CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews- Page 16

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:14pm

thattreegurl said: "GreasedLightning said: "thattreegurl said: "This might also have something to do with people with little experience with theatre being taken with any professional-grade acting and singing. This isn't to look down on them, just that it might explain why there's so many 5-star reviews. 

 

"

This doesn't matter. Majority of their audience will be made up of non-experi need theater goers. 

 

"

Fair point. And exactly what I was going for, in a way. I was just searching for a reason why this show might have so many people rating it as a 5-star experience. It is awful, by the way, for any doubters. 

 

"

Gotcha. Though I have to say, as I mentioned on this thread last night: most reviews i've seen on social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram...) have been fairly positive. Someone on Twitter even called the show a "dream come true." 

Awful or not, to your standards, the show is extremely well sold for its first few months and SOME people out there are enjoying it. 

Just something to consider. 

[thattreegurl]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:30pm

"

Gotcha. Though I have to say, as I mentioned on this thread last night: most reviews i've seen on social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram...) have been fairly positive. Someone on Twitter even called the show a "dream come true." 

Awful or not, to your standards, the show is extremely well sold for its first few months and SOME people out there are enjoying it. 

Just something to consider. 

 

"

Oh, absolutely, and I never begrudge anyone an enjoyable night of theatre, my own personal opinions on the show in question notwithstanding. I also have little doubt that this show will, at least for the next several months, be making quite a bit of money. Truthfully, I'm trying for my own sanity's sake to find the magic some are seeing in the show, since I did not. I always want to like shows, and when I don't I try to find the reason others do. Childhood nostalgia might be a factor, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm glad there are people that are having a magical night at the theatre, and wish everyone else who goes with high hopes nothing but the best of experiences.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:37pm

Good and fair points, all around! 

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:52pm

Well this is indeed depressing to read. This was in all honestly, the musical I was most looking forward to this season. It was at the top of my list. Between the great source material (the film...I was definitely expecting to read fantastic things about the set and costumes), shaiman and Witman (huge Hairspray fan over here) and Christian borle I didn't think anything could go wrong. Ugh. I am not seeing the show until the end of April so I REALLY hope they're able to change at least some of the horrible bits people are talking about between now and opening. 

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:52pm

They certainly aren't great reviews. 4 positive and 2 negative, unless I'm missing something.

I feel so bad for these actors.

[Butter Broadway]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 7:20pm

Can anyone confirm that more sets are coming?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 8:33pm

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "When I hear about good actors (Borle, Hoffman, Padgett) taking work like this, I feel bad because they MUST know the material isn't all there but need to eat like the rest of us.

Some days I also feel grateful that I'm a writer and can create my own work.."

 

And I'm sure creating that work pays the bills, right? 

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 8:44pm

>Don't forget Roald Dahl famously hated the 1971 movie.<

Roald Dahl was also, famously, an a**hole.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 8:45pm

Liza's Headband said: "Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "When I hear about good actors (Borle, Hoffman, Padgett) taking work like this, I feel bad because they MUST know the material isn't all there but need to eat like the rest of us.

Some days I also feel grateful that I'm a writer and can create my own work.."

 

And I'm sure creating that work pays the bills, right? 

 

"

Ouch. 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 8:45pm

Liza's Headband said: "Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "When I hear about good actors (Borle, Hoffman, Padgett) taking work like this, I feel bad because they MUST know the material isn't all there but need to eat like the rest of us.

Some days I also feel grateful that I'm a writer and can create my own work.."

 

And I'm sure creating that work pays the bills, right? 

 

"

Ouch. 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 9:46pm

God Liza's Headband really is a vile piece of work. They are creating new work as all writers like myself do, and eventually the best of that work will be what you pay money to see and feeds in to your theatre passion. Why be so critical? And I will say it for me, yes it pays the bills. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 9:56pm

 What? I never said that. That's not what I was referring to at all.  Friend, I am the least condescending person you will ever meet. All I was saying was that I am grateful that I can create my own opportunities if I want, as a writer. Of course it won't pay the bills all the time, at least not at this stage of my life. I try to treat everyone with respect- we are all in this same thespian-y boat.

