CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews- Page 24

[brian1973]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 4:42pm

It's so inspiring to know that all along so many contributors to this forum were scenic designers! Suddenly everyone could design this show better.. 

not quite sure what the problem is with it judging by those pictures . It's nice that it's a different approach to London. I think the point is you are never going to win if you attempt to do something like they did on film for the Chocolate Room etc, you can't have an ACTUAL chocolate river on stage for goodness sake.

i for one am going to actually go and see the show before just copying everyone and tearing it to pieces.i might go and absolutely hate it.. but it's ridiculous to so passionately dismiss it without seeing it, and only after seeing a few crappy (and illegal) Instagram pictures. 

 

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:00pm

brian1973 said: "It's so inspiring to know that all along so many contributors to this forum were scenic designers! Suddenly everyone could design this show better.. 

not quite sure what the problem is with it judging by those pictures . It's nice that it's a different approach to London. I think the point is you are never going to win if you attempt to do something like they did on film for the Chocolate Room etc, you can't have an ACTUAL chocolate river on stage for goodness sake.

i for one am going to actually go and see the show before just copying everyone and tearing it to pieces.i might go and absolutely hate it.. but it's ridiculous to so passionately dismiss it without seeing it, and only after seeing a few crappy (and illegal) Instagram pictures. 

 

"

Plenty of people here have seen it and disliked it. Others are simply commenting on the pictures which is hardly a crime.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:19pm

One needn't be a scenic designer to critique a set.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:22pm

A good number of people trashing it have seen it...

Let's see, my friend was visiting, saw Charlie and then Wicked the next day, and wrote me: "Comparing the sets of Wicked to Wonka, the latter looks even more like a community theatre production in Iowa."

She is also, however, not a scenic designer. But she did pay to see it.

[Joshua Boyd-Williams]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:48pm

I'm not scenic designer myself, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize a set design. That being said, I know designing a set for a show is not easy. Lord knows how long it takes for someone to come up with a concept. Now when I saw some of the pictures of act one, the set seemed ok. It could've been better, but I liked what I saw. It's just when you go into the factory, that's where the disappointment is. I wouldn't mind the walls if there was a lot more on stage, and if the walls could've probably been able to change color or texture to fit the setting of each different room. The rooms should not look the same, in my opinion. They should all have a different feel to it. Hell, even if they put some more props on the stage to fill it up, that's better than nothing. 

[brian1973]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:53pm

Yes that's the solution! Fill the stage with props! 

Stuff.. everywhere! 

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 5:55pm

If ever there was a show that called for a lavish, visually stunning set design, it's this one. The building from the outside looks more like a tool shed than an a huge factory and inside, as many have said, it's just plain. What a missed opportunity.

And for the record, I'm not a set designer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[brian1973]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 6:00pm

That hotel doesn't sound very fancy..

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 6:05pm

brian1973 said: "That hotel doesn't sound very fancy..

 

They're not charging broadway prices and unlike Charlie, I get a hot breakfast included.

[EvanK]

Posted: 4/13/17 at 9:14pm

Oh god the photo of the mixing room... There is no depth, no real visual interest. Everyone standing in a line on either side of the one machine surrounded by nothingness. Grotesque. 

[remark]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 5:50am

brian1973 said: "... you can't have an ACTUAL chocolate river on stage for goodness sake."

London achieved it. Bit of plastic + some cunning projection = a seriously effective result.

 

[Princeton2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 7:20am

remark said: "brian1973 said: "... you can't have an ACTUAL chocolate river on stage for goodness sake."

London achieved it. Bit of plastic + some cunning projection = a seriously effective result.

 

 

"

the london set received a lot of criticism when it first opened because the chocolate river was just a solid piece of plastic. often described as the weakest scene in terms of set. it wasnt very effective and there wasnt any hint of flowing liquid in terms of projections.

[remark]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 8:48am

Princeton2 said: "remark said: "brian1973 said: "... you can't have an ACTUAL chocolate river on stage for goodness sake."

London achieved it. Bit of plastic + some cunning projection = a seriously effective result.
"

the london set received a lot of criticism when it first opened because the chocolate river was just a solid piece of plastic. often described as the weakest scene in terms of set. it wasnt very effective and there wasnt any hint of flowing liquid in terms of projections.

"

There most definitely was projections making the the flow effect. I saw it with my own eyes 5 times.

 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 9:00am

The London Choc river did indeed have a projection that made it look like it was flowing. 

