To answer your questions, here are my following responses.

1. If you wish to do so, you can. But for me I would say it's an option, not something I would see as a mandatory thing. It's the same thing I've mentioned to nir_tok upon seeing what he's worked on for the past few weeks now (even spoiling me with how it ends, considering I would rather have it be a surprised/shock, rather than show me it and then my comments would be like "Oh yeah I saw this coming" type of comment. I would have to say that if you ask me). But, if other people say "Go For It", I wouldn't question it. It is your art page after all.
2. Much like the first comment, that is up to you. Bludrak in the past, when he did his comic pages, would post at least one of them for the next 6 days, up until the final comic page. But I can definitely see much of the 2005 wonka film inspiration when it comes to blueberry inflation, so I'm not shocked he prefers the 2005 film over the 1971 film.
3. Mmmmm, maybe "Blueberry Inflated Characters" or something like that, or "(Insert Character's Name) Blueberry Inflated Version"....Those are the only two I can come up with if you ask me.

Also, "Have a happy Juicy Jule" July is spelled wrong in this part. And "Twenty years ago, on this day, July 20th, 2005, Time Burton's Adaptation of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory" It's not July 20th, it's July 15th. THOUGH, what also celebrates 20 years since it's release this month, is "Dark Water" (A remake of the 2002 Japanese Horror film, that having dark water flooding inside the house is still a fear of mine to this very day), Fantastic Four, Wedding Crashers (A comedy film for adults about two men who crash a wedding party. Very strange story but shenanigans ensue apparently), And my personal favorite that I did see in theaters weeks later after the Charlie Film, Sky High (Walt Disney's teenager superhero film that has sadly been forgotten by Disney and many others). I was going to list the other anniversaries, but I'll save that for the end of this year in December 2025.

As for my take on the blueberry inflation scene in the 2005 film...
While I do like the Charlie Bucket actor (the grandpa joe person was fine with his job), The Wonka one in this film is sadly not my favorite. Don't get me wrong, Johnny Depp did what he could with the film, but the nervous/socially anxious type of Wonka wasn't really my favorite. Not to mention the children pointing out his flaws...Oof, it felt like as if the tour guests were smarter than Wonka (Which is quite backwards for me until I read the story, and realized, "Wow, Wonka is that socially awkward all this time?? What a B777h!" type of thing. Even Gene Wilder didn't like the Tim Burton film when it came out (and I do agree with him on that). But other than that, in the blueberry inflation version of the film.....You know, I've seen some inflation stuff years back, so to me, seeing it as a 10 foot tall blueberry inflated being, I looked at it thinking, "Yeah, it's an okay blueberry inflation thing". I mean, it wouldn't matter if she was taller, wider and such, but there are three things regarding the inventing room scene:
1. Compared to the 1971 version (which I was only confused of where the Chewing gum machine was placed at in the inventing room, and by the tall steel doors of course), this inventing room, I had no idea where we are, and it was one of the first instances where the Wonka character would explain very little of it (considering I was remaking the reversed movie clips of that film this year, Wonka in the 2005 film just glosses over many of the inventions, and some of his explanations are either a bit slow, or just glossed over and moves on to the next one. As I'm just sitting there thinking, "Wait Wonka what did you mention Oh okay now moving on to the next one. Wonka Where's this machine in this room? What the heck is this machine?? Is that the chewing gum machine??" so you can imagine how confused I was by the time we got to the inventing room's equivalent to the chewing gum machine. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if it was futuristic, but...eh, it was okay, not great, but okay.
2. I, absolutely do not like Violet's outfit in the film. I don't care what you say, having to see the butt shot, combined with her belly button, and the track suit....I hate to say this, but I've been seeing my oldest brother run in track in middle school years ago, and I don't find that outfit to be my top favorite (again, before that film came out, I was in special olympics swimming, and the ladies bathing suits I feel would be the better outfit for blueberry inflation if you ask me...Heck, the jumpsuit the 1971 Violet wore felt a lot better to look at...I don't know, it's like as if Violet herself was wearing a formal wedding suit to a wonka tour, it just felt off. It didn't help that during the inflation, her clothes were just as much of a dark blue color as her skin...Which makes me question more of whether the hair and clothes would change just as much color as the skin tones (I'm sure you and I HungryLurker have mentioned it in the past but). When I saw it the first time, I was like "This is weird, but it's also a very weird inflation at the same time."
3. While I can understand why 10 foot inflations are cool and all, and I don't mind the oompa loompa song in the inventing room (The other ones besides Augustus Gloop one weren't that good. The Mike Teevee one is my least favorite despite how the rooms in the movie look). Not to mention...NO Waddling At All!?!?....The blueberry inflation to me was quite disappointing to me. Heck, even my mom who saw the 1971 movie in theaters and likes the oompa loompa songs and references there, my mom felt weirded out by the movie's oompa loompas and the entire inventing room scene as a whole (and even the whole movie. I don't blame her at that time for how strange and bizarre Tim Burton's adaptation of the Wonka film is). But I do think what ruined it for me is seeing people make their own windows movie maker videos of blueberry inflation (with the 009 Sound System's Trance song as the audio source), and seeing photos of these people doing photoshops of the 2005 film, and uh...It just didn't arouse me that much compared to the 1971 film. Also, the weird swelling/sinking part of the end part of the inflation sadly isn't my favorite (Again, the track suit was just not the right choice for her. If her mom and Violet were wearing compression exercise clothing like under Armour or Nike, I wouldn't mind it very much). Also, I noticed in one of the shots, Scarlet's chest has an opening in between her chest, where for nearly 20 years I didn't realize just how risque it looks in one of the shots, that I'm not sure how that got past the MPAA censors. Again, this film, compared to the 1971 film, is PG rated, so it could have easily been a PG-13 film if it ever got that close to being more risque than before. Also, the butt shot I have a feeling is a reference to how Shrek and other kids animated films used to use the butt as a joke for farting or weight gain/growth (Jimmy Neutron's episode is the first thing to come to my mind when that has happened. Heck, even the Chamber of Secrets second Harry Potter film had a lady swelling/filling up like a balloon and flying away. And that part really took me out of the Harry Potter series if you ask me, and even I don't know how that happened in the first place but there's that one. Doesn't help that a 2003 film "Big Fat Liar" has a man that ended up having his entire skin blue and made fun of/bullied/messed with in that movie. Again, I was 9 years old when I saw the movie. But considering I've watched the 1971 movie so much prior to the 2005 film, I don't know, it took a while for the blueberry inflation scene to grow on me. But I would say it's "Okay" or "Fine" at best, but not my top favorite. I've seen fan art do a better job with it then what I've seen in that film. But again, the 1971 film made you imagine Violet getting bigger as the oompa loompa song was being sung too, and plus, in this film, no belt snapping or waddling included in this 2005 movie...So seeing those missing felt really off to me. And again, the scene's dark, I don't know how the door was opened before Violet got there, also, are the guests that close to Violet?? And if so, I'm surprised they didn't get squished...But regardless, I do think Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket stole the entire movie for me, he is absolutely my favorite character, and favorite person in the entire movie. Seeing him have his standards and reasoning, was something that I brought with me from that film. But again, this movie was heavily sourced from the book (surprising considering I used that book for "Read Across America" back in 2006, and I didn't bother to read the book except looking at the "Goodbye Violet" chapter. And uh, the illustration for that book looks a bit strange if you ask me. Even the wonka character's design in that book didn't appeal me all that well (which makes sense why Charlie looks better than wonka).

Besides all of those complaints, it is a movie I do remember seeing on the day it came out (considering I saw movie ads on it, as I originally thought it would come out on July 4th, the July 7th, and then I realized it came out on July 15th instead of July 4th as it advertised a month before. And upon remaking the reverse movie clips of the film, weird to think I had a dream about some parts of it featured with me on the tour, standing next to Wonka, seeing someone end up as a blueberry inflated being, to my bored amusement (meaning I wasn't that excited to begin with but you can see why I posted them before today, July 15th, but I digress). I'm sure you and I have had many, MANY discussions of the 2005 film versus the 1971 film in the past, so feel free to respond to this comment whenever you need to.
Again, don't get me wrong, the 2005 film is a "Cult Classic" and a film for those who grew up or love the 2005 film, or those who read the book more, I can see why they love it...But again, you cannot deny that many of the older generation of people really care for the 2005 film, considering how weird it was (It felt like I was watching a Dr. Seuss movie, especially shown in the chocolate room scene. Again, it felt like I was watching a Warner Brother's version of "The Cat In The Hat" 2003 film with Mike Myers (and that film also had a lot of jokes, including the Cat in the Hat shaking his butt when the Latin fiesta came up...So that's why I found the Tim Burton film to be just as strange as the 2003 Universal Dr. Seuss film). Regardless, it's worth celebrating the movie's anniversary of when it came out. But for me, the upcoming anniversaries of "Thomas And The Magic Railroad's" 25th anniversary, as well as "Pokemon The Movie 2000", and the 20th anniversary of "Sky High" and my personal favorite from 2005 (and the one that inspired me to do golf as a sport), "The Greatest Game Ever Played" That starred Shia LaBeouf (I'm surprised I just remembered his name upon trying to figure out what his name was again). And for 2007 being "Surf's Up" and "August Rush" turning 20 years old when 2027 comes around....But as I always say in my discord server, just because Juicy July ends, and even after this anniversary's over, doesn't mean it's the end of posting blueberry inflation stuff altogether...And regardless, next year is Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory's 55th anniversary, so there's that to look forward. But again, this movie will turn 30 years old by the time Back To The Future Part 1 celebrates its 50th anniversary (and much of the 1980s stuff) 5/10/14 years from now. So yeah, if you think this anniversary is special, wait until the Atari 2600 turns 50 in two years, as well as Star Wars Episode 4, and even video games that came out in the 1980s.

