# New Charlie and the Chocolate Factory cover



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I tried to find the satire site behind the cover by Penguin for its reissue of the classic children's book by Roald Dahl, _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ (known to moviegoers as _Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory_) but it seems to be legit.

I doubt that anyone here has an opinion on the new cover, but if someone does, I'd like to hear it!

And dang... I can't seem to post it. If someone could do that so people would know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## jesrphoto (Aug 7, 2012)

Whaaaaat is that?!
Not a fan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

*goggles* That is HORRIBLE.

It makes the author name and title look as if they go together, the text is even difficult to read, and what on earth does that cover have to do with the story, genre, or anything else?

Maybe Penguin's experimenting to see what happens to sales if you completely screw up the cover?


----------



## Claire Frank (Jul 28, 2014)

I can't even imagine what Roald Dahl would think if he saw that. 

At first I also thought it was a joke. Apparently not. I saw it listed somewhere as the new number one on a list of all-time worst book covers. 

Not sure who thought that was good idea. Blech.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Eye bleach. Now. Please.


----------



## Lucas (Jul 15, 2014)

Where's Charlie?? And I don't feel the chocolate in here... And this is by... _penguin_? It looks like a secretly horror novel with themes I don't want to say.


----------



## DTW (Apr 13, 2014)

The original Wilder version is a beautiful movie that didn't need a remake; it's a classic and should be left alone. I have not, and have no plans ever to, see the Depp remake. I've read the original book (dark, but good) and the Wilder movie differs from it. _Charlie_ is darker and more open ended, and tracks with Charlie and his arc through the adventure of the golden ticket and touring the factory. _Willy Wonka_ focuses more on, oddly enough, the named man behind the candy empire. Both are good, but in different ways.

If you're referring to this cover:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719598/Anger-sexualised-cover-Charlie-Chocolate-Factory-Publishers-attempt-make-50th-anniversary-edition-Dahls-classic-appeal-adults-backfires.html
Then . . . I'm not sure I'd say I think it's a good one for that book. I'm not sure it's even a good cover from the context of 'making someone stop and look closer' in the usual manner of a good cover.

However, I think that book should be read by everyone. It's very good. Maybe I'm wrong and that cover will draw attention. It certainly is getting press mentions, and maybe that'll lead to people reading the book. I don't have to like the cover to like that people are reading, especially reading something as good as Dahl's story.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Dear God, that's awful. 

I also agree that they should never have remade the original movie. Johnny Depp as a weird Michael Jackson-esque figure? Yeah, not a good move. Also, the music sucked.


----------



## Chris Culver (Jan 28, 2011)

There are no words to describe how terrible that cover is.

 [There should be one of these emoticons that signifies vomiting.]


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Time for a _Princess Bride_ quote.

"Dear God, what is that thing??"

Very random, Penguin.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

Looks like a PR stunt to drum up buzz imo


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

That is terrible.

But what's even stupider (to me) is that, in that article, it states that Penguin said it's not even supposed to be a representation of either Veruca or Violet, but a representation of messed up parent/child relationships which is a prevalent theme in the book. Ooookay.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

It is a ridiculously poor choice and I can only imagine how Roald Dahl would feel about it. 

I can not understand how anyone can look at that cover and think of it as relating to Charlie and the Chocolate factory in any way. 

Its an embarrassment.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Once a decade or so, there's something on which absolutely everyone can agree. At this time of huge divisions in our world, as fault lines appear across society in reaction to the current conflict in Israel/Gaza, as the uneasy post-Cold War chumminess between NATO and the former Soviet bloc collapses over Ukraine, and as Iraq seems doomed to fall into even greater chaos amid a sea of commentators arguing over whose fault it is, there's one thing that unites humanity.

The new cover for "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is awful.

"Look at it," said the Hamas leader during a break in talks over a new ceasefire. "There's no Charlie, there's no chocolate!"

The Israeli prime minister's eyes widened in agreement with his erstwhile adversary. "Dude, right? There's not even a factory!"

A moment is shared.

Meanwhile and elsewhere, Obama cut into Putin's latest telephone tirade and denials about Russian support for Ukranian rebels. "Vlad, man, you sound kind of tired."

"Well, Barack. I just... woah, I mean, is the whole thing just a calculated insult to Roald Dahl AND Quentin Blake? Like, is NOTHING sacred?"

"I hear you, bro."

Across the world, the guns fall silent. The missiles stop firing.

And with a sinister whirring, their targets switch to Penguin Random House's head offices...


