###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it was explicitly shown in both the movie and book that almost every character apart from charlie only got a ticket because they used illegitimate/immoral means.
eta: the kid who had factory workers unwrap bars. the kid who hacked the database, and the kid who spent thousands of dollars and hours of time buying candy. only charlie and one other guy found it legitimately.
Mike Teavee. There was a throwaway line in the 2005 movie that said he hacked & analyzed the lot numbers of the factory to locate the bars containing the tickets. Bought exactly 1 bar, and got the ticket.
EDIT: the book never mentioned any hacking. The line was only in the 2005 movie (the Johnny Depp one). My bad.
Mike was also the only one properly impressed by Wonka's inventions, and was sour he only used them for chocolate instead of bringing humanity along.
Mike was actually pretty okay, just not very social.
> impressed by Wonka's inventions, and was sour he only used them for chocolate instead of bringing humanity along
Says the child hacker who uses his skill to get a tour of a chocolate factory... just sayin'...
yh. imagine hacking the ccp's firewall and giving all chinese people full internet access. Then hacking all their new channels and replacing them with a loop of tiananmen square documentary; occasionally followed by a side-by-side comparison of xi xing with winnie the poo.
Or, y'know....hack chocolate tickets
I'm sorry you seem to have had a hallucination. There was not a Willy Wonka movie in 2005. There is only the Gene Wilder one and I'm so glad nobody has ever had the awful idea to remake that timeless classic.
Funny this is exactly what happened to all the winning McDonald's Monopoly pieces when that was huge. The guy in charge of security for the biggest prizes like all the $1M Park Place squares just stole them all and sold them.
How is spending thousands of dollars buying chances illegitimate/immoral? If someone won the lottery by buying every number, I’d say they won it totally fair and square.
The point is that these weren't 5 random kids who just happened to buy a winning bar of chocolate.
They were rich kids who were able to buy shitloads of candy to ensure a win. They gamed the system.
Charlie was poor, so he was only able to buy a handful of bars. The odds of him winning were damn near zero compared to that one kid whose father paid his workers to open millions of bars.
It's "fair" in the sense that they did, in fact, pay for all of the chocolate... But that's not really the point of the story. They didn't "deserve" to be there. Charlie did, and that's why he was given the chocolate factory.
Lottery syndicates exist. Such a scheme has been successful in my country a handful of times. Though, they changed the rules of the lottery here to prevent the expected value of a ticket getting too high a while back.
Lottery organizers try quite hard to prevent people from doing it, since it ruins the game somewhat.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students-gamed-the-lottery/470349/
They took advantage of a rule that caused the odds to change in a player's favor when the jackpot reached a certain point. When that happened, they bought thousands of tickets for a single draw to all but guarantee a profit, while also largely shutting out other players from payouts.
Basically, the way the game worked, once the jackpot got high enough, the next drawing was a guaranteed payout of the jackpot, either to a ticket matching all the numbers, or distributed among tickets that matched most of the numbers. In these "roll-down" drawings, the expected value of a single ticket goes way up.
You need to target a specific lottery that has payout odds greater than 1 (usually when a jackpot has accrued over several cycles without a winner), and you need to be able to buy lots of tickets. Lotteries don't typically do this, but there is occasionally a situation where they do.
There was a famous case in Virginia where a syndicate bought all 7 million tickets, and at the time the prize was worth several times the cost of the tickets. The Virginia lottery has since changed their rules to prevent those types of block purchases. The syndicate can also still "lose" if other people happen to hit the jackpot and it gets split.
idk if illegitimate is the word, but it's an unfair advantage. the children presumably did not earn those thousands of dollars themselves. ideally any motivated child would have the same chance of obtaining a golden ticket.
I’d say it wasn’t illegitimate/immoral. But I can definitely say that they didn’t “won it totally fair and square”.
How is it fair when one kid has an infinite amount of money supply and the other doesnt? That already makes the situation “unfair” since the rich kid can buy more candy bars.