[his4his]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 9:53am

London was not perfect but it had big elaborate sets that made up for somewhat of a weak script. Sadly the magic is gone in NYC. I'm not kidding when I say the chocolate factory is now the size of your grandpa's model train station in his basement. The elevator that went up and over the front of the audience in London now just go's up and down. Also the element of anticipation one had in London waiting to see Wonka is eliminated now that Wonka is the first person we meet in the NYC production. Gone is the giant nut cracking machine whereby Varuna is simply cracked as a bad nut, not ripped to shreds by scary interpative dance squirrels. And for the love of god where is that big beautiful TV set; sadly the magic is gone.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:03am

If the show was so loved in London why were there so many changes for New York? Has it ever been said? I'm genuinely curious. 

Anyone got a pic of the outside of the theatre as well?

[pnewelljr]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:06am

ucjrdude902 said: "If the show was so loved in London why were there so many changes for New York? Has it ever been said? I'm genuinely curious."

I'm guessing you are referring to the sets specifically? Because the show itself was panned by critics and fans alike.

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 10:06 AM

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:09am

Ah, I was under the impression that it was the opposite. Then again, I haven't kept track.

[pnewelljr]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:10am

ucjrdude902 said: "Ah, I was under the impression that it was the opposite. Then again, I haven't kept track."

Well so far, it is looking like the Broadway version has somehow taken horrible and made it even worse, more movie songs be damned.

[evic]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:12am

The drunk British critics mostly like any musical that originates in the UK.  They even gave Love Never Dies good reviews.  Charlie was a snooze fest there.  The first 5 minutes was so horrifying and the score stunk IMHO..

[Kad]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:12am

The show wasn't loved in London. It was praised for its spectacle but many found the book and original score lacking. So the idea was that they would fix the book and score and start fresh. But it seems they've ditched the spectacle and made sideways moves on the book and score, so now it's just a negative net change.

I am not opposed to the idea of a minimalist Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or a production that encourages the audience to use their imagination. In fact, I could very easily imagine a production staged with the concept of a boy reading the book in his bedroom and the factory coming to life with normal household objects. I could very easily imagine a production like Peter and the Starcatcher, with actors using props and their bodies to create environments. But this doesn't seem like they've committed to a minimalist idea. It just looks half-assed.

 

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 10:12 AM

[pnewelljr]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 10:19am

Kad said: "I am not opposed to the idea of a minimalist Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or a production that encourages the audience to use their imagination. In fact, I could very easily imagine a production staged with the concept of a boy reading the book in his bedroom and the factory coming to life with normal household objects. I could very easily imagine a production like Peter and the Starcatcher, with actors using props and their bodies to create environments."

I agree completely, I could definitely see that working. Unfortunately, that kind of concept only works when the source material is rock solid. A bare minimum production is when you get to find out how good the material really is. It's like when a singer sings a capella.

[Glittergrrl]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 11:24am

haterobics said: "A good number of people trashing it have seen it...

Let's see, my friend was visiting, saw Charlie and then Wicked the next day, and wrote me: "Comparing the sets of Wicked to Wonka, the latter looks even more like a community theatre production in Iowa."

She is also, however, not a scenic designer. But she did pay to see it.

 

"

Wow, really? I haven't seen Wonka, and I don't plan to, but remember seeing Wicked ages ago (with original cast and Taye Diggs, for some reason) and walking out of that show being totally underwhelmed by the set design. I thought Wicked looked like a college production. I can't imagine Wonka being worse.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 12:39pm

The production designer gave the director and producers what they wanted.  They are limited to what the vision of the production is.  Since it's a Warner Bros production, I'm guessing the producers probably have the most influence on everything and the director just gets a signoff and has to agree to what their vision is.  The article in the NYT has the director and choreographer gushing about how the audience is LOVING this production and totally get the child being ripped apart by squirrels.  I can't wait for the reviews.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:00pm

I have had zero interest in seeing this show since it was announced.  Reading about it on this thread -- and seeing the instagram pictures -- have led me to conclude that I wouldn't want to see this if I was given 8th row center orchestra comps for opening night. 

I have not read anything about this show's advance, but have to assume that it is pretty good, given the business it is doing in previews.  Will be interesting to see what happens if it gets the brutal reviews that everyone is expecting -- of course, Spiderman ran for 2 1/2 years, if I remember correctly, so you never know.  People who want to expose their children to live theatre will go to extreme lengths to take their kids to something they haven't already seen, e.g., Lion King and Aladdin.  I know...I sat through Tarzan and Seussical.