And also, one more thing to mention....Warner Brothers, as far as I'm concerned, has not announced ANY 4k UHD RE-RELEASE version of the 2005 movie At All (Such a shame if you ask me. You would think Warner Brothers would do that, But Noooooooooooo Warner Brothers is too busy trying to pay off it's debt and laying off employees and shutting projects down....What the heck is going on in that company, it's not working out for the CEO in my opinion....) So that's why I'm wondering on your end HungryLurker, Have you heard of any 4k Re-Release of this film?? Just asking that's all.

Anyway, thanks for this post, and happy 20th anniversary/hope the 20th anniversary of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory went well/to the film that introduced a new generation (Gen Zs and book farns) the Wonka movie adaptation they have truly wanted and such....Cheers...=33 =D < 3

(Jesus Christ, that wall of text...)

Well, what few people have responded have indicated they want teasers and the completed images spread out over several days, so it looks like that's what they're going to get. They couldn't think of a name either, so I guess that's up to me.

... How the fuck did I mess that date up? Maybe I got in confused, since it was also only released on the 15th in the United States, but internationally on the 20th. Either way, it's corrected now. Thanks for pointing that out.

I ended up watching the Tim Burton movie twice over the anniversary with some friends, and I think Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka was terrible; one of the worst parts about the movie, ironically. In both the book and the 71 film, only ever hearing about Wonka from second-hand sources, and never actually seeing him until half way through the story builds up an immense tone of mystery around him and the things he was capable of, but the 05 movie showing Wonka within the first five minutes ruins that mystique. (Also, the sub point that Grandpa Joe used to work for him is absolutely pointless and accomplishes just as much.)

What stuck me as really off-putting about Depp's Wonka was how out of place his cynicism towards the children is. It strikes me as a complete misread of 71 Wonka's cynicism and seemingly duplicitous attitude, but there was a reason behind Wilder's performance. The point was 71 Wonka had been made more world-weary and callous after thieves stole his inventions. He still has a good heart and a desire to delight the world with his candy, but he uses sarcasm as a wall to psychologically protect himself now; he's not being an asshole just for the sake of it. At the beginning of 'Pure Imagination,' notice that he only swipes at (but purposefully misses) the children with his crane when they try to walk in front of him. When he's taking sadistic satisfaction in the suffering of the bad children and terrifying their parents, it's only after they've done something that has made them unworthy in his eyes of inheriting the factory (Augustus drinking from the river, Violet stealing the gum, Veruca persistently being a snobby bitch, etc). There is a deceptive amount of depth to Wilder's legendary performance, and anyone who has the most superficial, knuckle-dragging take of 'iT'z gUd bCuZ u nEvAr nO iF hE'S bEiNg tRu oR nAuGhT" are also probably the kinds of people who enjoy the JurASSic World movies.

But Depp's Wonka is just a dismissive jackass for the sake of it... or, more likely, because it is just a shallow understanding of Wilder's performance. All Depp and/or Burton saw was "He's a jerk to the kids" and were incapable of reading anything deeper. (Further proof of the adage, "No one will remember or care about what you say; the only thing that matters to them is how what you said made them fEeEeEeL.") Except because they also didn't understand the capriciousness of 71 Wonka's character, now he's just a jerk sporadically. For instance, within the first two minutes of the tour meeting him, one of the kids asks if he wants to know their names, only for Depp!Wonka to flippantly reply "I can't imagine what good that would do." Okay, so if he doesn't give a fuck about who they are, why is he even letting them into the factory, let alone testing them as potential heirs of his factory? Compare that to Wilder!Wonka, who was at first legitimately happy to meet his tour guests.

All this, and that's without even mentioning how atrocious 05 Wonka's "backstory" is. That was literally NOTHING but Burton inserting his own "mommy never loved me, wah" issues into someone else's story, with all the ham-fisted artfulness of giving a pig an up-to-the-wrist proctology exam.

TL:DR; 05 Wonka fucking sucks.

I'm pretty sure I've talked about it to you before, but the 71 vs the 05 inventing rooms are some of the best examples of the differences in priorities between Mel Stuart and Tim Burton. In Stuart's film, the establishing shot of the inventing room is a really long, slow panning shot to let you take everything in, understand where everything is in relation to everything else, and have a sense of progression as the tour moves through it. In Burton's movie, you never see the room in full like you do the other rooms, and it was just a bunch of random set pieces thrown together without much rationality or consideration for how the film would progress from one set-piece to the next; just what they thought "looked cool." Even Tim Burton, in his own audio commentary for the film, stated the inventing room became their "most unfavorite" [sic] set to film in, because of how disoriented even they got working in it.

I don't mind 05 Violet being in a track suit. It's befitting her overly-ambitious, try-hard character. This was also filmed in the mid-2000's when the brand of Juicy Couture women's track suits (the ones with the word "Juicy" written across the ass) started gaining popularity, so I'm sure the joke was too good for the film makers to pass up (especially how it plays into her ass expansion shot). What I do dislike is how the tracksuit changes color when Violet starts turning into a blueberry. 71 Violet's entire outfit was designed solely with the thought of how it would look when she turns into a blueberry, with the makeup they used for Denise Nickerson mixed explicitly so it would be as good a match as possible to her suit. And that was done by guys in 1971, on a shoestring budget of only $4,000,000. But 05 Violet's track suit changing color is just because they (either Burton or the SFX department) fucked up and didn't have the foresight of a bunch of self-professed "amateurs flying by the seat of their pants" from over thirty yeas prior had to settle on what color Violet would turn and give her a suit of the same color to match it, so they just used CGI to cheat and make the suit change color, despite how little sense it makes.

Not having waddling or a belt pop doesn't ruin an inflation scene to me. The 71 film, particularly the inventing room scene, was literally life-changing for me, yet I'm not so autistically attached to 71 Violet's inflation that I think that's the "only" way a blueberry inflation scene in a CaTCF movie can/should be shot, and anything left out, changed, or added is "wrong." 71 Violet gave us some iconic shots, and her belt popping off is fucking legendary, but it also left her in this weird oval shape that does not look nearly as appealing as the more properly spherical shape 05 Violet inflates into. 05 Violet's inflation has plenty of drawbacks, like the entire scene being way too fucking dark to hide the shitty CGI, but it also gave us the equally iconic trope of the tip of a girls nose turning blue first, then spreading across the rest of her body, and early stage pear-shaped blueberries, which are sexy as fuck.

There's plenty in enjoy and take inspiration from both versions, and I have. The first time I drew Genevieve was meant to be a love letter for people who enjoy both versions; her shape takes after 05, but her color and outfit follow 71, and her size is in between the two.

Scarlet Beauregarde showing a little cleavage isn't anything nearly risque enough to warrant a PG-13 rating. It is fitting for her character though, as a single woman past her prime, who drove off her husband years ago (if she even married at all) because of her narcissism. Her sexual appeal is fading fast, but unwilling to accept her aging, she lives vicariously through her daughter, who she truly does not love, but has manipulated into being an over-achiever for her to use only as a vehicle to indirectly love herself more. Scarlet Beauregarde is absolutely despicable... and she was an absolute joy to watch. She was the thing I enjoyed most about rewatching CaTCF.

I have to disagree, I think Freddie Highmore's portrayal of Charlie was bland at best, terrible and a bastardization of childhood at worst. He doesn't even feel like a child; he's too stoic, too emotionless, and his ethics too "I'm doing the right thing because this is the right thing" rather than having an apparent personal investment in his own morals or representing where he would be at an appropriate stage of moral development. He barely even reacts when he sees his golden ticket for the first time. (Compared to 71 Charlie, whose excitement shoots through the roof when he sees just the corner of his.) 05 Charlie is like a quintessential, flanderized portrayal of an almost fetishized fixation of adults to refuse to properly address children as children, or take the time and processes of development they require to grow up into consideration, but rather the wish that children act like them, as adults, without even taking into consideration how many decades it took them to get to where they are.

I personally think the vast, overwhelming super majority of amateur edits of the inventing room shots are shit, no matter which version of the movie they come from. Having to see so many trash tier copy/paste jobs is partially what drove me to finally start drawing and posting blueberry inflation content; to show everyone they didn't have to settle for such shitty pictures: not when they could have works of true art.

Having watched the 05 version twice within 24 hours recently, my take is it's not completely insufferable, but it is in many, many regards, at best a side-grad, at worst, definitively worse in almost every regard except for the level of special effects (... sometimes. You cannot watch that opening title credits sequence and in good faith tell me it doesn't look like shit). There's plenty of quality fetish fuel to extract from 05 Violet's inflation, as proof by how we're STILL seeing dividends from it, which is evident even in my own work, now over twenty years later. But the only way I can even conceive anyone would say the 05 film is the better version of the story is, aside from just naturally having atrocious tastes, this was the version they grew up with, or they're materialist, contemporary consoomers whose criteria is "newer = better;" that's the only way I can think anyone would would to a conclusion so clearly wrong.

