'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' was a great success- Page 3

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 11:23am

Kad said: "Since taste is subjective, and pretty much every person alive has a fondness for something that others hate, the only way to objectively judge something's "success" is by factors that everyone acknowledges to be true."

Humor me -- what are these factors to you? Point being, I don't think that everyone agrees on what these factors are. Or the weight each factor should hold. Is artistic excellence more important than financial, vice versa, etc?

There are so many ways to benchmark success. What I'm interested in is how people come to their own conclusions of a "successful" show. 

[Kad]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 11:31am

I gave you the two major ones.

 

[LxGstv]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 12:23pm

If 20 years from now we have a Tony winner that says in his/her acceptance speech that their passion for theater started because of Charlie, then the show will be a success by your parameters I guess.

My experience during the show was very different, kids around me were completely bored. So following your guidelines, we can say that if one kid saw it and disliked the show so much that they never want to see live theater ever again, then would we be able to say the show was a failure?

[j.garcia]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 12:25pm

I judge success based on, and in no particular order: box office, creativity of costume/set/music/lighting, critical reviews, friends' reviews, book, cultural impact, lyrics, music, etc. I could go on, but I think you're being purposefully obtuse on the subject.

 

It's ok to like a flop show. I loved American Psycho but it was a flop, despite great lead performances and creative staging. I loved Groundhog Day as well, and that too was a flop. I'm not starting threads to redefine success so that shows I like fit in.

 

I'm pulling a quote from Greatest Showman (which I also loved but can acknowledge that its not a good movie), banks don't take joy as collateral.

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 12:45pm

j.garcia said: "I judge success based on, and in no particular order: box office, creativity of costume/set/music/lighting, critical reviews, friends' reviews, book, cultural impact, lyrics, music, etc. I could go on, but I think you're being purposefully obtuse on the subject."

Thanks -- if you do care to share more, I'd love to hear it. Particularly, cultural impact is so hard to judge, would be interested to hear what you consider there.



"It's ok to like a flop show. I loved American Psycho but it was a flop, despite great lead performances and creative staging. I loved Groundhog Day as well, and that too was a flop. I'm not starting threads to redefine success so that shows I like fit in."
 

What I think is funny is the assumption that I liked the show, therefore I'm trying to cast it as a success. I really never said one way or another my assessment of the production itself as a whole.

Updated On: 1/18/18 at 12:45 PM

[j.garcia]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 12:57pm

When I think of a show's cultural impact, the question is, "Has the show entered the pop culture lexicon?" Can you drop a reference to the show in mixed company, outside of theater fans, and people recognize it? I remember hearing punch lines on TV shows about Hamilton, and seeing Cats parodies on SNL. That to me is cultural impact. We're such an insular fan community that its hard to see the reach, or lack thereof, of things we're passionate about. 

If you didn't even like Charlie, why go through all these cartwheels trying to define it as a success? If you're looking for children's joy then Spongebob is inspiring more smiles.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 1:00pm

Technically Charlie has made a cultural impact, but that’s not coming from the stage show. Lol.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 1:08pm

Can I send the $250k to your onlyfans page?

For you, yes.  

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 2:10pm

j.garcia said: "We're such an insular fan community that its hard to see the reach, or lack thereof, of things we're passionate about."
 

That's a great point. Speaking to, appealing to and reaching people inside and outside the general community definitely takes different tactics and always is something to keep in mind. It's certainly easy to lose perspective when immersed in our own circles, and the weight placed on the different segments is always worth debate and consideration.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 2:23pm

You don't seem to be debating or arguing a point so much as moderating your own discussion.

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 2:28pm

Kad said: "You don't seem to be debating or arguing a point so much as moderating your own discussion."

Egads! A discussion on a discussion board! My word!

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 4:16pm

I think the problem is that you're conflating success with enjoyment and trying to make them one thing. My favorite show last season was The Great Comet, saw it eight times, and recommended it to anyone who would listen. I think it was a great achievement, and something I will never see the likes of for a long time on a Broadway stage.

But I also know it was a polarizing show, and a horrible failure for its investors. If we're going to judge shows by their critical response, award wins and weekly box office (which does seem to be the case), then we have to use the same metrics for their failures.

