CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews- Page 25

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:13pm

Hi All,

I usually just sit back and read the threads. I decided to register and post for the first time in response to this thread.

I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in London. The show was quite dreadful. The set was quite large in some scenes. It was beautiful at some points. It did have a lot of static elements and used projections heavily to make it appear that the set was more complex than it actually was. The set (in some scenes) was the ONLY saving grace of the London production.

I saw Charlie on Broadway this past week with a group of friends. We all quite loved the show we saw on Wednesday night! The audience that attended with us was very enthusiastic and quite happy as well.

The music and songs are so much better than the London production. The movie songs and new songs have been reworked nicley. There is some work that needs to be done on the book/narrative. The show is good. It could be better if some of the narrative elements are polished.

The show and set are COMPLETELY different than the London show. That is a plus in my opinion.

The cast was AMAZING! They gave it their all and it showed every moment they were onstage. The "adult" actors always seemed childlike in their performances. I found it to be very tongue in cheek! Charlie seemed so honest and innocent compared to the other "kids".

The set is quite brilliant. There are many amazing moments. It does not look cheap. (Nor do the costumes.) It is just more stylized than the London version. The stage here is also much smaller. Things have been compacted a bit because of the venue.

The only part of the set that was a bit of a letdown was the Chocolate Room. It was much better than described on this thread....however....it could use a makeover. The colors and shapes in the diorama seem out of place. The scale is off. It could be reworked a bit and it would be more appealing. The plant elements and miniature cows are very odd. They could "replant" the garden, add some projections to the side walls, add a few side elements and the scene would work fine. (The London Chocolate Room set was a wide swath of fake green grass and some giant flowers. It was just bigger & slightly more colorful....not necessarily better!)

I can't find fault in the set at any other point in the show. I think less is better is some cases. (I loved the set for Aida!) The Charlie set works stylistically throughout....except for the Chocolate Room. I was very happy with the way they enhanced the elevator at the end. It does not simply move around in front of a starry background. The entire roof of the set comes down to reveal the factory & village below. It was BEAUTIFUL!

The set is not cheap! There are some very complex projection effects that are integrated throughout. Mike's scene is well done! The end of act one offers a wonderful bit of magic as well!

I love the "adult" humor and elements in the show. Varuca's tragic end left the audience stunned....and then there was a mass applause! There are a lot of "grown up" jokes in the show. The dark side of Dahl is alive and well in this production. I loved that aspect! The audience was calling out to Charlie in the final moments of the show! He was about to peek into Wonka's notebook and the audience (adults) called out to protect him! It was so much fun!

Honestly....this show is not as bad as the "original" Carrie or Urban Cowboy (YUCK!)! It doesn't come close to being the bomb of the century!!! Heck...Book of Mormon has one set (the African village) on stage for almost the entire second act! I thought that set was much more of a letdown than Charlie's set! Charlie's set is much more original! Please give it a chance!

This is simply my opinion/POV. I plan on heading back after opening to see how the show has been polished up. I just wanted to share some hope!

 

 

 

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 01:13 PM

[HGorn]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:22pm

I find it interesting that Music Man joined today and is giving a positive review for a show that has the likes of some of the worst productions to hit the Broadway stage.  Either A) he/she was completely stoned while watching the show or B) works for the show.  "The set is quiet brilliant"  What set were you looking at??  I did not see the London production so I could not compare - however from the videos I've seen on YouTube and the pics from the London production it seems they put a lot more into it there than they did here.

[IHeartNY2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:47pm

Musicman just inspired me to write my first post too. After reading these 20+ pages, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We saw it last night and my daughter and niece LOVED it. Agree with (most) of the chocolate room comments. Christian Borle is the perfect Wonka. Some really funny lines too that I wasn't expecting. Happily recommend.

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:48pm

I assure you that I do not work for the show. (How did I know that would be the first response to my first post?)

I saw a show that I quite enjoyed and joined this board to post my opinion. I knew someone like you would swoop in to try and discount my opinion. But alas....my opionion is my opinion! Your opinion is your opinion!

To give you some perspective....my favorite shows are: Sunset Boulevard (original), Sunday in the Park (original), Aida, Great Comet, Dear Evan Hansen, Evita (original), Hedwig (original), Last 5 Years, Looped, & Chess (London). My favorite sets are: Aida, Great Comet, K2, Cats (original), & The Witches of Eastwick (London).