You know, as someone who isn't a resolution fanatic, I hadn't even realized that CaTCF hasn't been released in 4K yet. That they haven't is probably due to the forty or so BILLION dollars in debt they're in, thus making ancillary ventures like that too great an expenditure. I don't think David Zaslav is doing that great of a job, but the company was in far, far deeper shit than when he first took over, due mostly to them better the farm on HBO Max -- and loosing -- in the industry-destroying streaming war. And just before Zaslav took over, the people in charge were trying to steer Warner in the direction of that DEI dog shit to try and score some of that ESG money. All this without even considering that they've just been making too many mediocre movies, including but sure as shit not limited to the terminally catastrophic, Greek theater tragedy mistake of in the 2010's, leaving their rights to DC in the hands of the terminally incompetent, "I'm 14 and this is DEEP" (even though he's in his fifties), "dark = COOOOOOL," incorrigibly edgi boi, Hack Snyder.

David Zaslav's entire relationship with Warner Brothers, from his tenure now to his inevitable end, can, ironically, be summarized entirely by this shot from a Warner Brothers movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiRfbRbcO8

Why would you want a 4K render of Tim Burton's CaTCF, though? Do you really want to see how poorly the hokey CGI has aged?

Either way, thanks for sharing, happy 20th anniversary of CaTCF to you too, and may the blueberry inflation art keep going stronger than for even longer.

(Jesus Christ, this wall of text...)

(Well, I did number it to make it easy to find the responses, and second...Much like Bartan the writer himself on FA and Weasyl, both him and I type/write too dang much....So yeah, I'm not surprised when it comes to topics like these, I have a good chunk to say. It's this reason why not many in discord chat bother to read, not even some of my users in my discord group or other discord chat users online. But that's just them not taking the time to read through it all, just saying....Anyway...)

"Well, what few people have responded have indicated they want teasers and the completed images spread out over several days" Hmm...I see...I was more in the mind of "Whenever you are able to get it done, that's all I care about." I don't know, while teasers may be cool and nice to other people, I myself never really cared for them (Unless if it's a movie or tv show then that's different but), I never really cared for artwork/literature teasers since, you know, I'm patient enough to wait until the full thing is done. So yeah, it was more in the mindset of not having you feel the need to rush or get it done on time to show it off as soon as possible. I'm more in the mindset of whenever you can post it, then post it. Again, I like surprises, I don't like to be given previews (even though it is nice to see, I wouldn't have much to comment or suggest what to change. Because my changes could detriment the artist I'm talking to, and they'll probably not come back to me again for suggestions. I'm only there if someone needs a talk, like a therapist, if they're upset that night or something that's all).

As for the title of your works, I'm sure you'll find a title. I just thought "Blueberry Inflated Character Versions" or "Character Blueberry Inflation Works" or "Pokemon BBI Works" could work well. Something simple that isn't complicated to remember, but that's just on my end. Whatever you wish to come up with, go ahead and do so.

"How the fuck did I mess that date up? Maybe I got in confused, since it was also only released on the 15th in the United States..." I mean, if you say that the international versions came out on July 20th, then to make it easier, July 10th is when it first premiered in the Los Angeles theater, followed by statewide US release on July 15th, and then international on July 20th. You can technically show two/three dates of when it came out too. It's just that some mention July 10th, while others July 15th...It happens...I was only correcting you on that part since July 15th was the one that released in the US, unless released elsewhere on different dates in different countries that's all. And yeah, no problem. =)

"I ended up watching the Tim Burton movie twice over the anniversary with some friends, and I think Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka was terrible; one of the worst parts about the movie, ironically. In both the book and the 71 film, only ever hearing about Wonka from second-hand sources, and never actually seeing him until half way through the story builds up an immense tone of mystery around him and the things he was capable of, but the 05 movie showing Wonka within the first five minutes ruins that mystique. (Also, the sub point that Grandpa Joe used to work for him is absolutely pointless and accomplishes just as much.)"

First off, neat. Second off, I would have to agree with you on the Willy Wonka 2005 one, Johnny Depp's performance of Wonka didn't fit the part right. And as you'll mention later on, it felt like as if the children were a lot more open, curious, but also more straight tot he point than Wonka did...It felt off is all I was saying. (Again, I was remaking my reversed movie clips for the Charlie one, but I've had the entire movie torrent file in my Hard Disk Drive for 7 years now, along with the 1080p 2011 re-release of Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory, so I know how the movie goes from beginning to end)...
In terms of the 1971 movie, when Grandpa Joe tells Charlie the story of willy wonka's factory, yeah, I would agree, it really left a huge mystery of what he truly looked like. Again, we never really saw the wonka in the 1971 film until the day of the tour. But I can definitely see in my head how Wonka was extremely upset that he physically threw everyone out of his factory and onto the street because of that.
In the 2005 film, we see him right when the candy shop comes in, when grandpa joe as a worker tells Wonka that "We're Out Of Chocolate Birds"...And yeah, you can see him, right then and there behind the lollipop swirl design...I have a feeling Tim Burton knew that many people already knew who this Willy Wonka character was, so he thought showing it right then and there would help people see what he looked like in the past compared to now??? That's what I'm getting from this scene...But yeah, pretty much the 2005 film would have been the equivalent of the 2022 "Wonka" movie backstory of following where Wonka actually started, up until having to compete with other candy makers, and then realizing life isn't as whimsical as Willy Wonka himself thought it would be. So the 2005 film felt like an attempt to show wonka's backstory, but the way it was edited and jarring, yeah, I can see why not many like you wanted to see the reveal of Willy Wonka himself right at that point in the movie. For me, the moment I saw it 20 years ago, I didn't even recognize that was Willy Wonka until the tour, as I thought it was some random person that ran a candy shop. But that goes to show just how much I didn't pay attention to filmmaking 20/25 years back, even though I have dreamed of making my own video game, horror, family, and other types of movies in 2001/2002.

"What stuck me as really off-putting about Depp's Wonka was how out of place his cynicism towards the children is. It strikes me as a complete misread of 71 Wonka's cynicism and seemingly duplicitous attitude, but there was a reason behind Wilder's performance. The point was 71 Wonka had been made more world-weary and callous after thieves stole his inventions. He still has a good heart and a desire to delight the world with his candy, but he uses sarcasm as a wall to psychologically protect himself now; he's not being an asshole just for the sake of it. At the beginning of 'Pure Imagination,' notice that he only swipes at (but purposefully misses) the children with his crane when they try to walk in front of him. When he's taking sadistic satisfaction in the suffering of the bad children and terrifying their parents, it's only after they've done something that has made them unworthy in his eyes of inheriting the factory (Augustus drinking from the river, Violet stealing the gum, Veruca persistently being a snobby bitch, etc). There is a deceptive amount of depth to Wilder's legendary performance, and anyone who has the most superficial, knuckle-dragging take of 'iT'z gUd bCuZ u nEvAr nO iF hE'S bEiNg tRu oR nAuGhT" are also probably the kinds of people who enjoy the JurASSic World movies."

RIGHT!?!?...It felt like as if the children were WWWAAAAYYYY more aware of their surroundings and the tour than HE DID...X<....Why it happens during the Wonka tour, as well as Wonka's hesitation to answer properly is the reason why The 1971 Gene Wilder movie is a better experience seeing him put on an act (Heck, even Gene Wilder in a 2010/2011 Wonka convention mentioned how he didn't like the 2005 film either, and I don't blame him. But as for me, it took a while for the 2005 film to grow on me, whereas the 1971 film was instantaneous).
But, through my fault in my own tired/exhausted brain, I thought Willy Wonka being upset at people stealing his inventions would have been a one time incident that, after all those years of having the factory closed but only making the candies and chocolates and that's it, I thought he would have gotten over that. I didn't realize at the time he still kept that personality and attitude/responses up, even during the factory tour. Heck, what gave it away really was Mike Teevee asking him in the inventing room, golden goose room, and wonkavision is, "How do you make them?'....That should have hinted at me that Wonka is indirect at times to avoid answering the question fully. Again, at that time I would have been ticked, but now that you mentioned it...Gees, I really don't pay attention too much to dialogue, as if it goes over my head, or passes though my left ear to right ear most of the time (again, due to health and exhaustion issues, though they can be corrected but I'm slowly and surely trying to fix them, though it is a beast to be 100% alert...Again, sorry if I talk about myself a lot or don't have much say in these parts, I do try to answer them in a way that makes the conversation interesting or less dull and boring, but I can't help talking about my own side of the same source material. So sorry about that).
Mmm Hmm, He does it at Veruca, Violet, some of the parents, and even Mike Teevee himself...But to be brutally honest, I would not blame him for feeling sadistic and satisfied of seeing the other guests get their demises and such (again, Violet's demise and Mike Teevee's demise in the 1971 film are still my favorites, regardless)..."It's only after they've done something that has made them unworthy in his eyes of inheriting the factory" - "There is a deceptive amount of depth to Wilder's legendary performance" You can say that again. It's basically dissecting what makes the 1971 Willy Wonka film so incredibly fun and genius at the same time. There's a good reason Gene took advantage and made whatever he could with the source material, and turned it into a classic 54/55 years to this very day. Not many actors are capable to how you can take something as unfortunate, scary, and awkward as Willy Wonka, and turn it around a genius, yet witty and "Troll" type of person, but with a reason in mind...
"and anyone who has the most superficial, knuckle-dragging take of 'iT'z gUd bCuZ u nEvAr nO iF hE'S bEiNg tRu oR nAuGhT" are also probably the kinds of people who enjoy the JurASSic World movies."
XDDDD I had to laugh at this one because it truly sums up how many reviews and people that I have come across, whom have said the same thing. And yet, here I am thinking, 'Well, if that's how people see it this way, that's how they see it too.' On my end, I just see Willy Wonka, nowadays, like an "outsider". A person who, probably could have "hated humanity" as much as I did (like a role-model to look up to when things aren't going my way or the other way around). Again, it goes to show just how ingrained this film, including the dialogue, really means to me. And I'm thankfully it never gets remade or re-done in a completely different way than what Mel Stuart set it out to be. Again, Mel was a documentary filmmaker, not so much a director who does entertainment. But much like how Walt Disney's daughter wanted to turn Mary Poppins into a movie, so did Mel Stuart's daughter. I guess you can say both Mary Poppins and Willy Wonka do have something in common, which is seeing the signs that people tell them about, and telling them the harsh realities of what's to expect or have their own stances on life. Heck, both of them don't reveal any kind of surprises to the adults either (which, in a way, is quite magical, yet makes it all that mysterious, or frustrating depending on who you ask...God just thinking about it now made me feel like my body ascended to heaven just mentioning that).