[Ziva56]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 10:13pm

The music makes me so sad. 

The West End production was lavish with most of its problems, in my opinion, stemming from some of the score. Two of my favorite songs were 'Dontcha Pinch Me, Charlie' and 'Simply Second Nature' which I am so sad to see missing in this one. 

They should have upped the production value and scrapped some of the children's songs that feel so amateurish with the rest of the show. And decided if they're doing the movie or not- have all of the music or just 'Pure Imagination.' And the Wonka being best friends with Charlie beforehand is just ridiculous. 

I had so much hope for this production and am thoroughly let down. 

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 11:31pm

I remember reading somewhere that they were teaming up with Dylan's Candy Bar for some sort of merchandising opportunity or something.  How is that working out? It feels so weird that they put all of this effort for things not on stage.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 12:17am

I am in utter shock from what I just witnessed at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre tonight. I will keep this brief because everything that needs to be said has already been said multiple times in this thread. The show is truly horrendous from beginning to end. The book and score are among the worst ever created for a musical. The set is literally non existent. What few set pieces they do have look like they are left over from random bus and truck tours. Christian Borle is the only redeeming quality in this godawful mess. This doesn't even fall into the category of being so bad it's good or funny. It's just absolutely pathetic.

[MX888]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 12:18am

Marianne2 said: "I remember reading somewhere that they were teaming up with Dylan's Candy Bar for some sort of merchandising opportunity or something.  How is that working out? It feels so weird that they put all of this effort for things not on stage."

Yes, they are collaborating with Dylan's Candy Bar and offering: chocolate bars, caramels, cotton candy and popcorn. Long lines for concessions so the marketing is clearly working. The downside is the increased amount of annoying package crinkling  . They also speciality drinks with alcohol and different flavored frozen slush for $16.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 1:05am

Is there a cheap ticket option for this **** show? 

[adagio]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 1:10am

WithoutATrace said: "

So many scenes from the movie have been cut - everything with Slugworth, the Goose with the Golden eggs, when Charlie and Grandpa Joe take the fizzy lifting drink and fly too close to the fan above - and replaced with subpar material. As stated above, this show was already written for the creative team - why mess with something that is already perfect?

I know this show has a good advance and I feel for those who have already purchased tickets, but for those fortunate enough to have not yet purchased tickets, please allow this post to be a warning to you.  Go see SUNSET or SUNDAY or DOLLY again...hell, even go to AMELIE...but steer clear of CHARLIE.  You'll be grateful that your wonderful memories of the book and film won't be soiled.

 

"

While this show sounds like a hot mess, I have to point out that the subplots of Charlie misbehaving and not getting punished and the rival candy maker trying to get kids to steal secrets were not only invented for the movie, but actually go against the moral of the novel - that is, Charlie was the only kid that listened and behaved, so he got the factory. (Geese were also a film creation, the book had squirrels, but that's a minor change in comparison.)

 

Main reason why I disliked the film as a kid - even when I was eight I could see they'd completely missed the point. May also be part of why Dahl hated the film?

[Almira]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 1:50am

Saw the performance tonight and was truly surprised at how well it played. After reading the reviews here I was expecting a show that would inspire Ken Mendalbaum to come out of hiding and write NOT SINCE CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY.

What I saw tonight was a simpler, less convoluted, and ultimately better show than the London version.  The authors have committed to their choices - and while I don't agree with some of them  - they are making them work.  For example, I don't agree with Wonka's "I need a successor" opening. ..it pretty much announced how the evening would play out. Wonka as the "Candy Man" and Charlie's knowing "everything" about Wonka killed the all discovery and suspense.  They could easily have a Candy shop owner impatiently teach Charlie about Wonka.  I missed the creepy undertones of the movie too.