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Horrible, nothing to do with the source material, and amateurish.  Seriously, it's a cropped photo with a generic font.  Did someone spend 5 minutes on this and then punch out for lunch?


----------



## Lucas (Jul 15, 2014)

_Maybe_ it's a Stephen King's cover. If this is a King book then it should be titled "The House"


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Horrible, nothing to do with the source material, and amateurish. Seriously, it's a cropped photo with a generic font. Did someone spend 5 minutes on this and then punch out for lunch?


I know something of the workloads for Penguin Random House's designers, and you might be closer to the truth than you think, there. You would expect them to lavish a bit more effort on such a cast iron cash cow, but then again...


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

He wrote about children licking penis-flavored wallpaper. I'd say that creepy cover does the book justice.

Source: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

I've been reading headlines it's the creepiest book cover for a kids book ever.

I don't think that. Not based on the cover by itself. But then, the mindset behind whoever chose this cover....

Disgraceful.

Absolutely devoid of the soul of Dahl's classic, and has zero jive with bringing it into 'the times' either. 

It's amazing a Big Publisher made this decision. Guess all those live authors of their's can be resistant. Better offload the bad taste on someone who's already in the ground.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

...that's real? I thought it was a troll.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

To be fair, Penguin Classics specialise in nasty covers. And this is far from the worst they've done, it just happens to be for a book that we actually care about.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

This thread is a joke right?  That cover cannot be for real...I mean seriously - it does not even qualify for the horror genre.  I would have thought it is illegal child pornography...Or, somehow it reminds me of a seventies Clockwork Orange style.


----------



## LinaG (Jun 18, 2012)

Three thoughts:

1. Now Barry Eisler can stop complaining about his green garage door cover. Too bad Ronald Dahl isn't around to let the world know about this.

2. Good thing the Dahl estate had professionals design the book cover. Last thing it needed was some 'Indy Crap.'

3. Dear Penguin, if you had only asked, I'm sure James would have helped you: http://www.goonwrite.com/book-covers-fantasy_pre-made.htm I'm sure he's at least as nice as that one eyed intern who made the cover for you. Quite possibly, he's nicer.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Chris Culver said:


> There are no words to describe how terrible that cover is.
> 
> [There should be one of these emoticons that signifies vomiting.]


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Mmm...I see I am not the only one who thinks that cover has sexual innuendos to it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719598/Anger-sexualised-cover-Charlie-Chocolate-Factory-Publishers-attempt-make-50th-anniversary-edition-Dahls-classic-appeal-adults-backfires.html


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I predict they will reconsider . . . . .


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

tessblunt said:


> Looks like a PR stunt to drum up buzz imo


This is my guess, too.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

For the record, I loved Roald Dahl's books, but imagining that he's a nice guy who would turn over in his grave if shown this cover...is not consistent with known facts about his character, which quite frankly, was awful. He would probably love it.

In addition to writing children's books, he wrote pornography for Playboy, including a story where the main character turns into a, uh, giant male organ. (Source: http://www.roalddahlfans.com/articles/bmcapr94art2.php)

He said pleasant things like:

"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."

(source: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/54747/childrens-favourite-roald-dahl-proudly-antisemitic)

And then there's this entire thing detailing all the many ways in which Roald Dahl sucked as a person: http://thisrecording.com/today/2011/6/1/in-which-we-consider-the-macabre-unpleasantness-of-roald-dah.html

And never forget that in the original published version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompa Loompas were actually pygmy Africans who Willy Wonka smuggled into the country and used as slave labor--they were only turned into magical white Oompa Loompas from Loompaland, afraid of Whangdoodles, in later editions.

So yes, this is a terrible cover, but I'm going to submit that we shouldn't care what Roald Dahl would think because he was a terrible person who wrote a handful of magical books that were only sanitized to be acceptable to our current sensibilities by the grace of his editors and hasty rewrites.

He would probably be a-okay with the sexualization of his work.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

NOOOOoooooooooooooo!
How does a cover for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory not have a boy, man, factory, or chocolate on the cover


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

It actually looks like an appropriate cover for some of his literary short fiction.  Somehow I wonder if it was supposed to be for KISS, KISS or something?


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> For the record, I loved Roald Dahl's books, but imagining that he's a nice guy who would turn over in his grave if shown this cover...is not consistent with known facts about his character, which quite frankly, was awful. He would probably love it.
> 
> In addition to writing children's books, he wrote pornography for Playboy, including a story where the main character turns into a, uh, giant male organ. (Source: http://www.roalddahlfans.com/articles/bmcapr94art2.php)
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## Emm Oh (Jul 4, 2014)

tessblunt said:


> Looks like a PR stunt to drum up buzz imo


This. And it's worked brilliantly. Who was even going to pay attention to a re-issue of this book otherwise?