Personally, I only use these things strategically. If a show I want to see is doing poorly at the box office, I use that as a cue to see it soon. If I'm on the fence or unsure about a show, I'll read reviews and other things. But when I look back on seasons, what closed prematurely, didn't find an audience, or whatever has no bearing.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 4:24pm

IlanaKeller said: "Kad said: "You don't seem to be debating or arguing a point so much as moderating your own discussion."

Egads! A discussion on a discussion board! My word!"

This is a message board....

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 4:38pm

Call_me_jorge said: "IlanaKeller said: "Kad said: "You don't seem to be debating or arguing a point so much as moderating your own discussion."

Egads! A discussion on a discussion board! My word!"

This is a message board...."

If, in fact, you are confused:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/discussion-board-discussion-group-message-board-online-forum

 

 

[IlanaKeller]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 4:46pm

haterobics said: "I think the problem is that you're conflating success with enjoyment and trying to make them one thing."

More, if a show succeeds in one metric, is it a success? Or does it need a combination, an especially strong showing in one, etc. Just trying to get a feel on people's thoughts on that. Is there more than one form of success, would one consider a show that flopped at the box office but was groundbreaking in one way or another a success?


"If we're going to judge shows by their critical response, award wins and weekly box office (which does seem to be the case), then we have to use the same metrics for their failures."

Certainly. The bar should be the bar. What I was hoping to hear more about are people's thoughts on what exactly those metrics and that bar are in their mind. I don't think that's clear-cut, and people may weigh one category (artistic merit or box office) more than another, etc.

[Bwayfan292]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 8:18pm

If it was successful it would still be playing. The show would be way differnt if they didnt rush the crap out of it to get it to broadway to make a few bucks. If they took their time and had large sets and developed it better it could have been successful. However, this production was not.

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 9:52pm

I'm going to bite and actually answer the OP's question.

I'm going to go with these 3 as measures of success, which I believe are used often in the industry to measure success:

1 - financial - did it recoup its investment? That would make it financially successful.
2 - reviews - did the critics like it? That would make it a critical success.
3- awards - did it take home the big "Best Musical" Tony, or even The Pulitzer?

Plus the length of the run, which sometimes/often correlates with recoupment.

Charlie did none of those things.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/18/18 at 11:06pm

IlanaKeller said: "Is there more than one form of success, would one consider a show that flopped at the box office but was groundbreaking in one way or another a success?"

Not really. It means box office and the ability to provide a return to investors. This gets back to the old saying: It's not called show art, it's show  business.

The only time this argument comes up, again and again, is when people want to call a financial failure a triumph on some other grounds.

Two of my favorite recent shows were Bridges Of Madison County and Great Comet, and no matter how they affected me, what I thought of them, or theories on why they closed and how they could have been saved, both were dismal failures on Broadway.

But since I didn't invest in either show, who cares? The financial metric is the only worthwhile metric of commercial success, but it is also the only inarguable one. It is something that invites no conspiracy theories or speculation, or differing opinions.

A lot of people on here hate Dear Evan Hansen, and many more (by my count) love it. However, both sides will completely agree that it sold 7,993 tickets last week, at an average ticket price of $217.83, bringing in $1,741,090. So, it is the only way to judge a show that no one can dispute. People who loathe DEH and those who think it is the best show playing right now both agree on those numbers, and so do its investors.

Once you move beyond that, and start personally interpreting things to support an agenda, or reframing things, you're really not introducing new forms of success, but ways to favorably (or negatively) spin a fable.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/19/18 at 5:06am

This is perfectly said. ^

In fact, you should copy and paste it somewhere for future use EVERY time it comes up.

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 1/19/18 at 11:37am

THIS^^^^

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/19/18 at 2:16pm

You can add a qualifier to anything and redefine its meaning.  There is nothing revelatory in this.  Was In My Life a success?  No.  Was In My Life successful in entertaining someone in some particular way?  Yes.  Was Schindler's List a good movie?  Yes.  Was Schindler's List a good science fiction movie?  No.  Is this discussion a success?  No.  Was the OP successful in shilling her blog using this discussion?  I hope people aren't that stupid, but Trump's President so, unfortunately, it's possible.