Posted: 4/1/17 at 12:56am
Scarywarhol said: "To be fair, FN was very crafty about keeping people confused as to who was actually in the show at any given time."
LOL. This is very true.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 1:18am
I really liked Finding Neverland (I know I'm in the minority of you people). Still am very excited and hopeful to see Charlie at some point soon. I'm sure there will be a lot of changes throughout previews. They're not gonna want a show with this big of name and advance to go to crap. I think it will end up doing just fine.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 1:22am
I purchased insurance on my ticket, so I'll see if I can get a refund. I have a second row, matinee, Hello Dolly the same day I'm supposed to see Charlie at 8. Can't imagine it would be wise to follow Dolly up with Charlie.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 1:34am
Solaire said: "I purchased insurance on my ticket, so I'll see if I can get a refund. I have a second row, matinee, Hello Dolly the same day I'm supposed to see Charlie at 8. Can't imagine it would be wise to follow Dolly up with Charlie. "
It doesn't sound potent enough to ruin or alter the high you'll have at that point.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 8:18am
RippedMan said: "
I just wish producers would trust new stories. The past few hits have all been new, original stories. I don't think of us really want to see " :the Musical" anymore.
"
...what does this mean...
Posted: 4/1/17 at 8:33am
GreasedLightning said: "RippedMan said: "
I just wish producers would trust new stories. The past few hits have all been new, original stories. I don't think of us really want to see " :the Musical" anymore.
"
...what does this mean...
"
I think RippedMan is saying the novelty / fad of adapting non-musical films into stage musicals is getting stale/old, at least for him.
(although I'm confused as to whether CCF falls under this, since it's adapted partially from a very well known musicalized adaptation of the original book).
Posted: 4/1/17 at 12:08pm
I saw the show last night and I'm a bit dumbfounded. I truly don't understand how such vivid source material could lead to a musical that misses the mark by so much. The book and movie(s) provided images of so many possibilities and this just falls flat on it's face.
The sets are abysmal for a show that centers largely around a candy factory. You'd expect bright colors and contraptions. This is Willy Wonka's factory, not a place that produces 75% cacao organic chocolate! It lacks the spark you assume workday be there. The scale of the sets also felt very off, as if the dimensions of the scenery and props were not measured correctly. The Lunt-Fontanne is a decent sized theater, but many pieces, to me, felt like they were intended for a theater with a smaller stage. I felt similarly about the costumes--I expected over the top and it wasn't the case. Some of the ensemble costumes look like unfinished prototypes. They weren't enough. I also figured we'd have some kind of cool Violet swelling up costume or effect, but it was a bit of a let down. It seemed too small.
The cast does the best they can with material that disappoints. Borle is okay as Willy Wonka. Not great, not bad, but okay. It felt lackluster. I don't think it's the best written part he's had, but I think it needs a little more oomph from him. His performance in Falsettos was far superior. People here have mentioned disdain for Violet,Mike, and Veruca and I totally agree. Their characters are highly unlikeable, but they shouldn't be cursed with awful music. I think Mike Teavee's song might be the worst...it just goes too far and away from the world established by Charlie and his family.
I left the theater feeling completely disappointed. A show that should have potential falls entirely flat. I kept thinking there's some big song or set piece or effect that could save the show, but sadly, that never comes. It's completely understandable why people were asking if the set was still waiting for a major element to be delivered. It's that underwhelming.
Some shows do well with minimal sets and allow the viewer to use their imagination. Because of the legacy of this source material, you don't expect Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be "minimalist" in any way. I expected bold and creative here, but sadly, that never came. The show is a mess and a letdown.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 4:02pm
BroadwayBen said: "I don't know if that theory plays out. "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" was a stinker in New York, and just had a brief non-equity tour. I think if it is bad, word spreads around the country, particularly with something so well known. "Finding Neverland" was sort of average (at best) and that made it on the road, though...