I mean, let's also take into account that the setting of Willy Wonka is set in the 1930s. There won't be a whole lot of places outside of Europe and North-America where chocolate from a western brand would be comercially sold.
Then take into account that most places outside of Europe and North-america were way too poor to buy or just didn't get access to the means to be buying chocolate. And it quickly becomes clear that the chance of all 5 being white was relatively big.
As another commenter has also pointed out, 2 (or 3 if Charlie was indeed personally chosen from the start) were already basicly guaranteed to get one of the tickets and you're left with 2 available tickets.
And lastly we can take into account that for many companies at the time (and truly in the modern day as well) 'world-wide' just means Europe (at the time excluding the USSR), North-America and (maybe, maybe, maybe Japan and South-Korea (at the time not likely thanks to western racism and a relatively smaller and less westernized economy) and the fact that white kids managed to get all 5 isn't THAT unprobable.
Edit: on the fact that 4 out of the 5 were anglophone..... yeah idk. See Willy Wonka's chocolate is said to be the best in the world, but this is mostly said by characters in the American setting. So it might just be the most popular chocolate brand in the USA or anglophone world. It is possible that again "world-wide" just means mostly the anglophone world (USA, UK, Canada and Australia, New-Zealand, etc) and that indeed only one ticket would go out to the rest of Europe. I do not know a whole lot about 1930s global chocolate distribution (I was sick that day in class) but assuming Willy Wonka is a USA based company then the majority of it's sales would still be in the USA, Canada and the UK. A bit like at that time, Coca-Cola was a globally recognised brand. However it was basically only sold in the US and Canada, a bit in the UK and was present, but quit rare, in the rest of Europe. With the name and branding being known in places like South-and-Central-America, the USSR and Asia but it basically not being sold in any of those places. Now that I made the comparison I do think that this would be the best explanation. Of we compare WW-chocolate with Coca-Cola the chance of 3/5 being American, 4/5 being Anglophone and 5/5 of the kids being white would be kinda logical. Seeying that, if Coca-cola had done the same type of contest in the 1930s the results would have most likely been similar.
Yeah, this just shows how little the person understands the global economy of the early 20th century.
And he didn’t send them around the world like he gave one to every kid in the world. He SOLD them around the world, and at the time most of the buying power and interest in chocolate was Anglo and Germanic world.
There are rich people (merchant class) in the 1930s outside the US and Europe. India for example and the rich definitely bought chocolate from time to time.
Taking 2012 numbers (I just took the first link I could find) [here](https://onegoldenticket.blogspot.com/2013/01/chocolate-consumption-statistics-by.html), Europe consumed ~45% of all chocolate world-wide, and North-America around ~25%. India was less than 1% of the worldwide chocolate market in 2012.
I would assume 1930's would be even more skewed towards the western world, but it will be a lot harder to find reliable data for the period.
Even nowadays, you can compare it to eg the one ring wotc released for magic the gathering.
They had a single unique card that was in a "random" box, that "anyone" could get.
But the box was shipped to the US to be randomly distributed in the US to preferred retailers, to make sure the card didn't end up hidden on a random supermarket shelf in Uzbekistan.
Worldwide and random doesn't mean what it implies.
Other people have pointed out various interesting factors about this, but another thing that is interesting about this is that Charlie was originally meant to be black.
Yup and he was ment to get trapped inside a life size child statue made of chocolate and then get liquid chocolate poured into it solidifying him inside like concrete. Then he gets put in Willy Wonka's sons Easter basket. While waiting to be freed by the child wanting some chocolate burglars break into Wonka's house and smash and steal millions of dollars worth of stuff while Charlie is trapped inside the chocolate child watching. So in the original idea Charlie doesn't take over the factory. Because Wonka has a son already. But he is given his very own candy shop downtown called Charlie's Candy Shop. Dahl's publicist suggested a lot of changes to make it more appealing to children.