I do have a degree in set/lighting design. I can appreciate what went into the design of the show. I quite love what the designer did with the space available for this show!

The glory of opinions is that we are all free to have our own! I really loved what I saw on stage on Wednesday and wish the show, cast & creative team much success!

 

 

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 01:48 PM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:52pm

music man3 said: "Hi All,

I usually just sit back and read the threads. I decided to register and post for the first time in response to this thread.

I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in London. The show was quite dreadful. The set was quite large in some scenes. It was beautiful at some points. It did have a lot of static elements and used projections heavily to make it appear that the set was more complex than it actually was. The set (in some scenes) was the ONLY saving grace of the London production.

I saw Charlie on Broadway this past week with a group of friends. We all quite loved the show we saw on Wednesday night! The audience that attended with us was very enthusiastic and quite happy as well.

The music and songs are so much better than the London production. The movie songs and new songs have been reworked nicley. There is some work that needs to be done on the book/narrative. The show is good. It could be better if some of the narrative elements are polished.

The show and set are COMPLETELY different than the London show. That is a plus in my opinion.

The cast was AMAZING! They gave it their all and it showed every moment they were onstage. The "adult" actors always seemed childlike in their performances. I found it to be very tongue in cheek! Charlie seemed so honest and innocent compared to the other "kids".

The set is quite brilliant. There are many amazing moments. It does not look cheap. (Nor do the costumes.) It is just more stylized than the London version. The stage here is also much smaller. Things have been compacted a bit because of the venue.

The only part of the set that was a bit of a letdown was the Chocolate Room. It was much better than described on this thread....however....it could use a makeover. The colors and shapes in the diorama seem out of place. The scale is off. It could be reworked a bit and it would be more appealing. The plant elements and miniature cows are very odd. They could "replant" the garden, add some projections to the side walls, add a few side elements and the scene would work fine. (The London Chocolate Room set was a wide swath of fake green grass and some giant flowers. It was just bigger & slightly more colorful....not necessarily better!)

I can't find fault in the set at any other point in the show. I think less is better is some cases. (I loved the set for Aida!) The Charlie set works stylistically throughout....except for the Chocolate Room. I was very happy with the way they enhanced the elevator at the end. It does not simply move around in front of a starry background. The entire roof of the set comes down to reveal the factory & village below. It was BEAUTIFUL!

The set is not cheap! There are some very complex projection effects that are integrated throughout. Mike's scene is well done! The end of act one offers a wonderful bit of magic as well!

I love the "adult" humor and elements in the show. Varuca's tragic end left the audience stunned....and then there was a mass applause! There are a lot of "grown up" jokes in the show. The dark side of Dahl is alive and well in this production. I loved that aspect! The audience was calling out to Charlie in the final moments of the show! He was about to peek into Wonka's notebook and the audience (adults) called out to protect him! It was so much fun!

Honestly....this show is not as bad as the "original" Carrie or Urban Cowboy (YUCK!)! It doesn't come close to being the bomb of the century!!! Heck...Book of Mormon has one set (the African village) on stage for almost the entire second act! I thought that set was much more of a letdown than Charlie's set! Charlie's set is much more original! Please give it a chance!

This is simply my opinion/POV. I plan on heading back after opening to see how the show has been polished up. I just wanted to share some hope!

 
"Seriously, HA! Calling Charlie...AMAZING, BRILLIANT and BEAUTIFUL? So, what other shows have you seen Music Man? Give us your opinion on Groundhog Day, War Paint, Anastasia, Amelie, Bandstand? 

 

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 01:52 PM

[phantom39]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 1:58pm

" I think less is better is some cases. (I loved the set for Aida!) "

Um, did you really refer to Aida as a show that had cheap sets like CHARLIE?

The fact is that this show looks and feels like a high school production, and it should cost like one. Potential ticket buyers should know this is not a show worth spending $160 for, and we should not allow producers to charge these prices just because they want to make a quick buck on us (/clueless tourists). Clearly, this whole production is built on wheels to tour and does not belong on broadway.

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 01:58 PM

[phantom39]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:01pm

And i'm sorry, all these "inspired me to write my first post" positive reviews just sound like worried investors.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:02pm

TaleofTwo said: "And i'm sorry, all these "inspired me to write my first post" positive reviews just sound like worried investors.