"But Depp's Wonka is just a dismissive jackass for the sake of it... or, more likely, because it is just a shallow understanding of Wilder's performance. All Depp and/or Burton saw was "He's a jerk to the kids" and were incapable of reading anything deeper. (Further proof of the adage, "No one will remember or care about what you say; the only thing that matters to them is how what you said made them fEeEeEeL.") Except because they also didn't understand the capriciousness of 71 Wonka's character, now he's just a jerk sporadically. For instance, within the first two minutes of the tour meeting him, one of the kids asks if he wants to know their names, only for Depp!Wonka to flippantly reply "I can't imagine what good that would do." Okay, so if he doesn't give a fuck about who they are, why is he even letting them into the factory, let alone testing them as potential heirs of his factory? Compare that to Wilder!Wonka, who was at first legitimately happy to meet his tour guests."
Yeah, very dismissive...I would say, not looking at it, you can tell that both Charlie Bucket and Mr. Willy Wonka, has some form of mental illness inside of them. Wonka being schizophrenic, bipolar, and a little bit of Alzheimer's and post-traumatic stress disorder, Charlie Bucket being depressed, isolated, and sad (almost like he has to be a grown up in order to avoid showing his true childlike feelings. Doesn't help one of the grandfathers might have been so profane toward Charlie, that I wouldn't be surprised if he's a despicable as one of the grandfather's in the movie). Hence why with both of them, they really have some sort of mental illness, yet Charlie's like a freakin' guardian angel to Wonka himself....I guess that goes to show why at that time I thought it was okay as a child to be mature and serious, never realizing you can have fun and be yourself (which as a child, I never really liked that myself because I thought it wasn't "mature" or "grown up"...(Sighs)...It's probably why I can relate to the 2005 Charlie and the 1971 Charlie personalities. On one end, I'm like Charlie from the 1971 film, but with my statements are akin to the 2005 charlie...Just saying)....
Also, this is going to be off-topic, but I love the words and terminology you used to describe these situations entirely. Goes to show I learn something new every time we talk.
"All Depp and/or Burton saw was "He's a jerk to the kids", and were incapable of reading anything deeper."
Yeah, that's what happens when people like myself don't bother to dive in further of the themes of the book and do it on surface level. Which is why I'm not surprised how the film turned out and still got a 50% rotten tomatoes and poor reviews at the time of the movie's release. But what you have said here, I do agree with a lot, which is why I think about the 1971 film much more than I do with the 2005 film, despite the 2005 film claiming to be close to the book's source material (that I've heard many people state time and time again, and I don't bother arguing with their topics because it becomes a yelling fest of who's right and who's wrong).
And yeah, the reply Wonka makes after Augustus ask "But don't you want to know our names?" with Wonka being like "I can't imagine what good that would do."....I don't know if that's foreshadowing, or just a statement that he mentioned just to shut the kid up..."so if he doesn't give a fuck about who they are, why is he even letting them into the factory, let alone testing them as potential heirs of his factory?" (Shrugs)....What other choice would Wonka have? Let himself pass on and sell off his factory to the highest bidder??? If he didn't care about the children's questions, maybe he shouldn't be very blunt. Even that response Wonka made went way over my head, as if the child could easily ask him the same question again, and the third time until Wonka tells him to "Shut the fuck up"...Again, Depp Wonka is more mentally ill than Wilder Wonka, just saying. And yes, it's very apparent who would be the one to wholesomely invite the guests compared to the other one....Hmmm....Again, why my family remembers the 1971 film more than the 2005 one.

"All this, and that's without even mentioning how atrocious 05 Wonka's "backstory" is. That was literally NOTHING but Burton inserting his own "mommy never loved me, wah" issues into someone else's story, with all the ham-fisted artfulness of giving a pig an up-to-the-wrist proctology exam."
You know, the way it was edited, even during the chocolate factory tour, it felt awkward for Wonka to just stop the tour because "I was only having a flashback." Even the parents felt uncomfortable around him...I don't know how he's able to run a factory like this, but even Wilder Wonka never lost focus of his guests, nor presenting his guests what's coming up next...Again, Wonka had some massive mental illness and PTSD that yeah, I'm not surprised it can take people out of the picture. I can understand why Tim Burton wanted to show Wonka's backstory, but it could have been done better if it was at the END of the tour, NOT during the tour???....Regardless, yeah, I can definitely see it was "Mother/Father Issues" and Charlie was the one to have to convince him to change his mind, even though he's 9 years old in the book...Again, Freddie Highmore was the only one out of the list of actors I liked, but even he couldn't save the film from what it really was. Even Johnny Depp felt like he was checked out of the movie near the end...It really felt like Tim wanted to take the film in a different direction during the entire film process, but hey, it got made, it was shit, and up until now, unless you are a book person or grew up with the 2005 film, it's been forgotten by many people over the years. It's no wonder you see the 1971 film every year around Christmas time than the 2005 film (but that's yet to be seen when the 2005 film turns 50 years old in 2055)....Also, I looked up Proctology exam....X__X...I never brought this up with you or other people, but I've had trauma from being in a hospital due to a forehead injury when playwrestling with my older brother, back in 1999 when I was 4 (the first time was due to let the dentist clean my teeth, so I ended up in the emergency room. And you can imagine having to be in the hospital for 2 to 5 days straight as a child, which is why many of my nightmares are related to being trapped in a hospital or the scary hallways hospitals have a night. Which is why Halloween 2's trailer really stuck out to me because it took place in a hospital....And considering I almost blacked out and nearly died in December 2014 for bloodwork, you can see why any kind of medical procedure gets me nervous and anxious for this reason. it's why I never want to have a job in a hospital field, unlike my dad that's used to it. But for me, not only would I feel very warm, but also feel slightly lightheaded from encountering such things...Again, I did look it up out of curiosity...But um, I can see your point...Good lord almighty).

And don't worry about the Too Long Don't Read part, I am not one of those people who skips most of the reading anyway, it just takes a little bit of time for me to get through it, due to boredom or need to use up some of my energy to move around and exercise for 5 or 10 minutes to get it out of me. BUT, I do read the whole thing, even if it takes me hours, days, weeks, or months to reply, I will get it over with as soon as possible, or when the right time comes to finish the response, but yeah, I'm not surprised why it sucks. But, it was, at the time, it's 20th birthday when it first came out on July 15th and July 20th respectively.

"I'm pretty sure I've talked about it to you before, but the 71 vs the 05 inventing rooms are some of the best examples of the differences in priorities between Mel Stuart and Tim Burton. In Stuart's film, the establishing shot of the inventing room is a really long, slow panning shot to let you take everything in, understand where everything is in relation to everything else, and have a sense of progression as the tour moves through it. In Burton's movie, you never see the room in full like you do the other rooms, and it was just a bunch of random set pieces thrown together without much rationality or consideration for how the film would progress from one set-piece to the next; just what they thought "looked cool." Even Tim Burton, in his own audio commentary for the film, stated the inventing room became their "most unfavorite" [sic] set to film in, because of how disoriented even they got working in it."