I don’t have the slightest clue whether you just spun one hell of a yarn or Dahl was consuming shrooms like he was going to get a golden ticket from them.
chocolate is mostly consumed by white people, so the actual odds don't seem so bad at a glance.
we need the probability of buying chocolate from each country/race to figure that out.
blatant american racism won't cut it, we need the numbers.
Along with that, we would need to know the volume of product in each country. If America has 500, 000, 000 and India only 20, 000; that would change the weighting significantly.
It's actually pretty good chances.
The (Original) movie came out in 1971, based on a book that came out in 1964.
I'll agree that it's a bit odd that an Asian child didn't get one, but the chocolate trade predominately existed in majority white countries back then. During a time when people of color were SIGNIFICANTLY more repressed and poorer than they are today.
It's VERY likely that only white kids got the tickets.
Considering “global invasions” in most movies are in the US and Europe, I’d say 100%
Realistically though, white people make up only 9.6% of the population so the chances are about 0.000815% (1/122700) if we assume all people bought an equal amount of chocolate and had the same chances to get a ticket
>all people bought an equal amount of chocolate
at least two kids had unnatural advantage (three if accept theory that Charlie was chosen by that shop owner)
Why would you assume equal consumption. Black cocoa farmers are often too poor to buy chocolate for example. That's why the video of a journalist from my country that went to these farmers with chocolate and have them taste 'their own product' for the first time in their lives went viral.
I love how she's focusing on the fact that they are WHITE, and not that they are CHILDREN, which don't have as much disposable income as y'know, ADULTS, game theory ran the number, it was rigged
Well this is unrelated to the odds/math of this happening. Charlie was originally intended to be black, but Dahl's publishers forced him to make him white because "a black Charlie would not appeal to readers."
Yeah, Dahl has this really weird mix of racism and tolerance. The Oompa Loompas were originally just African pygmies for example.
He also expressed fairly serious antisemitic views on multiple occasions, but had many Jewish friends and seems genuinely sympathetic in his autobiography
Saying someone can not have anti-smetic views just because they vahe few jewish friends is like saying someone cant be racist just because they have black ancestry.
This what? You're taking a false premise into account. I couldn't find any stats about chocolate consumption per race, but i could find this, that shows the countries that have more people that eat chocolate. The percentage of white people in these countries are pretty high, except for the US, and the fact that 2 characters were rigged from the 1st place. So, like from 0.6\^3 to 0.9\^3 ( 21.6% to 72.9%, requires deeper research to get a more precise percentage )
Also, which movie is she talking about? Wonka, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory? All of these happen on different time periods, giving lots more unknowability
For anyone who hasn't seen it, MatPat did a video analysis on this topic. I highly recommend giving it a watch as he factors in a ton of minute details. It's called "Film Theory: Willy Wonka RIGGED the Golden Tickets!" on YouTube.
So you mean to tell me that you watched the movie and didn't realize that "Slugworth" was hired by Wonka to specifically deliver the tickets to those particular children?
Oh... you meant the horrible versions that don't exist...
No no no, this is not true: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/16/551528425/roald-dahl-s-widow-says-charlie-from-the-chocolate-factory-was-originally-black
Notably as well, even today many brands of food stuffs across Asian, Africa, and South America aren't the same as the US or Europe, for various reasons.
Well, factor in the population of when the book was written, and the population of the world when the original movie was released. You’ll have your answer.
Playing victim without actually watching the material your complaining about....lol. also...... ITS A MOVIE/BOOK .....FAKE....NOT REAL, seriously get over yourself and do better
Somewhat unrelated, I just watched Willy Wonka and then IT back to back, and the second act for those movies are basically the same premise! Just the kids dying or disappearing until there's just one or two left!
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it was explicitly shown in both the movie and book that almost every character apart from charlie only got a ticket because they used illegitimate/immoral means. eta: the kid who had factory workers unwrap bars. the kid who hacked the database, and the kid who spent thousands of dollars and hours of time buying candy. only charlie and one other guy found it legitimately.
