John August

Projects

History of Confederated Products

Big Fish, QandA

Congratulations on [Big Fish](http://imdb.com/title/tt0319061/combined). I have a silly question concerning the “Confederated Products” throwaway about halfway through that movie. Since that’s a reference to your previous work, rather than [Tim Burton’s](http://imdb.com/name/nm0000318/), how did it get there? That is, did you include it in the script, or did someone else suggest it?

–Patrick Bowman

For those who don’t know the reference, “Confederated Products” is the Amway-like company that serves as a major punchline in the third part of [Go](http://imdb.com/title/tt0139239/). Originally, the company was supposed to be American Products, but the legal department couldn’t get clearance on the name. I had to submit a list of alternatives, and Confederated Products was the best one that checked out okay.

Since then, I’ve tried to use Confederated Products in every project. (Likewise, I also try to use [Melissa McCarthy](http://imdb.com/name/nm0565250/), who is similarly terrific and versatile.) I just write “Confederated Products” into the script and hope no one tries to change it. Generally, they don’t. After Go, Big Fish is the biggest use of the brand name, but it was also used in the first [Charlie’s Angels](http://imdb.com/title/tt0160127/) — though I’m not sure you can see it.

I’ve always been a big fan of giant, insidius imaginary corporations such as Acme or Weyland-Yutani. I registered [ConfederatedProducts.com](http://confederatedproducts.com) just so I could be sure to have the name for future projects.

Everyone in London smokes

Charlie, News

For the past week, I’ve been in London working on the last details for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My eyes have been really dry and scratchy, which made me worry I was geting conjunctivitis (a.k.a. “pink eye”) or a stye (a.k.a. “who hit you?”). For various reasons — stress, lack of sleep — these eye disorders tend to plague me when starting production.

Imagine my relief when I realized the real reason for my miserable eyes: everyone in London smokes.

Now, this is not a slag on Londoners or their great city. Lord knows I love both. But I quickly realized the term “non-smoking room” means that the blankets are not currently on fire. And the non-smoking section of a restaurant is the table without an ashtray.

Yes, I know I’m spoiled coming from Los Angeles, where smoking indoors, or in the presence of any living creature, is considered abhorant. But here’s to social shaming. When I come home from dinner, I want to feel it in my stomach, not smell it on my clothes.

Truthfully, in my week here, I have seen a few people not smoking. But they were children, and looked a little daft.

Did I ever watch the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

Charlie, QandA

I remember reading on IMDb, that you told Tim Burton that you had never seen the original [Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0067992/). I don’t think I have read anything on your site about that subject. Have you in fact seen the original Willy Wonka? What do you advise on that anyway? And is Charlie a remake or sequel or neither?

–Richard
Gold Coast, Australia

First off, I’m hesitant to say too much, because I don’t want to spoil anything about the new movie.

It’s true that when Tim Burton asked me to write [Charlie and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/), my first question was whether I should watch the original movie. (It’s not like I was raised off the grid by hippie survivalists, but somehow I had never seen it.) Tim urged me not to watch it until after I handed in the first draft, which I think was wise.

Halfway into my second draft, I finally watched the 1971 Gene Wilder version, and it was jarring. No disrespect to the movie, which is obviously beloved by a generation of my peers, but it was visually and narratively very, very different from Roald Dahl’s book. True, most of the main story elements were still there, such as the rotten children and the chocolate river. But some of the choices made – killing off Charlie’s father, adding Slugworth, the acid trip on the pink boat — wouldn’t have been my choices.

And in some ways, it’s great that the original movie did its own thing, because it gives the new movie a chance to use some of the overlooked parts of Dahl’s book. (But no, I won’t divulge which parts those are.)

Although the press will inevitably call this a remake of Willy Wonka, it should properly be called a new version of Roald Dahl’s book. I honestly think that if the 1971 movie had never been made, we would still be making this one. It’s testimony to the timelessness of Dahl’s books that they remain so popular today.

David Kelly to play Grandpa Joe in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Charlie, Projects

davidkelly_240_001Continuing my policy of only reporting stuff after it’s already public knowledge, I guess I’m now allowed to say that the role of Grandpa Joe in [Charlie and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/) will be played by [David Kelly](http://imdb.com/name/nm0446303/).

(No, not the [guy who writes “The Practice.”](http://imdb.com/name/nm0005082/) It’s the guy who was in [Waking Ned Devine](http://imdb.com/title/tt0166396/).)

I haven’t met him yet, but I will next week when we have the cast reading in London. I’ll be over there for two weeks, so expect fewer updates until after production begins on June 21.