First of, "I'm pretty sure I've talked about it you before" Yep, it was back in November/December 2022, through January - May 2023 that we've talked about it, even through 2024 (yeah, this coming November 2025 will be 3 years ago when I first came across your Blueberry Genevieve artwork on Furaffinity, time sure flies man when doing stuff in real life and online, heh. =3)...But yes, there are many differences between the 1971 version of "The Inventing Room" AND the 2005 version of "The Inventing Room". And this is the biggest caveat when it comes to both of the films. The 2005 one, only shows you what the cinematographer/director wants you to focus on, while Mel Stuart and David Wolper's direction shows you the whole room and gives you a good sense of the inventing room as a whole (even though, as Mr. Wirderino has mentioned to me in our massive document replies, which I didn't think about it this whole time, that the place looks like a sweatshop. Which I can definitely see that since the place is full of food, chemical, and machinery inventions, but again, it's well organized and easy to follow through). In Tim Burton's film however, I had to look at one of the shots when looking at the film not once, not twice, not even three times, but nearly 15 times and within a span of 10 to 12 years, to finally figure out where everything was. If it takes me a decade to figure out where the guests are in the room, then That is terrible movie set design. Heck, in one of the opening shots after going through the massive Inventing Room vault doors (Seriously, why does the entrance need a massive spherical vault door to enter when the guests are shorter than the height of the door??), the chewing gum machine is barely visible and hard to see (or even hidden behind the massive orbed machines that, heck, I don't even know what those white steel sphere designs are supposed to be used for, but apparently it blows white air or something...I have no clue...Whereas the Mel Stuart's one, you don't see it at first, or only see a glimpse of the machine, but it's not revealed until the end of the inventing room part of the tour. The only thing about Mel Stuart's one was that I couldn't remember where the heck the chewing gum machine was placed, or where the tall steel gray/black doors were, but it didn't take long for me to realize where it was and the problem was solved. But on Tim Burton's side of the movie...Whoever was trying to design this...Oof, they did not have the same genius as the one man "Ralph Harper Goff", whom was the one who created many of the designs, especially The Chocolate Room And The inventions in The Inventing Room (Which was the same Ralph Harper Goff who did the submarine for "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea", and apparently "Fantastic Voyage", a film about having the ship resized/shrunk down to the size of a miniature just to save an injured scientist). I'm sure if you have watched the Wonka 30th anniversary documentary from the 1971 film, you'll know what I mean. Regardless, the crew for the 2005 film didn't have the same talent Ralph Harper Goff had with the imagination of Willy Wonka's creations and stuff in the factory...."Even Tim Burton, in his own audio commentary for the film, stated the inventing room became their "most unfavorite" [sic] set to film in, because of how disoriented even they got working in it."...Yep, you've told me that in notes about it, but why they made it and why they didn't think it over of how to make it better is beyond me...Again, if it ever does get a remake, it would either be worse, or better than what the 2005 film had in mind. But it's not a shock why many people still love the 1971 version more, despite 2005 being, or trying to be, closer to the book's source material (heck, I never read the book myself, which is why if I was adapting a book into the movie, it would take a while for me to make the film, about 3 to 5 years just to understand what it truly means. It goes to show just how bad the educational system had made some people lazy and not understand the themes of these stories. And instead of doing 1-on-1 sessions to help the students, they just expect you to figure it out yourselves...Sometimes educators don't realize how detrimental it is, and we have quotes like the ones you mention above becoming more common with he "Idiocrasy" of the nations aboard, including the United States)....Sometimes I just don't get people who love the 2005 film except they grew up with that film at a very young age is all I can think of.

"I don't mind 05 Violet being in a track suit. It's befitting her overly-ambitious, try-hard character. This was also filmed in the mid-2000's when the brand of Juicy Couture women's track suits (the ones with the word "Juicy" written across the ass) started gaining popularity, so I'm sure the joke was too good for the film makers to pass up (especially how it plays into her ass expansion shot). What I do dislike is how the tracksuit changes color when Violet starts turning into a blueberry. 71 Violet's entire outfit was designed solely with the thought of how it would look when she turns into a blueberry, with the makeup they used for Denise Nickerson mixed explicitly so it would be as good a match as possible to her suit. And that was done by guys in 1971, on a shoestring budget of only $4,000,000. But 05 Violet's track suit changing color is just because they (either Burton or the SFX department) fucked up and didn't have the foresight of a bunch of self-professed "amateurs flying by the seat of their pants" from over thirty yeas prior had to settle on what color Violet would turn and give her a suit of the same color to match it, so they just used CGI to cheat and make the suit change color, despite how little sense it makes."
I guess...But what you've said about the juicy contour type of track suits in the mid-2000s.....That explains why Violet and her mother are wearing that outfit...It makes a whole lot more sense now why the crew went for that design....But again, not a favorite of mine sadly (I tend to be picky with the clothing designs. I'm more fond of the Egyptian cotton, sleek compression and bathing suit type of clothing that I see in other movies and media. If you look at one of the scenes of "White Christmas" with the ladies dressed up for the musical Dean Martin is setting up, the "Cleopatra" film from the 1910s and the remake in the 1950s/1960s version of the same story, or the opening of Hostel Part II, you'll see what I mean.), Yet, I can see why they went for it...And that explains the buttock/tush camera shot as well...."What I dislike is how the tracksuit changers color when Violet starts turning into a blueberry. 71 Violet's entire outfit was designed solely with the thought of how it would look when she turns into a blueberry, with the makeup they used for Denise Nickerson mixed explicitly so it would be as good a match as possible to her suit." Oh, I absolutely agree with this, and it's why even with the budget limitations, and despite as David Seltzer said once "It's taking cardboard and scotch tape, putting it altogether and putting on a show" type of filmmaking. And yet, no computer generated imagery existed 54 years ago, so a huge chunk of the movie had to really rely on props, special plus practical effects, and a ton of stage and set buildings just to make it look real or nice. It's why I appreciate films that take that route, rather than the clean, or pixelated yet dated Computer Imagery mess that, even after 20 years now and we're still using it to this very day, despite that filmmaking can be done without green screening. Also, some of the blueberry inflation shots, that I realized, were done in small green screen rooms, and then composited into the editing process (That must have been a pain in the butt to do, which I'm not shocked it's done by "amateurs who had no clue what they're doing" type of situation. Imagine Pixar at that time doing this film, it would have turned out wwaayy different compared to what Warner Brothers and Tim Burton hired. THOUGH, they originally were going to do the same thing that the 1971 wonka blueberry inflation scene did with air pumps, until that didn't work out. But even then, Messer Helium industries was around (The one company macy's uses for their thanksgiving day parades), so they probably could have used that company to do the logistic body inflation that way, but I digress.)....But yeah, what you have said at the bottom of this quote is way even her hair color changes. It's like me in Affinity photo were every part of the skin and clothing color changes to the color of the blueberry, without realizing that the clothing is separate from the flesh (and even/maybe the hair itself as well). It's not a shock, ad I'll repeat until I'm dead, but the way Mel Stuart and his crew handled the blueberry inflation scene is outstanding, despite the oval shaped blueberry body. It's why that scene has been immortalized in my head, despite the 2005 film taking a while to be immortalized in my head or remembered...Just saying.

"Not having waddling or a belt pop doesn't ruin an inflation scene to me. The 71 film, particularly the inventing room scene, was literally life-changing for me, yet I'm not so autistically attached to 71 Violet's inflation that I think that's the "only" way a blueberry inflation scene in a CaTCF movie can/should be shot, and anything left out, changed, or added is "wrong." 71 Violet gave us some iconic shots, and her belt popping off is fucking legendary, but it also left her in this weird oval shape that does not look nearly as appealing as the more properly spherical shape 05 Violet inflates into. 05 Violet's inflation has plenty of drawbacks, like the entire scene being way too fucking dark to hide the shitty CGI, but it also gave us the equally iconic trope of the tip of a girls nose turning blue first, then spreading across the rest of her body, and early stage pear-shaped blueberries, which are sexy as fuck."

I mean, when I watched the movie 20 years ago I was expecting it to be very much similar to the blueberry inflation scene from the 1971 film. But upon seeing Violet's outfit on the day of the tour, it uh, disappointed me a bit. But yeah, it is definitely one part of my autism kicking in, but it took a while for me to get used to it...Plus, I do think the videocassette tape cover of Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory is what gave me speculation as to why the 1996 75th anniversary cover of the 1971 wonka film made me think Violet was made of metal or something. Which is why upon watching the film, gave me excitement or wonder as to what would happen next, leading up to the climax. Yeah sure the scene is short, but it was done right and in a way, gave me enough appreciation for the blueberry inflation, that, if that part of the tour did become a reality...Heh, I would have been one of the few to try out the chewing gum piece myself. (I later realized why it's a three course meal, and that's because on cruise ships, and in fancy restaurants, the three courses of those places have "Appetizers, Main Dinners, and Desserts", which all this time I thought it would be one meal per course, Lunch meal, Dinner Meal, and Dessert meal....Yeah, it took me that long to realize why Roahl Dahl chose that part of the chewing gum meal that way. But again, the gum piece, or my personal favorite that MysticOrca 10 years ago came up with, which would be my go-to choice nowadays, is literally consume the dessert meal via liquid, like a drink, beverage, or a soda that's blueberry flavored. Which includes the side effect of swelling up into a blueberry, but without having to worry about going through the other two meals just to get to the blueberry dessert part. Also, I've seen a video 15 years back of someone doing a video effect of violet turning into a strawberry instead of a blueberry, so I'm also fond of strawberry inflated creatures that has the same spherical shape as blueberry inflated creatures do...Anyway.) And yes, the 1971 inventing room scene is a massive classic if you ask me, and iconic cinema recorded shots on 35mm film as well....And as for the oval shape, I don't know about you but I got used to it. Again, it was done as a physical built model as computers were only being used by the military at that time, so it was years away from when Star Wars Episode 4 came out in 1977 compared to Wonka in 1971 (And considering the 1971 Wonka movie was filmed from August 31st up until November 19th, 1970, which gave the film crew 2 months and 19 days of filming compared to the 2005 Tim Burton film, of course some things either had to be modified or altered within the timeframe of the movie)....For the 2005 film, yeah, it's not a shock why i didn't like it due to the dark, but the amount of green screening they did with Violet was a ton (Something that, while I'm not fond of it, I can see why many like the spherical shape of it, and the holes on the outside of the blueberry itself...Again, it took a looooonnnnggg time for me to get used to the inflation....I don't know, I was more used to the "Show Violet, switch to next cut, then move away from Violet, then turn around to see Violet swell up, then a close up, then turn away from Violet, then another shot to see Violet's body swell up further more, then switch back again, then see her much larger than before, and finally, see her spherical shape appear as a surprise." type of blueberry inflations, not so much seeing the process of swelling up. Again, personal preference, but it's fun with both ways, one where it's a surprise the moment you turn around and not look at Violet for 5 seconds, then turn around to see her swell up more, then turn around to not look at her for another 15/20 seconds, and before you know it, she's already spherical....But if there's one thing that, two comic artists have done in the past, I like the most, is when the creature fully finishes swelling up into a spherical/oddly shaped strawberry/blueberry creature, is having fun and taking some time to stay as a body inflated being, while listening to machine and confectionary ambience...Both you and I can go on and on, all day and night about it...But as time went by, I realized that my issues with the 2005 one kind of subsided over the years, as it was more of a "get used to seeing this type of shape everywhere on the internet" instead of "being disappointed at the sight of it".....Again, I am somewhat picky when it comes to hobbies, certain tropes, and ideas people have in mind. It's this reason why I have written my own stories the way it is, because I see this trope as some private hobby, not something to be exclusive to the tour).