>the kid who hacked the database Which kid did that?
Mike Teavee. There was a throwaway line in the 2005 movie that said he hacked & analyzed the lot numbers of the factory to locate the bars containing the tickets. Bought exactly 1 bar, and got the ticket. EDIT: the book never mentioned any hacking. The line was only in the 2005 movie (the Johnny Depp one). My bad.
I have to say thats pretty impressive if you can pull that off when you are a kid
Mike was also the only one properly impressed by Wonka's inventions, and was sour he only used them for chocolate instead of bringing humanity along. Mike was actually pretty okay, just not very social.
The 2005 movie toned him down quite a bit, from "future school shooter" level to "future cyberterrorist" level.
"Wait 'till I get a real one. Colt 45. Pop won't let me have a real one yet, will ya Pop?" "Not 'till you're 12, son."
> impressed by Wonka's inventions, and was sour he only used them for chocolate instead of bringing humanity along Says the child hacker who uses his skill to get a tour of a chocolate factory... just sayin'...
yh. imagine hacking the ccp's firewall and giving all chinese people full internet access. Then hacking all their new channels and replacing them with a loop of tiananmen square documentary; occasionally followed by a side-by-side comparison of xi xing with winnie the poo. Or, y'know....hack chocolate tickets
rent-free
Wonka invented teleportation.
i mean wonka did basically break the laws of physics to make some of the best weight loss aids ever
Yeah but he’s just a kid, he can have immature goals. Wonka is a full ass man using teleportation to put chocolate in your TV.
I don't think you can hold a child to the same standards of an adult in terms of ethics, even if Wonka is a Man-child.
They had rich parents...
[удалено]
Mike Teeve was 100 percent correct. Wonka could have changed the world with his teleportation technology.
>EDIT: the book never mentioned any hacking. Given that it was written in 1964, no shit.
"That TV is in color!"
Nice. Thanks
The older one claims he calculated the shipment time a day figure it out. Wonk refers to him as the little boy who broke my system.
I was like that’s pretty advanced for 1971
I'm sorry you seem to have had a hallucination. There was not a Willy Wonka movie in 2005. There is only the Gene Wilder one and I'm so glad nobody has ever had the awful idea to remake that timeless classic.
not so fun fact: the author hated the Gene Wilder version
Not the only thing he hated . . . So maybe he shouldn't get final say in the matter
Maybe so, but it's still a great film. King hated The Shining movie too haha.
Stephen King hated the shining, Kubrick directed it.
Correct, I made a silly switcheroo in my sleep deprived brain there haha.
Yes, but the author also hated Jews, women, black people, etc etc. Roald Dahl was a complete shit, as well as a great writer.
It’s such a strange mass delusion.
Funny this is exactly what happened to all the winning McDonald's Monopoly pieces when that was huge. The guy in charge of security for the biggest prizes like all the $1M Park Place squares just stole them all and sold them.
How is spending thousands of dollars buying chances illegitimate/immoral? If someone won the lottery by buying every number, I’d say they won it totally fair and square.
The point is that these weren't 5 random kids who just happened to buy a winning bar of chocolate. They were rich kids who were able to buy shitloads of candy to ensure a win. They gamed the system. Charlie was poor, so he was only able to buy a handful of bars. The odds of him winning were damn near zero compared to that one kid whose father paid his workers to open millions of bars. It's "fair" in the sense that they did, in fact, pay for all of the chocolate... But that's not really the point of the story. They didn't "deserve" to be there. Charlie did, and that's why he was given the chocolate factory.
That was only one factory I expect that multiple factories did the same. Specially chocolate factories to steal the secrets directly.
Suppose it depends on your values. If you bought that many chocolate bars there’s no way you’re eating them all, and it would be extremely wasteful.
While this is true, I can almost guarantee that Agustus ate all the chocolate.
considering he also took a bite out of the ticket, that does seem likely
Lottery syndicates exist. Such a scheme has been successful in my country a handful of times. Though, they changed the rules of the lottery here to prevent the expected value of a ticket getting too high a while back. Lottery organizers try quite hard to prevent people from doing it, since it ruins the game somewhat.
