated children’s movies aimed at much younger children have a lot more sexual preferences than a lot of the non animated ones.

Just came home from seeing it at the cinema with my 5 and 7 year old. It's a long movie so expected them to get restless and DH to fall asleep (as always) but all 4 of us enjoyed it. It's cheerful and the baddies are not too evil. The trailer for ghostbusters were the scariest/inappropriate bit.

but where does it define itself as a “children’s film”

PG Parental Guidance ie depending on the age and character of child, there may be scenes a Parent may not be comforts me with

I must have watched a different film to you, there is was no mention of anyone’s sexuality that could have been your inference which says a little bit more about you than the film.

if that offends try watching Shrek it is full of innuendos for the adults watching.

Indiana Jones is a PG for example

would you think a children’s film automatically?

Funny how nobody ever complains about heterosexuality being “crowbarred in”.

precisely

and then the op tired to cover her tracks with nonsense about being concerned her DS would associate homosexuals with the baddies

I didn't realise that My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Hunt for Red October and The Greatest Showman were childrens films.

agreed. It was a silly point