Posted: 12/19/16 at 4:29pm
I saw the show in London and believe it was based more on the book than the movies, and updated for today's audience. I'm assuming the U.S. production is trying to change the show to be more like the movie since that is what is expected. Hope it all works out as many tourists will be booking this show on name only and expect to see the movie.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 5:16pm
theatreguy12 said: "And then there's You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown that apparently had a recent production with kids (which was discussed on here) and many here didn't like that idea.
Personally I'm willing to give it a look regardless.... if it is a musical I decide I really want to see anyway. Still on the fence. But not so much because of the casting.
I prefer the idea of kids in this one only because I still have those visions of the kids from the movie and thought they were pretty funny. But this could work too.
I will say that I've heard quite a few people say they weren't overly impressed when they saw it in London, including Kathy on this board. And when you consider it's been in London for quite some time I guess that proves that something can be a "hit," but not necessarily considered "good" by all people. Which was also pointed out by another poster.
I found it interesting that gersten noted that his/her child really didn't like it. That seems pretty telling. And leads me to think it might not be something I'm all that interested in after all. Again, not because of the casting, but because of the play itself.
"
I don't know. The show was very confusing...and I don't think it had a clear vision of what it wanted to be. Yes very tender moments and then very loud moments and not enough to tie them together in a cohesive effort. Also mostly new music which was not memorable and then one song from the movie at the end...it was all over the place. It certainly had some nice moments - we just needed more of them and a better vision I think.
Also it was updated so that one of the kids was a punk rocker, the other was a rude teenager - not cute and funny rude like the kids of the movie, just not even interesting. The charm was missing somehow. But I did see this later on in the run and the leads were just so-so...maybe that contributed.
I do want to see it here though...and see the changes. I wish them the best.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 6:28pm
Not sure what direction they're going with this casting, but maybe the logic is, following on from BarnabyTucker's comment, that the audience is meant to enjoy watching the other kids get their grotesque comeuppances in the factory. Having kids play the roles worked well in the movie, but maybe seeing a real live child onstage, even a vile one, seemingly undergo Willy's 'tortures' would prompt more of an "aww" than the desired "ha". No idea if this is how it will play out, but just trying to be optimistic.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 6:31pm
Is this a limited run, or is this open ended? I hope "Sweet Charity" doesn't transfer without Padgett - or if it does, I hope they record an off-Broadway album.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 6:34pm
This is not being produced as a limited run.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 7:02pm
It has been common knowledge for quite some time that they would be casting adults for the children roles. The rumor is that it has nothing to do with expense, rather the show will be very dark (more like the book, less like the movies) and the creatives were afraid that it would be uncomfortable for the audience to witness such disturbing things happening to actual children. We shall see how much truth there is to that rumor in a few months.
Updated On: 12/19/16 at 07:02 PM
Posted: 12/19/16 at 7:15pm
Most of the people who will buy tickets to this will have seen one of the two movies or read the book where part of the appeal was the satisfaction of seeing the horrible children get punished. I don't think that audience needs or even wants the violent theme to be toned down by having adults play them.
The fans allready knows and accepts that aspect of the story!
Posted: 12/19/16 at 9:33pm
Thanks, Kathy. Will be watching as the reviews come in on this one. Yours included. It may or may not be up my alley, depending on which way they take it. If it has remained somewhat convoluted I think I'll prefer keeping that special magic of the movie as my chosen memory on this one. Though I do think Borle will be great!
Posted: 12/19/16 at 9:42pm
Borle may be great - but one of the biggest problems with the London show was that they don't get to the Factory until Act II. So Borle is only in the show for one act. That may be something that is changed. Act One was a tedious - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song.
Unless they keep the disguised Wonka in the First Act. But, the disguise was so good when we saw the show, it may as well not have been the actor playing Wonka.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 9:46pm
I guess you had to be named Ryan to get cast in the lead. 
Posted: 12/19/16 at 9:46pm
^^^ Interesting to know.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 10:17pm
I just hate pandering. Look at all the long running hits - they haven't pandered or watered down themselves. Kids today can handle a lot. And they certainly don't need a kid to be "punk rock" to cope with them. That's so stupid. But if we think 3 old dudes are gonna know what kids want...