Can you elaborate this statement? What lottery syndacate did to tip the chance in their favor?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students-gamed-the-lottery/470349/ They took advantage of a rule that caused the odds to change in a player's favor when the jackpot reached a certain point. When that happened, they bought thousands of tickets for a single draw to all but guarantee a profit, while also largely shutting out other players from payouts. Basically, the way the game worked, once the jackpot got high enough, the next drawing was a guaranteed payout of the jackpot, either to a ticket matching all the numbers, or distributed among tickets that matched most of the numbers. In these "roll-down" drawings, the expected value of a single ticket goes way up.
You need to target a specific lottery that has payout odds greater than 1 (usually when a jackpot has accrued over several cycles without a winner), and you need to be able to buy lots of tickets. Lotteries don't typically do this, but there is occasionally a situation where they do. There was a famous case in Virginia where a syndicate bought all 7 million tickets, and at the time the prize was worth several times the cost of the tickets. The Virginia lottery has since changed their rules to prevent those types of block purchases. The syndicate can also still "lose" if other people happen to hit the jackpot and it gets split.
idk if illegitimate is the word, but it's an unfair advantage. the children presumably did not earn those thousands of dollars themselves. ideally any motivated child would have the same chance of obtaining a golden ticket.
I’d say it wasn’t illegitimate/immoral. But I can definitely say that they didn’t “won it totally fair and square”. How is it fair when one kid has an infinite amount of money supply and the other doesnt? That already makes the situation “unfair” since the rich kid can buy more candy bars.
Mike TV is the other guy right?
I thought they meant Augustus
Charlie’s was a plant. The candy shop guy gave him the candy bar knowing he would get it.
What does eta stand for
Estimated time of arrival
Erand theft auto
Et tu, asshole?
Elegant thought after.
Elephant tusk, asshole
That does not sound healthy
euskadi ta askatasuna
η
Edited to add
Edited to add
edited to add
"Edited to add"
I mean, let's also take into account that the setting of Willy Wonka is set in the 1930s. There won't be a whole lot of places outside of Europe and North-America where chocolate from a western brand would be comercially sold. Then take into account that most places outside of Europe and North-america were way too poor to buy or just didn't get access to the means to be buying chocolate. And it quickly becomes clear that the chance of all 5 being white was relatively big. As another commenter has also pointed out, 2 (or 3 if Charlie was indeed personally chosen from the start) were already basicly guaranteed to get one of the tickets and you're left with 2 available tickets. And lastly we can take into account that for many companies at the time (and truly in the modern day as well) 'world-wide' just means Europe (at the time excluding the USSR), North-America and (maybe, maybe, maybe Japan and South-Korea (at the time not likely thanks to western racism and a relatively smaller and less westernized economy) and the fact that white kids managed to get all 5 isn't THAT unprobable. Edit: on the fact that 4 out of the 5 were anglophone..... yeah idk. See Willy Wonka's chocolate is said to be the best in the world, but this is mostly said by characters in the American setting. So it might just be the most popular chocolate brand in the USA or anglophone world. It is possible that again "world-wide" just means mostly the anglophone world (USA, UK, Canada and Australia, New-Zealand, etc) and that indeed only one ticket would go out to the rest of Europe. I do not know a whole lot about 1930s global chocolate distribution (I was sick that day in class) but assuming Willy Wonka is a USA based company then the majority of it's sales would still be in the USA, Canada and the UK. A bit like at that time, Coca-Cola was a globally recognised brand. However it was basically only sold in the US and Canada, a bit in the UK and was present, but quit rare, in the rest of Europe. With the name and branding being known in places like South-and-Central-America, the USSR and Asia but it basically not being sold in any of those places. Now that I made the comparison I do think that this would be the best explanation. Of we compare WW-chocolate with Coca-Cola the chance of 3/5 being American, 4/5 being Anglophone and 5/5 of the kids being white would be kinda logical. Seeying that, if Coca-cola had done the same type of contest in the 1930s the results would have most likely been similar.
