Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

202 replies

Bambooshoot · 10/12/2023 15:32

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?!!

OP posts:
Simonjt · 10/12/2023 17:32

Precipice · 10/12/2023 17:14

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.

Show quote history

Yes, Poltergeist for example is a very popular childrens film as is little women.

Pinkpinkpink15 · 10/12/2023 17:33

Simonjt · 10/12/2023 16:04

Wait until you see the original, not only do they shoehorn in heterosexuality, but they have a foursome and heterosexuals are almost all poor or awful.

😂😂😂😂

at least they weren't ageist with their homosexuality I suppose!!

Temporaryname158 · 10/12/2023 17:34

I really enjoyed it!

it was certainly not overtly sexual. I’m sorry someone who is portrayed as slightly camp offends you and causes you to clutch your pearls.

it felt a fabulous feel good Christmas film for all the family to me!

10HailMarys · 10/12/2023 17:35

Precipice · 10/12/2023 16:59

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?

Show quote history

I think maybe you don’t quite understand that what you think of as ‘children’s films’ are not necessarily ONLY aimed at young children. A film like Wonka is intended to have a wider audience than just little kids. Why do you think there are cinema showings of some ‘children’s’ films at 10pm? It’s because they’re meant to have an appeal for teens and adults as well as young children.

AngeloMysterioso · 10/12/2023 17:37

If you think this film has too many sexual innuendos, definitely don’t watch The Addams Family (also rated PG).

SuspiciousSue · 10/12/2023 17:43

I was a little disappointed by it tbh. It didn’t live up to the hype. There wasn’t much sexual about it though.

Theunamedcat · 10/12/2023 17:45

Fans up where now?

Baircasolly · 10/12/2023 17:48

I do agree that in isolation, the baddies could be considered OTT camp, and there's a well established and very tired trope equating gay and evil (I hate the phrase, but Google "queer coding Disney baddies" and you'll get a lot of opinions) But in the context of a spectacularly camp film, they didn't particularly stand out!

I'll be honest though - I didn't love the film. It was beautiful, and the young girl was fantastic, but the songs weren't really good enough, and there wasn't enough of a story. I googled how long the film was about an hour in!

Fundays12 · 10/12/2023 17:50

I took my 7 and 11 year old today to of and we all enjoyed it. The youngest stayed home as I don't think he would have enjoyed it. I don't see the issue with any of the content. It's a PG lots of films with this certificate have similar contents.

Blaggingit123 · 10/12/2023 17:52

I did notice one comment aimed at Prodnose (? Matt Lucas’s character) about him being ‘different’ in some way that I thought was implied about being gay - though would clearly go way over the head of any child and may not have been implying that.

my 10 yo thought the lederhosen bit was hilarious.

’Family’ films I remember from my childhood like Look Who’s Talking and Three Men and a Baby had overt sexual references looking back - so it’s definitely not that the times have changed, family films are way more tame now.

Changednamesorry · 10/12/2023 17:55

If it makes you feel better I took my 12/6/1 year olds to see it on Thursday and the trailer shown before was "Anatomy of a fall" which is an 18 😅 (Spain less strict about such things!)

Wonka was lovely 🙂

Rosscameasdoody · 10/12/2023 17:57

If I remember rightly the original film’Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ didn’t exactly come across as a young kid’s film either. I don’t think it was overtly sexual but there were disturbing bits and lessons about greed and avarice that only older kids would get. Roald Dahl had very dark humour sometimes.

LlynTegid · 10/12/2023 17:59

Valid concern OP.

Just don't watch re-runs of Captain Pugwash!!!

EveryOtherNameTaken · 10/12/2023 18:03

It's like panto. Kids love it and don't notice innuendos - that's to keep adults from getting bored. Win win!

kitsuneghost · 10/12/2023 18:05

I wouldn't have thought it as a child's film.
I thought it was more adult nostalgia.

garlictwist · 10/12/2023 18:06

I saw this yesterday with my nephews. I thought it was ok - the songs on the whole weren't that memorable. Were the other chocolatiers meant to be gay? I didn't notice that. Yes, the lederhosen guy and the woman got a bit flirty but hardly hardcore porn. Kids know adults have sex, it's part of the story and not shown in an inappropriate way, imho.

MassageForLife · 10/12/2023 18:07

Changednamesorry · 10/12/2023 17:55

If it makes you feel better I took my 12/6/1 year olds to see it on Thursday and the trailer shown before was "Anatomy of a fall" which is an 18 😅 (Spain less strict about such things!)

Wonka was lovely 🙂

Anatomy of a Fall is a 15 in the UK, and it's likely the trailer is rated lower - the most 'shocking' scenes in the film are not in the trailer.

LemonTreeSkies · 10/12/2023 18:09

ditavonteesed · 10/12/2023 16:56

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.

Same! 😂
I’m in my 50s but when that ad comes on I’m 15 all over again lol!

GonnaBeYoniThisChristmas · 10/12/2023 18:10

I haven’t seen Wonka but a PP put it well about some kids films: “Kids love it and don't notice innuendos - that's to keep adults from getting bored”.

I don’t like it - it’s cheap, sleazy panto vibes, usually lasting all of one minute, and not adding anything to a good film.

cardibach · 10/12/2023 18:15

Blaggingit123 · 10/12/2023 17:52

I did notice one comment aimed at Prodnose (? Matt Lucas’s character) about him being ‘different’ in some way that I thought was implied about being gay - though would clearly go way over the head of any child and may not have been implying that.

my 10 yo thought the lederhosen bit was hilarious.

’Family’ films I remember from my childhood like Look Who’s Talking and Three Men and a Baby had overt sexual references looking back - so it’s definitely not that the times have changed, family films are way more tame now.

Ah. Matt Lucas.
I shall not feel tempted then. Can’t stand him.

FrownedUpon · 10/12/2023 18:18

That didn’t bother me. I thought it was a crap film though.

SleepingStandingUp · 10/12/2023 18:20

Bambooshoot · 10/12/2023 16:24

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

Show quote history

Did your child actually think they had fans up their bums and we're closeted homeosexuals?

I thought it was like the fan dances the women do like the cancan dancing and stuff? I really didn't get "we have gay sex" from it.

The bad couple, it was a way to distract them, to show how fickle she was, that everyone needs love.

I like that Willy has no hint of romance tho. He could easily have ended up the telephonist or Noodle could have been older.

More importantly, how did he end up so alone and sad? And what is Noodles name?

SleepingStandingUp · 10/12/2023 18:21

Bambooshoot · 10/12/2023 15:57

Maybe it is just me, but they didn’t need to be so sleazy - it was like the film was saying only bad guys are gay! Their sexuality should have been utterly irrelevant to their role as baddies, it didn’t need to be part of the “evil” character.

Show quote history

I think you're the only one who thinks they're gay tho

Badgerandfox227 · 10/12/2023 18:22

Saw it this weekend with 5 and 9 year old. They loved it, and didn’t notice any issues with sexuality. There were some bits with the man and woman at the hotel/workshop, but it was funny not smutty.

I think the ones you’re referring to are posh not gay.

StillCreatingAName · 10/12/2023 18:24

Just back from seeing this, spent the majority of time spotting the cast of Ghosts, Horrible Histories, Paddington cast crossover, locations in lovely Bath and trying to work out the others, whilst listening to the songs, drinking a glass of red wine whilst my DC had popcorn and enjoyed the film.
Anything else was obviously over my head. Someone give the OP a festive biscuit.