"
Just to clarify... Pretty sure Chitty was Equity on tour.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 5:19pm
wow...I guess not much has been improved since london. It's sounds like it's gotten worse. I saw the show back in 2013 and I agree with everyone the sets were the best part, as well as Douglas Hodges performance. I'm surprised Pure Imagination was moved to the beginning of the second act. That was actually my favorite part of the show was the end. Charlie in the attic coming up with his own inventions, that's when I felt the show finally took off. Do they still do the shadow puppetry with India sequence and the palace made of chocolate? That was really awesome as well.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 6:59pm
I went into today's matinee having never seen either of the film versions, or not knowing the book, and I left the theatre hungry - starving - for more. The Oompa Loompa numbers were fun, I guess, but really they were just a relief from the complete inertness of the factory scenes. The kids die in completely underwhelming days and there's barely a reaction, so why are we even watching? There's the motivation to follow this story? I guess that's where the spectacle could've come in, but everything just felt so cheap. Not necessarily literally cheap, but certainly lacking in any sort of imagination or direction. Just a bunch of folks walking around a room for an hour. (At least we had Jackie Hoffmann's line "It's the same room!" comment to give us some sort of wink to the audience.) I happened to love Christian in this, even though you feel him really trying to work with the material, and a lot of the cast are good, but at the end you really just feel that they're happy it's over.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 10:15pm
Posted: 4/1/17 at 10:27pm
Dancingthrulife2 said: "Just saw this article:
https://a2view.com/2017/03/31/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-broadway-avoid-at-all-costs-review-of-preview/
"
WOW! That was brutal. This show should be lucky to have the advance it has, otherwise this could close after opening night.
Posted: 4/1/17 at 10:36pm
I have to wonder whether any changes will be made to this between now and opening night. The creative team has to be seeing the reaction of audiences nightly and be trying to work out what needs to be done to improve, right?
Posted: 4/1/17 at 10:37pm
ACL2006 said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "Just saw this article:
https://a2view.com/2017/03/31/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-broadway-avoid-at-all-costs-review-of-preview/
"
WOW! That was brutal. This show should be lucky to have the advance it has, otherwise this could close after opening night.
"
Ouch
Updated On: 4/2/17 at 10:37 PM
Posted: 4/1/17 at 11:29pm
While I hated the show in London, the sets where incredible. Removing them just focuses on the insanely bad music, book etc
Posted: 4/2/17 at 12:16am
ACL2006 said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "Just saw this article:
https://a2view.com/2017/03/31/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-broadway-avoid-at-all-costs-review-of-preview/
"
WOW! That was brutal. This show should be lucky to have the advance it has, otherwise this could close after opening night.
It is interesting that he was somewhat kind to the direction; based on everything I have read, I would have thought that the production design concept was the directors. If it was Van Hove directing a drama, that would certainly be the case. I assume is also the case for a musical, but I am not in the business, so I don't know.
Posted: 4/2/17 at 2:40am
###
Updated On: 4/2/17 at 02:40 AM
Posted: 4/2/17 at 7:43am
I wonder how long it will take to get the behind the scenes story of this messy transfer.
I gave the London album a listen. I liked Violet's Motown numbers and the actress playing Mrs. Tevee. I didn't care for Douglas Hodges' singing voice and didn't think much of the other songs.
If one is not going to replicate the 1971 film there are several ways to adapt this to the stage. I'd get Charlie to the factory in early act one and take us through Veruca's trauma. Then Charlie would need some sort of moment to close the act.
The book follows the same formula for each kid. Charlie is passive and "wins" by default. The movies both tried to give Charlie a moment of kindness. I'm not sure how the London book handles this but a stage version would want to give him an arc. Perhaps he tries to save Mike Teevee from one trap in Act Two only for Mike to charge into another. The rest of the Act would need to bring Charlie to some sort of catharsis as he finds he has something in common with Wonka. He doesn't need to sing Roses' turn but the final moments do need to shift the focus from Wonka to him.
Posted: 4/2/17 at 8:51am
JustAnotherNewYorker said: "Maybe this is all the most clever viral marketing ever done. They put on a high-school level production in previews, everyone comes to see the "big flop" and then they "rework" it for opening night and put on a totally different show"
That plan would be completely insane. Like some kind of reverse Springtime For Hitler.
I thought that photo of the blueberry costume was rather cute but all these reports on the set are quite discouraging, especially after watching the promotional video from the British production. Normally I make time for the shows that aren't setting the box office on fire but as crowded as the season is, this won't be a priority. It is selling well, right?
Posted: 4/2/17 at 10:48am
The book follows the same formula for each kid. Charlie is passive and "wins" by default. The movies both tried to give Charlie a moment of kindness. I'm not sure how the London book handles this but a stage version would want to give him an arc. Perhaps he tries to save Mike Teevee from one trap in Act Two only for Mike to charge into another. The rest of the Act would need to bring Charlie to some sort of catharsis as he finds he has something in common with Wonka. He doesn't need to sing Roses' turn but the final moments do need to shift the focus from Wonka to him.