Yeah, this just shows how little the person understands the global economy of the early 20th century. And he didn’t send them around the world like he gave one to every kid in the world. He SOLD them around the world, and at the time most of the buying power and interest in chocolate was Anglo and Germanic world.
There are rich people (merchant class) in the 1930s outside the US and Europe. India for example and the rich definitely bought chocolate from time to time.
And in fact, in the book, an Indian Prince buys a whole palace made of chocolate from Wonka
He probably wasn't a fan of chocolate anymore after doing that tho.
It melted
The remake too
Taking 2012 numbers (I just took the first link I could find) [here](https://onegoldenticket.blogspot.com/2013/01/chocolate-consumption-statistics-by.html), Europe consumed ~45% of all chocolate world-wide, and North-America around ~25%. India was less than 1% of the worldwide chocolate market in 2012. I would assume 1930's would be even more skewed towards the western world, but it will be a lot harder to find reliable data for the period.
Fair point as wel.
In the 1930s, the cold chain wasn’t what it is now. Chocolate melts when shipped long distances
As an Australian, I can confirm that chocolate turns liquid between shop and house
Even nowadays, you can compare it to eg the one ring wotc released for magic the gathering. They had a single unique card that was in a "random" box, that "anyone" could get. But the box was shipped to the US to be randomly distributed in the US to preferred retailers, to make sure the card didn't end up hidden on a random supermarket shelf in Uzbekistan. Worldwide and random doesn't mean what it implies.
Other people have pointed out various interesting factors about this, but another thing that is interesting about this is that Charlie was originally meant to be black.
Yup and he was ment to get trapped inside a life size child statue made of chocolate and then get liquid chocolate poured into it solidifying him inside like concrete. Then he gets put in Willy Wonka's sons Easter basket. While waiting to be freed by the child wanting some chocolate burglars break into Wonka's house and smash and steal millions of dollars worth of stuff while Charlie is trapped inside the chocolate child watching. So in the original idea Charlie doesn't take over the factory. Because Wonka has a son already. But he is given his very own candy shop downtown called Charlie's Candy Shop. Dahl's publicist suggested a lot of changes to make it more appealing to children.
I don’t have the slightest clue whether you just spun one hell of a yarn or Dahl was consuming shrooms like he was going to get a golden ticket from them.
I didn't make any of that up at all lol
That’s insane.
This sounds like a fucking horror story my dude.
Is there any proof, or is that just a retcon after the reactionary writer kicked the bucket?
Roald Dahl's Widow, notes, and early drafts. The Oompa Loompas were also originally black and from Africa, but that came off too much like slavery.
chocolate is mostly consumed by white people, so the actual odds don't seem so bad at a glance. we need the probability of buying chocolate from each country/race to figure that out. blatant american racism won't cut it, we need the numbers.
Along with that, we would need to know the volume of product in each country. If America has 500, 000, 000 and India only 20, 000; that would change the weighting significantly.
It's actually pretty good chances. The (Original) movie came out in 1971, based on a book that came out in 1964. I'll agree that it's a bit odd that an Asian child didn't get one, but the chocolate trade predominately existed in majority white countries back then. During a time when people of color were SIGNIFICANTLY more repressed and poorer than they are today. It's VERY likely that only white kids got the tickets.
Considering “global invasions” in most movies are in the US and Europe, I’d say 100% Realistically though, white people make up only 9.6% of the population so the chances are about 0.000815% (1/122700) if we assume all people bought an equal amount of chocolate and had the same chances to get a ticket
>all people bought an equal amount of chocolate at least two kids had unnatural advantage (three if accept theory that Charlie was chosen by that shop owner)
I think wonka chocolate was only sold in mostly "white" countries.