"05 Violet's inflation has plenty of drawbacks, like the entire scene being way too fucking dark to hide the shitty CGI, but it also gave us the equally iconic trope of the tip of a girls nose turning blue first, then spreading across the rest of her body, and early stage pear-shaped blueberries, which are sexy as fuck."
1. Yes, there are drawbacks to it, and I do think the tip of the nose part, while I do admit I have used that as a way to start off the blueberry skin color changes, I am also used to having the entire body like the 1971 version become totally blue and save a ton of time from having to change one part of the body, into the blueberry color itself (Same with strawberries and other berry colors of course),
2. Early Stage pear shaped blueberry bodies, and even half-inflated bodies, I hate to tell you this but, those are not my favorite. To me it's like seeing an overweight person have those massive thick bodies, that doesn't arouse or appeal to me very well. Once in a while it may do so, but I just have this feeling it's better to either be 100% blueberry inflated or not at all. Sorry to say this but pear blueberry inflated types of bodies are not my favorite. BUT, I can see why people like them, it's just not for me. (Shrugs)...It just feels incomplete in my head and heart, and would rather finish the whole body inflation part than leave it hanging (it's the same feeling as one side of my ear being more deaf than the other, one eye being crossed eyed while the other not so much, one eye larger than the other one. spine slightly curved to the left to have one shoulder raised than the other, similar to body inflation of course). But much like what Lambozilla said to me, blueberry inflation is blueberry inflation...And there are times where a few years later or so, I do have a change of heart and just enjoy it while I'm at it...Again, it's a very time taking type of hobby/activity, which can take a few hours to really enjoy it altogether...But it's this reason why it just feels a bit off to me (and why it didn't appeal to me very much for a good decade or so).

"There's plenty in enjoy and take inspiration from both versions, and I have. The first time I drew Genevieve was meant to be a love letter for people who enjoy both versions; her shape takes after 05, but her color and outfit follow 71, and her size is in between the two."

Well, I do admit that I have used both inspirations, as well as those online, and ideas from other people as well (What if all the kids swelled up like Violet is definitely the story that I take a huge inspiration from in terms of all the individuals swelling up into a spherical body thing). But as time went on, I realized that it became more of a "Slice of Life" type of hobby found in my earlier stories from 2014 through 2018 (The Lugia and Articuno stories, and Blueberry Articuno stories are great examples of, you know, just being in a private room, away from windows and the outside world, that I or the female can enjoy blueberry inflation without any kind of worry or privacy invasive type of things. And enough room to swell up into the 1971 blueberry shape and just have fun of course).
That makes sense why you went for that, and I can definitely see that. But I didn't know it was a tribute to those two movies....good to know....I don't know, I'm one of those people that likes to "personalize" the hobbies, traits, personalities, and things on my end of the situation. Which is why may of my pretend-filming "Matthew Movie"/Video Game Movies growing up, along with theme parks, were made for me to enjoy watching long after it's been made or created. And if I'm not satisfied with what I've seen in those two films, I create my own but never post it online simply because of either "Lack of motivation to do so", or it takes a while to be made and presented, or don't bother uploading it and keeping it to myself. Again, I'm glad the blueberry inflation/body inflation concept exists, but as time went by (and around the time of the 2005 movie is when I got into the World Wide Web, which I looked up horror movies and came across SAW that I've seen a poster of it 10 months prior....It's this reason why someone in the comments mentioned how both the "SAW" James Wan franchise, and Roahl Dahl's "Willy Wonka" franchise became very similar to one another. And that's when I realized that both of these, were related to "Torture", same with Hostel, and especially the same with man made "Dungeons/Torture Dungeons"....Again, it can go either way, but....I can see why people use one or the other or both...I don't know, I think it's nice to see others attempt their own ideas into the same blueberry inflation scene itself. But again, the only thing that's missing now is to make an anthro 18+ live action Pokemon version of the movie, and my life would be complete. And yes, a Pokemon version of the SAW/Black Christmas 1974 movie versions would be cool).

"Scarlet Beauregarde showing a little cleavage isn't anything nearly risque enough to warrant a PG-13 rating. It is fitting for her character though, as a single woman past her prime, who drove off her husband years ago (if she even married at all) because of her narcissism. Her sexual appeal is fading fast, but unwilling to accept her aging, she lives vicariously through her daughter, who she truly does not love, but has manipulated into being an over-achiever for her to use only as a vehicle to indirectly love herself more. Scarlet Beauregarde is absolutely despicable... and she was an absolute joy to watch. She was the thing I enjoyed most about rewatching CaTCF."

That's weird to think about....Considering for 20 years I didn't notice it at all...But again, to me she looked like a lady that was a psychopath on the inside...But I get why you loe it, I just thought the Charlie Bucket mature one was the one I stuck with for so long (even if you found him dull and boring).

"I have to disagree, I think Freddie Highmore's portrayal of Charlie was bland at best, terrible and a bastardization of childhood at worst. He doesn't even feel like a child; he's too stoic, too emotionless, and his ethics too "I'm doing the right thing because this is the right thing" rather than having an apparent personal investment in his own morals or representing where he would be at an appropriate stage of moral development. He barely even reacts when he sees his golden ticket for the first time. (Compared to 71 Charlie, whose excitement shoots through the roof when he sees just the corner of his.) 05 Charlie is like a quintessential, flanderized portrayal of an almost fetishized fixation of adults to refuse to properly address children as children, or take the time and processes of development they require to grow up into consideration, but rather the wish that children act like them, as adults, without even taking into consideration how many decades it took them to get to where they are."

(Takes a big breath in and exhales it out).....I'm going to be brutally honest....I didn't like my childhood very much....Never informed on many things, always felt like adults were more mature than children, was one of those people that tried to follow rules but would be one of those people that, in 2005 public school, has mental and emotional problems myself, or wasn't expecting schoolwork to be harder than I thought, was in private school for the first 8 years of my life but with autistic people that barely talked or talked very little, told my dad at the age of 4/12 that I wanted to be 12/18 years old, didn't learn conversations until January 2009 (embarrassing, I know), went outside sometimes, didn't have many friends growing up....Yeah, it was rough...Not to mention seeing my parents arrested in front of me in January/July 2006 (2006 was a very rough year for my two parents if you ask me), and for me not really maturely trained as a child, lead up to realize that the Charlie one in the 2005 felt like the mature side of me, while the charlie one form the 1971 is more of the excited me...Again, my personalities were akin to "Ash Ketchum/Satoshi, the two Charlie Buckets, a bit of Augustus and Mike Teevee, and Willy Wonka" all rolled into one person. I can get why you hate him, but I personally didn't mind it. Heck, even though I know he's cold stoned as heck, mentally ill and neglected sadly, it's not a shock that it was relatable to what I was going through in 2005. A massive change up in my life, even going into public school for the first time in 8 years, I was never really an open person to give others interests I was in. And why I didn't want to participate in school events for this reason. It's no wonder when I turned 18, I was ecstatic, and at age 21, I couldn't have nightmares anymore, only bad dreams...But I get it...By the time April 15th, 2013 came around, and years later coming back to this Charlie Bucket, both the 1971 and 2005 version, I found the charlie bucket 2005 version to be more of "If I had a guardian angel that would have me go on the right path" (I know, shocking how it's the "I'm right and this path is wrong" Mentality, but that's how I was for a bit in 2013/2014 that caused me to cut ties with many people and become a troublemaker.) So you can imagine why hearing his voice was sweet and gentle in my ears. Heck, the quote "Candy doesn't have to have a point...That's why it's called candy" really stuck with me for a very long time. Freddie Highmore would go on to, surprisingly how I forgot about this movie for 19 years, "Arthur And The Invisibles", and the one I've yet to watch, "August Rush".....It's this reason why I always mention to people, "The day I make that time machine, whether a vehicle like Back To The Future, or the size of a watch, you know that I will absolutely give what my younger self wants, without issue, or to educate him on being more aware of his surroundings, even if he doesn't talk at all" type of thing. Heck, after 5th grade in school I didn't want to go back and just go on to do filmmaking and such (what I've dream of back in 2001). But when 2013 came around, that dream was put aside in favor of politics and personal interests...And now, here I am, just way too chill, relax, and careless at an adult age....I can see why people hate it, but it's moments similar to Spyro Enter The Dragonfly where "Society hates this except me" type of situation...Again, I loved it, but not you...So I understand.

