CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews — Page 26

songanddanceman2 said: "The London Choc river did indeed have a projection that made it look like it was flowing.



"



interesting as it didnt when i saw it and when it first opened there was plenty of similar comments made on the whatsonstage forum. So either it was added later, didnt always work or just wasnt effective enough. i suspect the latter

are we sure this isn't just the first broadway revival of wonderland?

Thank you for sharing, music man 3! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed this production!

Updated On: 4/14/17 at 05:57 PM

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.

Well, that's just completely bonkers. Everything is better than one thing and worse than something else.

my friend has seen the show 2 times she has told me that nothing much has changed so far except a few technical things. bummer

Hey music man3, glad you joined the board as well. Always fun to have another set designer like myself in the mix to weigh in on the shows from your perspective.

Haven't seen the Bway production yet, but the London production of CHARLIE had us really mixed on all that endless scenery-- we actually loved the simpler Act I from a design standpoint as well as just good sweet entertainment, something which most folks apparently did not. The gobs of set in Act II were actually an eyesore for us-- too much damn stuff, and too much of it kind of hideous (with the exception of the awesome ways the Oompa Loompahs were integrated). And let's face it, we think Bob Crowley the designer of both productions is frankly one of the most brilliant minds working in theater today-- look at the recent AMERICAN IN PARIS designs for proof of that.

Of course even brilliant minds can have an off day-- as seems evidenced by most responses to the sets at the Lunt Fontanne...

Double post

Updated On: 4/15/17 at 07:21 PM

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Hey music man3, glad you joined the board as well. Always fun to have another set designer like myself in the mix to weigh in on the shows from your perspective.

Haven't seen the Bway production yet, but the London production of CHARLIE had us really mixed on all that endless scenery-- we actually loved the simpler Act I from a design standpoint as well as just good sweet entertainment, something which most folks apparently did not. The gobs of set in Act II were actually an eyesore for us-- too much damn stuff, and too much of it kind of hideous (with the exception of the awesome ways the Oompa Loompahs were integrated). And let's face it, we think Bob Crowley the designer of both productions is frankly one of the most brilliant minds working in theater today-- look at the recent AMERICAN IN PARIS designs for proof of that.

Of course even brilliant minds can have an off day-- as seems evidenced by most responses to the sets at the Lunt Fontanne..."

Mark Thompson designed both the London and Broadway sets. No Bob Crowley in sight, alas.

Surprised about the praise for the American in Paris set. The only brilliant piece was the seaside set which was trademark Crowley. The ballet set which they praised as brilliant throughout the whole show was disappointing when it finally came out. Probably brilliant for the time it was set in for such a "modern" design but appears quite dated to today's audiences.

The use of filing cabinets and elevator projections for Charlie London was a creative way of hiding the set change, unlike in many productions where they simply lower the curtain and have actors perform in front of it while the set changes.

In Sunday's NYTimes puff piece is the following:

"The use of adult performers, the creative team says, allows not only for greater precision when singing complex lyrics, but also permits the show to embrace moments that are even darker than Dahl: Violet, after eating the not-yet-ready gum, not only swells up like a blueberry but also explodes, while Veruca, insistent on taking home one of Wonka’s squirrels, is torn apart by the rodents (in the book, they toss her down a garbage chute).

“When we were doing it in rehearsal, a lot of people said you can’t do that, and then the first audience saw it and they loved it,” said the choreographer, Joshua Bergasse. “We get away with it because it’s so ridiculous.”

Yes, Joshua, you keep telling yourself that.

Oops my bad-- apologies to both Mark Thompson and Bob Crowley. Should've stopped and checked my West End playbill first. Regardless, my remarks on the West End set still stand.

ggersten said: "In Sunday's NYTimes puff piece is the following:

"The use of adult performers, the creative team says, allows not only for greater precision when singing complex lyrics, but also permits the show to embrace moments that are even darker than Dahl: Violet, after eating the not-yet-ready gum, not only swells up like a blueberry but also explodes, while Veruca, insistent on taking home one of Wonka’s squirrels, is torn apart by the rodents (in the book, they toss her down a garbage chute).

“When we were doing it in rehearsal, a lot of people said you can’t do that, and then the first audience saw it and they loved it,” said the choreographer, Joshua Bergasse. “We get away with it because it’s so ridiculous.”

Yes, Joshua, you keep telling yourself that."

From what I have read on these boards, people actually had the opposite reaction of "love". People seem to hate it. What is Josh talking about? Are they in denial? And why did they take out the good songs from London? I haven't seen it yet (bought tickets for this week before reading the posts on here about how horrible it is) but saw it in London and loved the song "Juicy"... I hear that song is gone?