 

As for the set...yes it does look cheap...well cheapish. At first I thought I was seeing one of those re-thought, scaled-down tour stageings of an originally more complicated Broadway production. But it occurred to me that the show is about the power of the imagination and the director is intentionally leaving blank spots on the canvas for the audience to fill in. I actually appreciated that. London did all the work for you with it's elaborate and overblown complicated sets.  This blank canvas notion for a set works mostly  well...the major exception being the chocolate room. The miniature chocolate room on a moving platform is too noticeably off on its scaling. 

Love the older actors playing the children.  Borle is charming, but totally lacking in menace. I think that makes him a lesser Wonka than he should be.

This version is not spectacle.  It is the antithesis of spectacle. It's aim is to make YOU collaborate with the creative team by using your imagination to see things that are  not really there.

 

 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 1:56am

If I have to pay $100+ to "imagine" sets...I'll pass. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 2:31am

Wouldn't it be much more fun to "imagine" things in a black box theater than in a big barn?

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 3:22am

I do hope this production results in a cast album - if only to preserve Borle, Padgett, and Hoffman's performances. 

[Erzlump]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 6:10am

I can only speak of the London Cast Recording, but I actually enjoy "More of him to love" (Gotta love the Gloops) and I also like "When Veruca says" enough (except for that North Korea line - is that still there?). I am on board with abandoning "Queen of Pop" (or the former "Double Bubble Duchess" ) and "It's Teavee Time" or its current incarnation.

The big problem I personally always had with the score is its dramatic repetitiveness - the second half of Act 1 we spent listening to a song each for Charlie's competitors to introduce them. We do the same for most of Act 2 to get rid of them - spending only little time on Charly, Wonka or the Factory itself. While this kind of structure works okay in books and movies, I personally found it grinding in this musical (but then I have to admit that I might not mind it if the score was a bit better?). The whole situation reminds me a lot of 9 to 5 which took out a whole sequence in the first act and replaced with the gorgeous "I just might" including all three women singing together instead of introducing their problems seperately. 

I really liked the idea someone in this thread proposed (sorry for not remembering your name) to end on the chocolate room scene for act one with Augustus falling into the chocolate. I wonder if it would have been better to introduce the competitors in one scene altogether, move up "It must be believed to be seen"  to be a mid Act 1 stunner (with introducing Wonka for the first time, removing that whole successor bit as it is nonsensical as Whizzer pointed out). This would also give the opportunity to put "Simple Second Nature" back in without harming the momentum too much. 

I also feel like a lot of the lyrics are hit or miss. While the lyrics of"It must be believed to be seen" are a standout, we have zingers like "He was not obedient, now he is an ingredient" or "We hope she wants last month's chow mein, as she jete's down the garbage drain" in the show. 

But now, if all that ends up on the cutting room floor we'd be left with a half hour show and a lot of rewriting to do and I might realise that the problems of this show's score and book are beyond fixing.

Updated On: 3/31/17 at 06:10 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 8:27am

I liked Emily Padgett very much. A winning performance. Her dance with her husband was deft and touching. I laughed at Grandpa George's punch lines. A few songs were pleasant, and the first act had some affecting moments. The song "Strike That, Reverse It" offered some amusing word play. It was good to see John Rubenstein again. He  was effortlessly appealing, as always. Charlie was an empathetic character, and was well played by Jake Ryan Flynn. 

Sadly, the visual ugliness cast a pall over the entire production. What a downer. The production numbers were, in the main, dreadful, and in the second act, the show tanked completely.

Christian Borle's performance was a bit short on the brio he has displayed in the past.

It's a shame, really. Broadway so desperately needs shows that appeal to young audiences, and that can enable them to experience the magic of the theatre. 

 

[Almira]

Posted: 3/31/17 at 9:15am

 "If I have to pay $100+ to "imagine" sets...I'll pass. "

 

That a very important and very valid point. Expectations for Broadway based on what you are paying dictate they give you more bang for your buck...and from that perspective the show is a disappointment. Production values for London went way overboard, Broadway, you could argue, made a similar error but in the other direction.

Hal Prince is the true "black box" genius. He makes you think you are seeing a lot more than is actually in stage.  

If this tanks, I expect the producers can easily  - with some modifications - send this out on tour to recoup some of the money lost. It will play well enough on the road.