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

Rick, I'm not a font expert, but it looks like the same font Penguin use on all their Modern Classics range.

The photo, though, urgghh!


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Emm Oh said:


> This. And it's worked brilliantly. Who was even going to pay attention to a re-issue of this book otherwise?


I think that's giving them too much credit.

This is, after all, the company that had the unprecedented opportunity, upon purchasing Random House, to rename themselves "Random Penguin." Or even "Penguin House." Instead they went with the utterly boring "Penguin Random House."

I think it's more likely that they simply cranked out the cover and threw it out there without a second thought.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Um...huh? Too weird.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

We were discussing this cover yesterday on Google+ and I tried to be generous and suggested that someone was a big fan of the Veruca Salt character. But even thing I new I was putting lipstick on a pig.

This image is completely out of touch with the actual book and the book itself doesn't need anything to connect it with adults. For those of us who were children in the 70s or later, the movie was enough to make us fans of the book forever. I was 5 when the movie came out in 71 and I'm sure that sentiment probably carries over to many of my elders who've seen in countless times in the past 43 years.

I read the book a few times as a child and I would have gotten copies for my nephews without a second thought - it and _The Great Glass Elevator_ - but not with that cover.


----------



## KidSlumber (Aug 13, 2012)

I have inside information that the cover photo was actually intended for 'Rosemary's Baby - the middle grade years'. Penguin should admit the mistake.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

KidSlumber said:


> I have inside information that the cover photo was actually intended for 'Rosemary's Baby - the middle grade years'. Penguin should admit the mistake.


Would make more sense...


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Lucas_Alpay said:


> _Maybe_ it's a Stephen King's cover. If this is a King book then it should be titled "The House"


My first thought too; it's a cover for a horror novel inspired by *Toddlers and Tiaras*. But when you think about the fate that some of the children in the book met I don't think of it as a child friendly book anyway, and would probably give them nightmares if you read it to them as a bedtime story.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Can you see any normal young boy picking it up in a bookshop? In fact I can't imagine any bookshop even stocking it with the kids' books. Or are they going to run with two completely different covers, depending on store-placement, like they did with JKR?


----------



## bobbic (Apr 4, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> Eye bleach. Now. Please.


OMG, yes, me too. It looks like a refugee poster from some Little Miss Whatsit beauty pageant. Eeek. If they have to put a human on the cover, then put a boy, for god's sake.

bobbi c.
http://www.kboards.com/book/?asin=B00M0DADFW


----------



## bobbic (Apr 4, 2011)

Colin said:


>


OMG. So how did you do that one? Is there a keyboard shortcut? Love it!


----------



## bobbic (Apr 4, 2011)

MrAzzatagoestotheinternet said:


> You should issue a trigger warning before you post an image like that. Gonna give me nightmares.
> 
> Here's the original stock image. Doesn't exactly scream beloved children's book, does it? More like the child is screaming on the inside.


Maybe it's a mistake. Maybe they got it mixed up with a re-issue of The Stepford Wives.


----------



## LynPerry (Apr 8, 2013)

> Maybe it's a mistake. Maybe they got it mixed up with a re-issue of The Stepford Wives.


Charlie and the Stepford Wives Factory


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

LynPerry said:


> Charlie and the Stepford Wives Factory


LOL!

Or

The Stepford Factory <<<< I'd actually read that.


----------



## PandorasParanormalBox (Aug 10, 2014)

I would love to know what they were thinking on that one. I don't personally mind the design or image, but not for this title--though it could use a little work and does have a retro feel to it, which COULD have been cool except that . . . it doesn't fit. Like at all.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

It looks sort of like the cover of a brief digest of 'sixties mod fashion.

Well, except for that dark-eyed infant staring vapidly out of it.

Yikes.


----------



## Daniel Harvell (Jun 21, 2013)

Here's a good article from the Washington Post that sums up the international response to the cover: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-divisive-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-cover-says-about-books-and-readers/2014/08/15/23163b8a-219a-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html


----------



## EmmaS (Jul 15, 2014)

I'm with Courtney... Dahl would probably have loved this. But it's uncomfortable at best. Like a kitschy, hyper-60s, vaguely Tim Burton _Lolita_ spinoff.


----------