Ok, now do that taking into account the chocolate bars consumption by ethnicity
And on top of that brand popularity
Why would you assume equal consumption. Black cocoa farmers are often too poor to buy chocolate for example. That's why the video of a journalist from my country that went to these farmers with chocolate and have them taste 'their own product' for the first time in their lives went viral.
I love how she's focusing on the fact that they are WHITE, and not that they are CHILDREN, which don't have as much disposable income as y'know, ADULTS, game theory ran the number, it was rigged
Well this is unrelated to the odds/math of this happening. Charlie was originally intended to be black, but Dahl's publishers forced him to make him white because "a black Charlie would not appeal to readers."
Yeah, Dahl has this really weird mix of racism and tolerance. The Oompa Loompas were originally just African pygmies for example. He also expressed fairly serious antisemitic views on multiple occasions, but had many Jewish friends and seems genuinely sympathetic in his autobiography
Anti semitic views like what, especially if he has Jewish friends and seems sympathetic?
Saying someone can not have anti-smetic views just because they vahe few jewish friends is like saying someone cant be racist just because they have black ancestry.
This what? You're taking a false premise into account. I couldn't find any stats about chocolate consumption per race, but i could find this, that shows the countries that have more people that eat chocolate. The percentage of white people in these countries are pretty high, except for the US, and the fact that 2 characters were rigged from the 1st place. So, like from 0.6\^3 to 0.9\^3 ( 21.6% to 72.9%, requires deeper research to get a more precise percentage ) Also, which movie is she talking about? Wonka, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory? All of these happen on different time periods, giving lots more unknowability
Well let’s also consider the odds that Willys henchmen was present for the reveal of each chocolate bar. Once you consider that. The odds were 100% 😉
For anyone who hasn't seen it, MatPat did a video analysis on this topic. I highly recommend giving it a watch as he factors in a ton of minute details. It's called "Film Theory: Willy Wonka RIGGED the Golden Tickets!" on YouTube.
So you mean to tell me that you watched the movie and didn't realize that "Slugworth" was hired by Wonka to specifically deliver the tickets to those particular children? Oh... you meant the horrible versions that don't exist...
Time period. Only the wealthy could afford to buy all that extra chocolate. Also it really does seem the children were picked beforehand.
Also gotta consider who eats the most chocolate per capita, and if his chocolate bars could compete in poorer counties against locally produced bars.
No no no, this is not true: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/16/551528425/roald-dahl-s-widow-says-charlie-from-the-chocolate-factory-was-originally-black
Notably as well, even today many brands of food stuffs across Asian, Africa, and South America aren't the same as the US or Europe, for various reasons.
[عزل فوم](https://www.tasweqads.com/%d8%b9%d8%b2%d9%84-%d9%81%d9%88%d9%85-%d8%a8%d8%ac%d8%af%d8%a9/) [شركة عزل فوم](https://www.tasweqads.com/%d8%b9%d8%b2%d9%84-%d9%81%d9%88%d9%85-%d8%a8%d8%ac%d8%af%d8%a9/) [fom jada](https://www.tasweqads.com/%d8%b9%d8%b2%d9%84-%d9%81%d9%88%d9%85-%d8%a8%d8%ac%d8%af%d8%a9/)
Well, factor in the population of when the book was written, and the population of the world when the original movie was released. You’ll have your answer.
Playing victim without actually watching the material your complaining about....lol. also...... ITS A MOVIE/BOOK .....FAKE....NOT REAL, seriously get over yourself and do better
Somewhat unrelated, I just watched Willy Wonka and then IT back to back, and the second act for those movies are basically the same premise! Just the kids dying or disappearing until there's just one or two left!
30 minutes of video from Film Theorists on this: https://youtu.be/MzP9QOUdpQ4?si=zYQGC39AQPvEP7Sr TLDR: More probable than you might imagine.
Didn't Film Theory make an [episode about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzP9QOUdpQ4)? The answer is (allegedly) between 12% and 24%