"I personally think the vast, overwhelming super majority of amateur edits of the inventing room shots are shit, no matter which version of the movie they come from. Having to see so many trash tier copy/paste jobs is partially what drove me to finally start drawing and posting blueberry inflation content; to show everyone they didn't have to settle for such shitty pictures: not when they could have works of true art."
I couldn't agree with you more...When I noticed many were going for the 2005 film than the 1971 film, it made me start re-visiting the writing aspect that I did back in 2005 with Veggietales, and eventually my sports equipment characters, and my own monster creations as well, and start to write blueberry inflation stories akin to the 1971 Wonka movie. The oompa loompa lyrics, the same waddling/belt snapping feelings, following the same script but with many changes (instead of hating it, my female characters love it). Which eventually shifted into having it become a favorite hobby for my male character and the female lady companion (Blueberry Noivern and Blueberry Yveltal are great examples of this), as well as a, get this, a service where you can enjoy and pick whichever female lady you wanted to hang out with that session, and do video games to escapism type of stuff included in a blueberry inflation club service, where I'm transported from the real world, into the computer, via just my 27/32 inch computer desktop monitor hooked up via HDMI, and end up in the virtual session that can be imagined or made up however I like, with the anthro or human female of my choice, and doing blueberry inflation NSFW for fun. And a very generous service at best without having to pay so much for it too, and eventually be great friends to the anthro or human lady (the anthro female haxorus included in the "Blueberry Sex' story of course). So yeah, much like with you on how cruddy the artwork of many others did, it's not a shock that you and made started to make our own stuff because people just weren't doing it right and we wanted to show the world, in our own ways, how we see blueberry inflation our way. It's just that for me I did it through literature and story writing (though in my earlier works it was bunched up into one paragraph and repeated myself of course, while you went for traditional artwork, something that, in the mid 2010s I started to see less and less of except Lambozilla and one other person who's been doing it for years now). So yeah, you and I were very similar in terms of making our own blueberry inflation content, which is why I made my "BlueberryInflation21" deviantART group as a result of realizing not many groups on dA appealed to me, ever, so I created my own and it's still around even after 9 years and 11/12 months since.

"Having watched the 05 version twice within 24 hours recently, my take is it's not completely insufferable, but it is in many, many regards, at best a side-grad, at worst, definitively worse in almost every regard except for the level of special effects (... sometimes. You cannot watch that opening title credits sequence and in good faith tell me it doesn't look like shit). There's plenty of quality fetish fuel to extract from 05 Violet's inflation, as proof by how we're STILL seeing dividends from it, which is evident even in my own work, now over twenty years later. But the only way I can even conceive anyone would say the 05 film is the better version of the story is, aside from just naturally having atrocious tastes, this was the version they grew up with, or they're materialist, contemporary consoomers whose criteria is "newer = better;" that's the only way I can think anyone would would to a conclusion so clearly wrong."

Yeah, the intro titles are mid at best as well. Almost as if it feels like I'm watching a video game cutscene inserted into the movie itself...And yes, the 2005 violet blueberry inflation inspiration for content is true, but I did mention that, unless you've read the book, or grew up with the 2005 film, that's why many love it that much. For me, and I'm sure another critic that was born in the late 1970s would say the same, the 2005 film was fine, or meh at best, while the 1971 film was the one we really grew up on, whether re-runs, or owning the movie on videocassette, and later the 2001 30th anniversary DVD and Videocassette (VHS) release that included the wonderful behind the scenes documentary (That told me the blueberry suit wasn't metal, it was plastic...Interesting to note...And again, many of the cast's own experiences and comments of the film are just as interesting as the movie itself. But again, I never got the 2005 film on home media, which is why I never got a chance to watch the documentaries of that film myself. But again, I'm not a fan of Tim Burton's stuff, I can see why he made an impact with many people, but he is not my favorite director sadly. That has to go to the one who made Back To The Future, Piglet's Big Movie, Treasure Planet, and Stuart Little 1 and 2)....But yeah, the "newer is better" mentality still grows strong with new generations every 10/20 years I would say...But for me, this 2005 is really a "So bad it's good" type of film, or it's akin to a bad movie similar to another bad film being "Clockstoppers". But to "Clockstoppers" credit, it had a cool premise to go off of, but the execution of the characters and storytelling I can see why not many liked the film and it mostly bombed at the box office, despite, you guessed it, I saw that film in theaters back in 2002, and that film turning 20 years old in 2022 (much like Need For Speed Hot Pursuit 2 for the Playstation 2, my top favorite game of all time mind you, besides Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 being my top favorite PC game of all time)....Again, if the two books of Roahl Dahl's Wonka stories ever get another adaptation, as well as someone finishing Roahl dahl's third book that never got completed upon his death 35 years ago, I do have a good idea of how to finish his third book, which Wonka uses his inventions to help the Vietnam soldiers in Vietnam, but some situations ensue while tragedy can strike, being way more mature in theme compared to the horror one in the second book, and the first book being more delightful than the third book. With the third book's ending with Wonka himself living with Charlie Bucket, until his grandparents pass away, Charlie graduates from high school in the mid to late 1970s, starts to run Wonka's business, but the old inventions are archived and preserved, and the children of the tour have a reunion twenty/thirty years later after the tour began. Violet is much nicer than she was before, Mike has a change of attitude, Veruca unfortunately still being nasty, but at least not as nasty as she was before, and Augustus still eating food and joining food eating contests to this very day. And it all ties together after Willy Wonka retires from the candy-making scene, along with the oompa loompas...So yeah, I have a good idea on how to finish the third book Roahl dahl left unfinished, but that's just my idea on how I would finish it. The book series that started in 1964, and would have ended in the 1980s, leading up to the year 1990 where Willy Wonka passes away on the same day as Roahl Dahl did, leaving with a gravestone drawing of Willy Wonka, from the time he was born in the 1930s, up until his death in 1990.

As for blueberry inflation itself, I have added it to my top 5 long term goals that I wish to accomplish before I die, with the other two being "Making my own independent private company film studio", the second of figuring out "how to bring specific inanimate objects to life", (Inspired by Art Clokey's Gumby TV Show series that I still love to this day, Cybill from "Santa Witch" I can't help but smile and love every time she's on screen and talks, a classic christmas episode that I watch once in a while, and still remember it by heart. You can say that episode from the 1960s is basically the short story/predecessor to "Nightmare Before Christmas" if you think about it that way, and the other two being "make and adapt my own version of the video game franchises into movies", and the fifth one being "Building my own time machine somehow"....) So you can see why blueberry inflation/body inflation has been a thing on my mind for 25 years now, and NSFW, 18+ stuff since 2014 of course, but used as a private hobby for the fanatics like myself. But again, the 2005 film I barely watch the scenes compared to the 1971 one. It feels perfect and doesn't need much change if you ask me, but hey, there's the option of fan made works, but it doesn't have to have characters involved with blueberry inflation in order for me to think of sleek good looking human/anthro female characters to vision what they would go through the blueberry inflation process themselves (I can show you some examples in DMs if you're interested in it.)

"You know, as someone who isn't a resolution fanatic, I hadn't even realized that CaTCF hasn't been released in 4K yet. That they haven't is probably due to the forty or so BILLION dollars in debt they're in, thus making ancillary ventures like that too great an expenditure. I don't think David Zaslav is doing that great of a job, but the company was in far, far deeper shit than when he first took over, due mostly to them better the farm on HBO Max -- and loosing -- in the industry-destroying streaming war. And just before Zaslav took over, the people in charge were trying to steer Warner in the direction of that DEI dog shit to try and score some of that ESG money. All this without even considering that they've just been making too many mediocre movies, including but sure as shit not limited to the terminally catastrophic, Greek theater tragedy mistake of in the 2010's, leaving their rights to DC in the hands of the terminally incompetent, "I'm 14 and this is DEEP" (even though he's in his fifties), "dark = COOOOOOL," incorrigibly edgi boi, Hack Snyder."

Okay, I just wanted to ask if anyone has ever seen or heard any announcements of a remaster, considering many fans of the 2005 film would have loved to see that treatment occur. But yeah, with David Zaslav being in charge and making Warner Brothers even worse, I can't imagine the Wonka franchise sticking with the company in the near future. And it might get sold off to either Sony, Universal, or some other independent company altogether. But that's yet to be seen......But yeah, Warner Brothers in the 2010s is NOT the same as it was back in the 2000s and before. Quite sad considering their 100th anniversary in 2023 and they've been shit for 13 years at that point....Again, would love to see where the wonka franchise goes from here, but it's a limited franchise that can't be exploited considering how little story it has to go off of.

"David Zaslav's entire relationship with Warner Brothers, from his tenure now to his inevitable end, can, ironically, be summarized entirely by this shot from a Warner Brothers movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiRfbRbcO8";

I will definitely watch it, considering Saberspark has talked about it in his previous videos many times, same with the animation side of Warner Brothers if you ask me.

"Why would you want a 4K render of Tim Burton's CaTCF, though? Do you really want to see how poorly the hokey CGI has aged?"

Well, it's really more of two things:
1. For my reversed movie clips of the film to see the comparisons between the 2015 re-release and the 4k re-release.
2. For people who love the film and want to see it in higher 4k UHD resolution than just the 1080p version of the film.

Other than that, I wouldn't bother buying the film if it's not going to have many features like what the 2021 Willy Wonka 1971 50th anniversary re-release had with not many bonus features, and just simple ones like "Scene Selection, Audio and caption settings, play movie" and that's it.

