Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Longma · 11/12/2023 19:13

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

Shazam2 · 11/12/2023 19:47

I haven’t seen it, but it sounds like another one of these work films which will be a flop

Hellocatshome · 11/12/2023 20:00

Shazam2 · 11/12/2023 19:47

I haven’t seen it, but it sounds like another one of these work films which will be a flop

Whats a work film? The majority of people I know who have seen it and aren't strangely homophobic like the OP love or at least like it.

MrsPetty · 11/12/2023 20:03

I went to see it with my teen DDs last night. I fell asleep. Such a brilliant cast. Such a shit story!

Darrellstclares · 11/12/2023 20:07

I went to see it with DDs 17 and 11. We all loved it. Not quite Paddington level, but much better than the latest Matilda (I wanted to love it more than I did).

the lederhosen thing was funny. (Disclaimer: grew up in 70s watching - in retrospect- completely inappropriate bond movies.)

Missed the homosexuality being ‘crowbarred’ into the movie. An excuse to go back and see it again!

Precipice · 11/12/2023 20:10

GirrlCrush · 10/12/2023 20:19

Why do films have to be 'for children' ?

Can't it just be a film for everyone?

By definition, if it has sexual references and sexual jokes, it's not for everyone.

Roundycippae · 11/12/2023 20:11

crowbarring in homosexuality
😂’

ah, we get everywhere!
You remind me of the parents who complained to the school that having our child ( age 4, reception) in their child’s class was ‘normalising homosexuality’ and making him think having 2 mums was okay and ‘aspirational’ … they wanted our kid moved, preferably to another school but at least into another class.

stayathomer · 11/12/2023 20:25

’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.
In Beethoven a guy locks himself and the daughter into a bedroom with the intention of having sex with her and then Beethoven shows up and saves her. I get what op means in that way, why does there have to be sexuality when it’s sold as a family movie- fine if it’s over 12s, but I don’t really want to explain it to a 9 yo!!

CroccyWoccy · 11/12/2023 22:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

What the hell kind of homophobic tripe is this?

CroccyWoccy · 11/12/2023 22:41

Oh OP you are being completely ridiculous - there was a bit of flamboyant dancing and two characters were duped into falling for each other in part because the male was persuaded to wear tight shorts - this was quite tame and played entirely for laughs. It was far less risqué than the average episode of Strictly.

Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 07:42

‘. I turned to DH and said let me guess, was this directed by a gay man?

Then I googled it and what a surprise it was…
What the hell kind of homophobic tripe is this?’

the very ordinary, every day variety I’m afraid.
I almost preferred it when we were just called names in the street ( still happen a bit) because at least we knew where we stood with certain people.

CroccyWoccy · 12/12/2023 09:25

Hellocatshome · 11/12/2023 20:00

Whats a work film? The majority of people I know who have seen it and aren't strangely homophobic like the OP love or at least like it.

I guess they meant “woke”.

Which is ironic really because the things the OP is complaining about is Panto-style camp and nudge-and-a-wink humour which is really about as far removed from woke as children’s entertainment gets.

I think people just throw the word “woke” around to mean anything they don’t like.

T1Dmama · 12/12/2023 10:35

I thought it was brilliant, didn’t find it overly sexual. In fact it had lots of vibes from other films, with the pair you describe reminding me of the original Annie, (orphanage drunk being distracted by a man)… Mary Poppins dancing and singing with umbrella… and a bit of grinch with the man in the Swiss mountain short dungarees….

lots of kids films have adult humour in which kids don’t necessarily pick up on… we watched chicken run the other day and my daughter was shocked at all the sexual innuendos.

I also think it’s good the villains were ‘normal’… bad people in real life come from all societies and don’t come across as ‘evil’ to talk to.

Onelifeonly · 12/12/2023 10:42

I haven't watched this film but 'sexual' content occurs in many children's films and films suitable for all. As kids, my brother and I used to talk about the boring 'love' bits in practically every film we saw (usually just a kiss). It's a part of life. Homosexual content is no more 'sexual' than heterosexual content is. It's good that it is being normalised imo.

copiley695 · 12/12/2023 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Perhaps thre should be some kind of warning so you can avoid films and plays directed by gasp a homosexual.

CroccyWoccy · 12/12/2023 12:20

copiley695 · 12/12/2023 11:23

Perhaps thre should be some kind of warning so you can avoid films and plays directed by gasp a homosexual.

Everyone involved in the production of entertainment should have to fill in a detailed questionnaire about their sexual orientation so that all movies, plays, TV and books can be rated on a queerometer. Makes sense.

Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 14:25

‘Everyone involved in the production of entertainment should have to fill in a detailed questionnaire about their sexual orientation so that all movies, plays, TV and books can be rated on a queerometer. Makes sense.’

would work for me! The gayer the better…

Bambooshoot · 12/12/2023 15:45

Christ on a bike, I’ve had way more personal insults on this than were deserved, I think!

By the way, I didn’t run away, I am just in a different time zone.

My objection was to sexualising what I thought (perhaps incorrectly) was a children’s Christmas film, given that it was a prequel (yes, thank you, I’m well aware there was no book) to a series written for children. Not unreasonable to assume the prequel would also be for children but apparently not.

I am absolutely not homophobic, and I don’t own any pearls to clutch, my objection was to pushing sex (gay, straight, bi or any other kind) onto kids when they are too young to understand. Let kids just, you know, be kids, and watch a magical film without adults (of any sex) pawing over each other.

There was no reason for any of the sex bits - as I said, the Chocolatiers could have just been evil and done an amazing hip hop, jazz, amusing folk or street dance or literally any other kind of dance number other than burlesque - although apparently I misunderstood and it wasn’t sexual, just “posh”.

The money obsessed workhouse people could have been distracted with a hundred things other than trying to shag each other - what about a newly (fake) discovered treasure map showing gold in the basement, so they dig and get trapped for a bit (or shut in forever, it is Roald Dahl after all!) or a royal family they have to pursue outside of the workhouse - Wonka managed to magic up a whole shop full of chocolate on no ingredients whatsoever, so that should have been a doddle!

My objection is absolutely not to sex itself, gay or straight - it’s putting sex in a kid’s film. But I have been told this was not a kid’s film, so I will take my imaginary pearls and cat’s bum mouth (thanks for that) and keep my opinions to myself (while keeping my eight year old away from people who think he “needs to know this”.) Yes, he does, but not yet.

I tell him that a man can marry another man and that he may want to some day, depends on how he grows up. He laughs and says “but that can’t work, mummy!” He has no real concept of sex, or sexual attraction - so this being put in a film is utterly irrelevant for children. It does not “educate” - I would say it just confuses and can be damaging. I am concerned that children are getting too much, too young, and are pushed into being sexual before they are ready - especially girls. But hey! Apparently I am complaining about “woke” even though I never even mentioned the term. Ho hum.

OP posts:
Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 15:59

‘Christ on a bike, I’ve had way more personal insults on this than were deserved, I think! ‘

meh, given the inane interpretation of Willy Wonka on the whole probably richly deserved.

‘By the way, I didn’t run away, I am just in a different time zone.’

Alabama? Kentucky? God fearing, baby rearing Texas maybe??

copiley695 · 12/12/2023 16:04

I tell him that a man can marry another man and that he may want to some day, depends on how he grows up. He laughs and says “but that can’t work, mummy!”

I think most kids that age can understand the concept of same-sex marriage.

Bambooshoot · 12/12/2023 16:04

Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 15:59

‘Christ on a bike, I’ve had way more personal insults on this than were deserved, I think! ‘

meh, given the inane interpretation of Willy Wonka on the whole probably richly deserved.

‘By the way, I didn’t run away, I am just in a different time zone.’

Alabama? Kentucky? God fearing, baby rearing Texas maybe??

Thank you for your very eloquent and helpful addition to the thread, loving the extra insults! No, not in the USA.

Please, if you think my views “inane” could you let me know why, so we could, maybe, discuss?

OP posts:
Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 16:35

Ah, I sort of assumed as we have hillbilly, religious homophobic nutters in our family and homosexuals sneaking their insidious gayness into kids movies in an underhanded fleeting manner is EXACTLY the kind of thing that they’re obsessed with.
they’re also not homophobic either because they have a lesbian daughter/niece/ granddaughter/ auntie ( my wife) so can’t be…

Wolfpa · 12/12/2023 16:46

You would rather they were locked in and left to starve to death instead of be distracted by attraction?

I think you may have your priorities mixed up.

Bambooshoot · 12/12/2023 16:51

Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 16:35

Ah, I sort of assumed as we have hillbilly, religious homophobic nutters in our family and homosexuals sneaking their insidious gayness into kids movies in an underhanded fleeting manner is EXACTLY the kind of thing that they’re obsessed with.
they’re also not homophobic either because they have a lesbian daughter/niece/ granddaughter/ auntie ( my wife) so can’t be…

Did you actually read my post? It was about sex in kids films, not being anti gay/religion - though you certainly seem to be pretty xenophobic!

For the record, I was born in Yorkshire, grew up in the midlands. Nowhere near Texas, sorry.

OP posts:
Roundycippae · 12/12/2023 17:19

The best family films work on 2 levels …

Swipe left for the next trending thread