 

Yeah, I agree.  It seems fishy.

 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:03pm

TaleofTwo said: "And i'm sorry, all these "inspired me to write my first post" positive reviews just sound like worried investors.

 

"An Investor's son most likely.

 

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:03pm

Well, let's see....

Great Comet was leaps and bounds ahead of Hamilton in my opinion! Has my vote for Best Musical Tony. I saw it a few weeks ago and sat in one of the cafe tables onstage. Quite a fun evening!

Dear Evan Hansen was a surprise. Reminded me of Next to Normal in many ways. It worked for me. I loved it.

Saw Anastasia pre-Broadway. I was not a fan of the animated film. I liked the stage version. Must wait to see what they have done to prepare for Broadway before I share thougts.

Loved the ORIGINAL Sunset Boulevard. Loved the revivial even MORE. The revival had a lush sound. The set was less important. Close grew into the role and was astonishing!

I'm not an idiot....I just have my own opinion. Charlie is not the disaster some of you are hoping for! :)

 

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:07pm

I give first time posters the benefit of the doubt.  Everybody has a first post - and it seems appropriate that having a differing view on a show could prompt a first post.

 

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:08pm

I wish I was related to one of the producers! But alas....I just have an opinion.

I must say....it is so expected that you would attack a newcomer who shares dissenting thoughts! I've watched it happen many times onthis board. I should have expected nothing less.

Let's be clear....

I do not work for the production.

I am not related to anyone in the production!

I just liked what I saw. So sorry to not agree with some of you!

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 02:08 PM

[phantom39]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:12pm

music man3 said: "Charlie is not the disaster some of you are hoping for! :)"

Why would anyone hope for a disaster? When I shelled more than $300 to see this production I certainly was NOT hoping for a disaster. And neither the rest of the disappointed audience I saw it with.

[IHeartNY2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:13pm

I guess everything seems overpriced and unworthy when it's a show you didn't 'get' (which is fine, you can't love everything...I'm one of the 3 people on the planet who thinks Hamilton is over-hyped). But as someone who dished out the $ to take my fam to see charlie and had a good time, I don't think this is any better or worse than anything else on Broadway. 

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:15pm

My reference was that Aida had sets that were minimalistic and suggestive. The sets for Charlie are very similar to the sets from Aida. I assure you....the Charlie sets did not cost any less than the sets for Aida!

[phantom39]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:21pm

music man3 said: "I assure you....the Charlie sets did not cost any less than the sets for Aida!"

I take your word on that

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:22pm

Funny... all of sudden the praise that this stinker is getting today! 

[elephantseye]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:24pm

IHeartNY2 said: "I guess everything seems overpriced and unworthy when it's a show you didn't 'get' (which is fine, you can't love everything...I'm one of the 3 people on the planet who thinks Hamilton is over-hyped). But as someone who dished out the $ to take my fam to see charlie and had a good time, I don't think this is any better or worse than anything else on Broadway. "

I don't think it's a problem of not "getting" Charlie. There's nothing to get, there's no deeper meaning to it that audiences just aren't understanding. This isn't a SITPWG or Comet situation where audiences are polarized because it's a very unique show that just won't click with some people-- this is a poorly conceptualized and executed show, especially when considering the richness of the source material it comes from (the book and the first film are absolutely whimsical, touching, and evocative, something that Charlie is... not).

I'm sure that you can have a good time watching a bad musical, it's been done before (not to beat a dead horse, but Cats is the first example that comes to mind), but I think it's a bit silly to pretend like enjoying a show is the same thing as a show being good.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:26pm

music man3 said: "Well, let's see....

Great Comet was leaps and bounds ahead of Hamilton in my opinion! Has my vote for Best Musical Tony. I saw it a few weeks ago and sat in one of the cafe tables onstage. Quite a fun evening!

Dear Evan Hansen was a surprise. Reminded me of Next to Normal in many ways. It worked for me. I loved it.

Saw Anastasia pre-Broadway. I was not a fan of the animated film. I liked the stage version. Must wait to see what they have done to prepare for Broadway before I share thougts.

Loved the ORIGINAL Sunset Boulevard. Loved the revivial even MORE. The revival had a lush sound. The set was less important. Close grew into the role and was astonishing!