And yes, you're very welcome, and always a pleasure to share with my thoughts in terms of this film. Sorry if this response took me nearly 5 hours to complete, it's just that since my sleep schedule is backwards or weird, I end up waking up too early in the morning than usual, leading me to feel tired by the time the afternoon kicks in. For you it's time management, for me it's my sleep apnea obesity/diabetes sleep schedule issues, but it's a work in progress. Next year, Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory turns 55 years old, and then both films will be 60, and 30 respectively in 2031 and 2035 (which the 1980s films will turn 50 years old when 2030 to 2039 comes around...Lots of interesting anniversaries when that decade comes 4 and a half years from now...And also, Juicy July/this year's breezing quick. Once June of every year comes around, it'll be November/December/holiday season time when it comes around again). And I will say the same thing with you in terms of blueberry inflation artwork, but also literature as well.

(Heh, just remember that I type too dang much, and I have a ton to say...Again, don't feel like you have to rush and take your time with my statements...Have a good rest of your day/night HungryLurker...And if you like to join my blueberryinflationgroup discord server, let me know in furaffinity direct messages/personal messages (DM/PM for short). Again, sorry if I have to re-quote/copy and paste your quotes into my message when it comes to my responses, I can't help it sometimes. Otherwise, it makes it difficult for me to track down the original response, and try to remember which one belongs to which statment...Regardless, take you time with my comment, and I'll be waiting. See you later HungryLurker. =D)

Oh boy, did I sure have an experience with the 2005 movie. I should preface this by saying that, being the 20-something zoomer I am now, my most formative experience regarding blueberry inflation was with the 2005 film, not the 1971 version. I only saw the latter a few years after I had seen the former, so instead of being pleasantly surprised by a recreation of the original scene, I was hit with the biggest and roundest version of Violet right off the bat.

I didn't see it in theaters, but instead at home, on DVD. IIRC, it was something that a babysitter put on just to shut me up while I ate dinner one night, and given what ended up happening after I watched that scene, that was likely preferable to watching it with the rest of my family. My interest in the movie was pretty mild up to that point, but when I noticed Violet starting to inflate, I was hooked. It's worth noting that I had something of a latent inflation/growth fetish even by this point in my childhood, with my true initial incident being Ursula's transformation and final fight scene in The Little Mermaid. However, I still hadn't seen much of that sort of content prior to watching CaTCF, and certainly no blueberry inflation. To say that my first watch of that scene was exciting would be a dramatic understatement. My eyes were practically glued to the TV, sexual excitement coursing through my whole body as I watched her get bigger and bigger. I was practically reeling by the time it had gotten to the whole gum chewing disco dance number thing, and lemme just say, if my first time watching this scene had been at any point after hitting puberty, I would've needed a complete change of pants and underwear. Like I said, hooked.

While I also think the 1971 version is the better movie overall, I do think there's a lot of things the 2005 version did well in its own right, and some things it did better than its predecessor. I think it's a far more visually interesting and impressive film, mostly aided by the CGI and artistic direction, and the surreal, exaggerated nature of stuff even outside of the factory helps make the whole world of the movie feel more fantastical. Wonka's factory itself also looks a lot more like, well, a factory, with larger rooms and more imposing industrial machinery (comparing the Inventing Rooms of both films is an easy way to see just how much more elaborate the sets of the 2005 film are). In addition, while some people dislike the darker tone and stylings of the 2005 film, I actually quite enjoy them and think they're more accurate to the original tone of the book. The story of CaTCF is very reminiscent of old Grimms' fairytales, with the overall message of "don't be a snotty little brat or you'll get what's coming to you!" By making the other children more egregious in their behavior, and also making their punishments more exaggerated and cruel, the 2005 film emphasized this message a lot better. Ultimately, I think they're both very good films, but for different reasons, and they tell the original story of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka in two very different ways. Of course, only one of them has a ten foot tall blueberry girl, so...

The story of your emergent inflation fetish has a remarkable amount of similarities to mine, save for it being with a VHS copy of the 71 film. I too had somewhat of a latent inflation fetish from numerous other sources even before I saw WWaTCF, but the moments of inflation therein were used for comedic effects. I'm pretty sure watching Violet turn into a giant human blueberry was the first time I'd ever seen full-body inflation happen to a girl, which is why I think it fascinated me so much. But I was very very when I first saw Willy Wonka, at least six years before I hit puberty, so I couldn't even fathom why it captivated me so, let alone explain it, no matter how many times I watched it, even with the family. Then, six or so years latter, after my great and terrible balls awoke, coincidentally (if I remember right) within mere months of Johnny Swell posting his pièce de résistance, The Bizarre Adventures of Berrygirl. I had one look at the cover, with Berry Girl all blown up into a giant blueberry with behemoth boobs, and I realized: Oh... THAT'S why...

>"my true initial incident being Ursula's transformation and final fight scene in The Little Mermaid"

That's... hmm... you know, even thought that's outside my shipping lane I can certainly see how those pieces of fetish food would sink into the depths and feed the bottom dwellers enough for them to emerge as krakens of kink when the sea of sexuality stirs, but if anything, I would think that would directly translate into a giantess fetish rather than an inflation one... unless it did indeed give you a giantess fetish, too.

Did you know at the time what or why it was that you were so bewitched by Violet blowing up into a blueberry, or did that take you some time ti figure out? About how many years later was it until you hit puberty, and did you go into it with an active blueberry inflation fetish that you were aware of?

See, I disagree with even some of those points. CaTCF certainly is more technically impressive than WWaTCF as far as production values go (sometimes, but I'll get to that in a minute), but it's almost unfair to compare the two, because Willy Wonka was made in 1971, on a scant, shoestring budget of only 3 million dollars. Even in 2005 money, that's not even fifteen million dollars. You'd have to hire wizards of penny-pinching, like the mad lads who made Godzilla Minus One just to get the 71 film made today, let alone to get it to look any good. CaTCF however had a budget of 150 million dollars, and over thirty years of advancements in computer generated images and after movies like Jurassic Park and The Lord of The Rings revolutionized the industry, so of course CaTCF is going to look better... except for the times when, it doesn't.

Yeah, for some baffling reason, Tim Burton seems to like extremely hokey-looking special effects that are deliberately made to look separate from the real world around them, but his method of doing this is to make them look purposefully bad(ish). They might not be at the bottom of the uncanny valley, built they are certainly on the valley's wall, where they built a summer home, where they live year round. The inventing room was probably so god damn dark to hide how bad the CGI close up shots of Violet's inflation look; Augustus caught in the chocolate whirl pool looks almost as bad as Alan Parish getting sucked into the Jumanji board, from ten years prior, before even Windows 96 existed; the opening title credits scene looks outright awful. and I can't believe it took until Burton's fugly Alice in Wonderland before people en mass started realizing, "Hey, Burton's style kind of looks like crap."

As for the artistic direction, I think even that was misguided. The 2000's is when Tim Burton started going into autopilot mode. Hyper-exaggerating the outside world, most notably Charlie's home town, to look so unrealistically dull, with it's brutalist architecture and color palettes so grey that it looks like a 2010's CoD clone, by making everything look fantastical, even if it's fantastically listless, to me, detracts from the mystical status of the factory. Heck, even the factory doesn't escape the brooding greys and overbearing shadows, what with the factory exterior being a towering monolith of the same mid tones of the rest of the town, and for the walls of the chocolate room. I won't cite the 71 movie to filter out my own bias, so instead I'll say Burton himself didn't screw this up with Beetlejuice, where the mortal world is just normal reality, but it contrasts and compliments the zaniness of the spirit world. The every-day plainness of the real world actually works by subliminally grounding the viewer, and by contrast making the spirit world look like that much more of the fucked-up nightmare realm it is.

There are moments where I think the artistic direction was good, or al least had a solid idea. The nut room's color palette is rather bland, but the very OSHA-violation chute in the center of the room that looks like a pit which leads to Hell in the middle of a circus tent does create a persistent tone of perpetual danger, which is great for tone. And aside from the cold, dark, ashen walls and the chocolate sucker that looks like a scrapped model from Mars Attacks!, the chocolate room did have a lot of good design philosophies behind it to make it look like a real ecosystem made entirely out of candy, even down to the erosion along the banks of the chocolate river. But the TV room is as sterile as the 71 version (which had probably almost run out of money by then), and, hot take, I don't like the 05 inventing room. It looks to much like how it was created, which is just a random assortment of set pieces the prop department threw together because Burton thought the "looked cool." It bears noting that Burton himself said on his own commentary track of the movie that it because one of their least favorite sets to film on because of how disorienting it was. There could have been a solid idea there, like if the inventing room was built to represent something like a deep recess within Wonka's mind, where creativity is wrangled from chaos, and beyond is but the dangers of nothingness and shadow, but I doubt anyone was trying to make the set that artistically deep.

05 does have the edge on making the children's punishments worse than in 71, but that's arguably due to the aforementioned technical and budgetary limitations of the 71 film in comparison. Of course Violet turning into a 10 foot tall blueberry is more extreme than a four-ish foot tall one, but computer generated images only just began being experimented with that year. Heck, Veruca's fate had to be slightly rewritten, because getting thrown down the garbage chute by a squad of squirrels was impossible to film, let alone on the budget they had.

I'd say the classic Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory is an 8 or 9 out of 10, while Charlie and The Chocolate Factory only just scrapes by; I'm hard pressed to give it anything higher than a 5... and yet, I cannot on principle begrudge its existence, because it did give us a girl turning into a 10 foot tall blueberry. CaTCF was worth it for the giant, 10 foot tall blueberry girl alone.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experiences with this film, and for reading my Ted Talk.