The Wilder film handled this problem very nicely. While Charlie was still just "good" he did make some mistakes (the Fizzy Lifting Juice). And the script to that film was the best of all the adaptations (thanks primarily to an uncredited David Seltzer). The inclusion of Slugworth and the fact that he later turned out to be double agent working for Wonka were quite ingenious additions. And Charlie's big "moment", when he puts the Everlasting Gobstopper on Wonka's desk and walks away, that still brings tears to my eyes every time I watch that film. Charlie does not "win" the factory simply because he is the only kid left. He makes a huge sacrifice at the end and that is what wins him the factory. Any adaptation that goes back to Dahl's simplistic book and leaves out Seltzer's revisions will most likely be inferior.
I am seriously considering seeing this on Broadway since I never got to see CARRIE.
"
Posted: 4/2/17 at 12:26pm
The few praises I'd heard for the London production were for the sets and costumes. Given the changes made for Broadway, it sounds like Trump is producing the show and appointed a team of businessmen who hate musical theatre specifically to eradicate the few remaining positives that were in the show.
Posted: 4/2/17 at 12:41pm
mikey2573 said: "
The book follows the same formula for each kid. Charlie is passive and "wins" by default. The movies both tried to give Charlie a moment of kindness. I'm not sure how the London book handles this but a stage version would want to give him an arc. Perhaps he tries to save Mike Teevee from one trap in Act Two only for Mike to charge into another. The rest of the Act would need to bring Charlie to some sort of catharsis as he finds he has something in common with Wonka. He doesn't need to sing Roses' turn but the final moments do need to shift the focus from Wonka to him.
The Wilder film handled this problem very nicely. While Charlie was still just "good" he did make some mistakes (the Fizzy Lifting Juice). And the script to that film was the best of all the adaptations (thanks primarily to an uncredited David Seltzer). The inclusion of Slugworth and the fact that he later turned out to be double agent working for Wonka were quite ingenious additions. And Charlie's big "moment", when he puts the Everlasting Gobstopper on Wonka's desk and walks away, that still brings tears to my eyes every time I watch that film. Charlie does not "win" the factory simply because he is the only kid left. He makes a huge sacrifice at the end and that is what wins him the factory. Any adaptation that goes back to Dahl's simplistic book and leaves out Seltzer's revisions will most likely be inferior.
I am seriously considering seeing this on Broadway since I never got to see CARRIE. "
In the London production, Charlie has moments where he gets distracted and disconnected from the other children, usually with his Grandad and Wonka hurries him on etc. Technically though Charlie does not 'win by default', at first wonka pretends theres no prize, then goes off with Charlies Grandad to "finalize some paperwork", leaving Charlie alone with Wonka's idea book - which is empty - in his inventing room, with strict instructions not to open the book. Charlie, too excited, opens the book finds it empty and fills it with loads of ideas of his own. Wonka comes back in and catches him redhanded. Then Wonka reads all the ideas, and this confirms to him that Charlie is the right candidate to hand the factory on to. Fairly close to the original book, and movie storyline. Alot closer than Wonka befriending him in disguise and watching TV and eating chocolate with him to bond. weird.
By all accounts this Broadway version of the show is terrible and sounds like an absolute calamity.
Posted: 4/2/17 at 6:16pm
The London production played one of the biggest, if not the biggest, stage in the West End. I was expecting some downsizing in the transfer, but nothing like this. And as much as I loved the folks they cast as the other winners, the fact they're adults just takes up so much more physical space, and couple that with the Oompa Loopmas on their knees, there's just a lot traffic. There's barely any room for any kind of set pieces. So again, why these walls with forced perspective?
Posted: 4/2/17 at 6:46pm
You do realize Hamilton isn't an original story, right?
Posted: 4/3/17 at 4:10am
RippedMan said: "I would say FN did well because of Kelsey.
I just wish producers would trust new stories. The past few hits have all been new, original stories. I don't think of us really want to see " :the Musical" anymore."
I don't think there need to be set rules. I love Waitress. And Bright Star wasn't based on any source material. The artistic merit (or lack there of) is in what the creatives decide to do with the show.