Posted: 12/19/16 at 10:52pm
This is all so dramatic. It's not like they cast old, gray actors to play these children. They cast some of the best, brightest, youngest and prettiest ensemble Broadway players out there. And as has been mentioned, it's been public knowledge for some time now these roles would go to adults and the child role would go to Charlie and Charlie alone.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 1:34am
I've not seen or heard anything from the musical, but I am listening to the London cast album in anticipation now that I know Emily Padgett is involved. How big a role is Mrs. Bucket? I've never read the book, and it's been forever since I've seen the movie, so I'm not sure what to expect in terms of her role. I don't see casting for Mr. Bucket listed, should we assume he was cut and the duet for the two, If Your Mother Were Here, was turned into a solo for Mrs. Bucket? Or perhaps it's an ensemble track, but it should have been announced in that case, right?
Posted: 12/20/16 at 1:47am
If the London version was so bad, and it ran to good houses for 2 years, doesn't it insult the English audience by saying we are now going to Broadway and need to re-do it?
Why wasn't the 're-doing' done in previews in London if the faults were so obvious.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 7:26am
The casting sounds somewhat interesting. Obviously, there's a method to the madness per se. I'm going to wait and see when it opens in previews to hear people's reactions to it before I make a judgment.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 7:28am
British Audiences and American audiences are very different. Many shows that succeed here, don't there - and vice versa. I don't know if adapting for an American audience has anything to do with the changes or not. Also, its possible they didn't yet know WHAT to fix and needed to step back a little to get a different perspective.
But I don't see how it INSULTS anyone. I don't think it says, "You Brits aren't good enough for our REAL vision."
Posted: 12/20/16 at 8:36am
CindersGolightly said: "I've not seen or heard anything from the musical, but I am listening to the London cast album in anticipation now that I know Emily Padgett is involved. How big a role is Mrs. Bucket? I've never read the book, and it's been forever since I've seen the movie, so I'm not sure what to expect in terms of her role. I don't see casting for Mr. Bucket listed, should we assume he was cut and the duet for the two, If Your Mother Were Here, was turned into a solo for Mrs. Bucket? Or perhaps it's an ensemble track, but it should have been announced in that case, right?"
In the original novel and the 2005 film adaptation, Mr. & Mrs. Bucket both have similar sized roles. In the 1971 film adaptation, Mr. Bucket was written out entirely.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 3:42pm
They have been very clear about wanting to change the production. Have to agree with ggerstean :
Borle may be great - but one of the biggest problems with the London show was that they don't get to the Factory until Act II. So Borle is only in the show for one act. That may be something that is changed. Act One was a tedious - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song - ticket winner, song.
I am hoping they keep the better songs and scenes, cut a lot of Act 1, and perhaps have a really good idea of why they are casting the children's parts with adults. A retool might help a lot.
The London production is also trading in tourists - so I don't think it's a British sensibility vs. American, more that the producers want to improve upon what they have.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 4:52pm
SweetLips said: "If the London version was so bad, and it ran to good houses for 2 years, doesn't it insult the English audience by saying we are now going to Broadway and need to re-do it?
Why wasn't the 're-doing' done in previews in London if the faults were so obvious.
"
It will have been running for almost 4 years when it closes next month!
Posted: 12/20/16 at 5:02pm
To the people on this thread who keep saying that the adults as kids casting was "common knowledge", obviously this is not the case since this thread started yesterday.
If this production is going more towards the movie, then there will be no Mr. Bucket, and Mrs. Bucket might even sing the song "Cheer Up, Charlie" which, while not a great song, is still MILES better than anything new written for the London show.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 6:55pm
Jeez, I just took a listen to the score and it's incredibly dull. I don't think that they should have used anything from the film, but I do think that the score could be much better. Hopefully it will get overhauled before it opens or else I don't really seeing this being too well recieved over here.
Posted: 12/20/16 at 10:32pm
mikey2573 said: "To the people on this thread who keep saying that the adults as kids casting was "common knowledge", obviously this is not the case since this thread started yesterday. "
It has been public information, and discussed on this board, for quite some time now. I guess not everyone was paying attention, but it has been common knowledge in the Broadway community. Though, common knowledge, like common sense, apparently isn't all that common anymore.
Updated On: 12/20/16 at 10:32 PM
Posted: 12/21/16 at 2:51am
Okay.
I got a "golden ticket' in the mail that would supposedly allow to buy orchestra tickets for $89.00.
Surprise, surprise. Didn't work.
Hey Producers, don't send crap codes out if they are not going to work. I'll go see something else instead.
Posted: 12/28/16 at 5:24pm
More photos from the outside of the Lunt-Fontane. Cool Stuff!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208037483399075&set=pcb.10208037496639406&type=3&theater
