Did you see the Charlie and The Chocolate Factory 50th Anniv. Ed cover.

[NightWatcher]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/11019528/Charlie-and-the-Chocolate-Factory-cover-condemned-as-creepy-grotesque-and-inappropriately-sexualised.html

While Charlie is a thoughtful and sweet-natured little boy, the other golden ticket holders are monstrous creations whose every whim is indulged by their useless parents.

Penguin said the girl in the cover photograph is not intended to be either Violet Beauregarde or Veruca Salt, the spoilt young girls who feature in Dahl’s tale, but a representation of the “twisted" parent-child relationships depicted throughout the book.

The cover photograph was taken from a French magazine fashion shoot by the photographers Sofia Sanchez and Mauro Mongiello, entitled Mommie Dearest.

It has nothing to do with the story, because who wants to see something related to the story on the cover?

[Orrex]

1. I believe that this is the Humbert edition

[msanthrope]

5. Thread win on the first post. nt

[SidDithers]

8. Well played. Well played, indeed...

Sid

[unrepentant progress]

2. From a couple years back

[FSogol]

7. Anne of Green Gables likes movies, long walks on the beach, and beautiful sunsets.

[davidpdx]

3. As a fan of the book and the movie

I have to say the cover is idiotic. Whomever was in charge of selecting the cover should lose their job and be put on a desert island with Donald Trump.

[alphafemale]

4. Veruca Salt is what came to my mind, but they say it isn't

Images of the Charlie and the horrendous brats on various additions would have been a great idea.

On its face this is just bizarre.

But then Dahl was also bizarre, so maybe it is fitting

[RiffRandell]

6. But 3 beautiful women on a 50th edition SI issue almost breaks DU.

Strange cover...good thing our kids already have the book with the original one.

Personally, I think they should of had the chicken getting it's head chopped off in the tunnel.

That whole scene itself was worth a hit of acid.