I'm not an idiot....I just have my own opinion. Charlie is not the disaster some of you are hoping for! :)

 

 

"music man, I'm happy you had a fabulous night at Charlie. I found it to be a Disaster aka DOA and so far from being Brilliant, Amazing and Beautiful as your calling it!? #what's next?

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:36pm

Are you being clear? I stated that I thought the set design was brilliant (in my opinion) and that that some of the scenes (ie the Elevetor Scene) were BEAUTIFUL (in my opinion).  I did not make a sweeping statement....I thought I was very specific in my praise.... were some of you not clear on those points?

 

 

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:43pm

ggersten said: "I give first time posters the benefit of the doubt.  Everybody has a first post - and it seems appropriate that having a differing view on a show could prompt a first post.

 

Thanks for the respect! I truly did love what I saw. My friends had the same opinion! I just felt the need to post to share an opinion in favor an the underdog!

[remark]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:45pm

music man3 said: "...I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in London. The show was quite dreadful. The set was quite large in some scenes. It was beautiful at some points. It did have a lot of static elements and used projections heavily to make it appear that the set was more complex than it actually was. The set (in some scenes) was the ONLY saving grace of the London production..."

Maybe the show you remember isnt the show you saw. Its funny what time can to do memories. The set in London really was quite complex. If you have a degree in set design, then you should be able to appreciate that, moreso than joe public. The automation on the Junk yard and elements of the house, the 4 remote beds, flying in 16 actors on one piece of set, etc.

The projection in the london produciton was done to emphasise the set, for example steam from the pipes of the fudge mixing part, into which a real life child gets pumped through the tubes on stage. 

http://www.cardifftheatricalservices.co.uk/ckfinder/userfiles/images/charlie-main1.jpg

Dont forget this singular piece of scenery, carrying 16 actors flew in during a song. The technical complexities of this alone are wondrous!

[Erzlump]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 2:52pm

music man3 said: "ggersten said: "I give first time posters the benefit of the doubt.  Everybody has a first post - and it seems appropriate that having a differing view on a show could prompt a first post.

 

Thanks for the respect! I truly did love what I saw. My friends had the same opinion! I just felt the need to post to share an opinion in favor an the underdog!

"

Well, welcome to the board :) I appreciate reading a different opinion, livens up the conversation - just reading pan after pan becomes boring. Seeing someone that likes a show that seems to be universally hated is a chance to engage. 

I also agree with some other poster that this is not about "getting" a show, it's about personal taste. There's really no need to attack people over this.  

[music man3]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 3:13pm

remark said: "music man3 said: "...I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in London. The show was quite dreadful. The set was quite large in some scenes. It was beautiful at some points. It did have a lot of static elements and used projections heavily to make it appear that the set was more complex than it actually was. The set (in some scenes) was the ONLY saving grace of the London production..."

Maybe the show you remember isnt the show you saw. Its funny what time can to do memories. The set in London really was quite complex. If you have a degree in set design, then you should be able to appreciate that, moreso than joe public. The automation on the Junk yard and elements of the house, the 4 remote beds, flying in 16 actors on one piece of set, etc.

The projection in the london produciton was done to emphasise the set, for example steam from the pipes of the fudge mixing part, into which a real life child gets pumped through the tubes on stage. 

http://www.cardifftheatricalservices.co.uk/ckfinder/userfiles/images/charlie-main1.jpg

Dont forget this singular piece of scenery, carrying 16 actors flew in during a song. The technical complexities of this alone are wondrous!

 

"

Yes...the London rig that brought the Oooma Loompas down with the chocolate pipes was one of the points in the London show that was quite spectacular. (I stated that there were some amazing set moments in London!)

The grandparents beds that monopolized the London Act 1 stage & the giant wall of file cabinets that was covered with projections throughout Act 2 were less spectacular. The Act 2 "file cabinet" wall was static as elevators and multiple projections were used to cover the set changes behind the wall throughout Act 2. Comparing Broadway to that portion of the London set seems to be a bit unfair in my opinion! There is a more natural flow to the scenery on the Broadway stage.

Don't forget....the London designer is the Broadway designer! Perhaps he welcomed the opprotunity to revise and refine his design! I was able to find elements of the London design in every scene of the Broadway implementation! The elements were simply more....refined....

No foul....the London set was just different than the Broadway implementation!

 

[IHeartNY2]

Posted: 4/14/17 at 3:13pm

@musicman Aren't u glad u joined today?

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 03:13 PM