'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' was a great success — Page 2

Sorry, but Charlie was not a success. If you liked it, great. Don't let anyone else's reviews take away your enjoyment of it. I'm sure most of us are fans of some shows that are not widely considered "successes". I know I am.

As for Charlie, the London version was far from perfect, but it did deliver up the kind of grand spectacle that the source material lends itself to - there were some great moments of stage magic throughout. Going for minimalism on Broadway I think was a mistake. I never saw the show at the Lunt, but I have listened to the cast recording and I think some of the changes/additions to the score actually made it worse. I'll take "Juicy!" over "When Willie Met Oompa" any day, but why did they not ax "If Your Father Was Here"? In London, the song absolutely ground the show to a halt right when the momentum should have been building to the moment where Charlie got the ticket.

Updated On: 1/17/18 at 03:27 PM

haterobics said: "IlanaKeller said: "Absolutely. And by this metric alone, many shows widely considered successes would fail."

So, if a 9 y/o boy isn't dancing in the aisle during intermission at The Band's Visit yelling "Bet Hatikva!Bet Hatikva!", the show is a failure? Yeah, I can't sign on to the Upside Down here...."

I get your point, but The Band’s Visit doesn’t have an intermission!

Updated On: 1/17/18 at 03:58 PM

adamgreer said: "IlanaKeller said: "haterobics said: "Using this metric, could any show ever fail?"

Absolutely. And by this metric alone, many shows widely considered successes would fail.

I doubt that Gypsy would make many kids happy. By your metric, is Gypsy a failure in your eyes?"

IF I were to judge it on its meaningfulness to children ALONE, perhaps. But why would I do that? A show, of course, should be judged with acknowledgment given to its target audience, etc.

As I have asked, in a broader sense, what makes a show successful? If it hits one mark spectacularly, is it a success (as I feel this did)? If it hits several (let's say a long-running reframed revival) marginally, is it? What does a show need to do to make it successful in your eyes?

So would their dentists.

broadwaysfguy said: "this was one of the best executed and most beloved movie musicals when it came out in the 1970s
fantastic story songs sets acting not to mention the ompa lumpas

as a stage musical this was a trainwreck and will go down as one of the worst shows on broadway of its season

your definition of success must be a participation troohy.

strap yourself in for a bumpy ride in the real world unless you are a trust fund kid
"

Option A: Read the story (or a least the other comments), know what my definition of success is here, perhaps have a dialogue about it if you have a different opinion.

Option B: Don't read, make assumptions and post a hilariously "biting" comment.

What's that about succeeding in the real world?

Updated On: 1/17/18 at 04:47 PM

Mildred Plotka said: "It’s great that you and those around you enjoyed this production, but if you’re just looking for every post to agree with you you’re not going to find it here."

Literally started out saying "I'm sure many will disagree..." What I asked if that if someone does not, that they share their thoughts on what makes something successful.


"You are going off a sample audience from a single performance. That doesn’t mean the audiences for every performance were similar. Again it’s great those kids around you seemed to be enjoying themselves, but it doesn’t seem like this was the case at every performance."

In an opinion column, I share my experiences. I'm more than happy to hear about others' experiences as they share them, and certainly anyone is welcome to challenge my thoughts and share theirs, whether it is here, by email or phone call or even a letter to the editor. Like I've said a number of times, I welcome a dialogue, and certainly am not looking for or expecting everyone to agree with me -- that'd be pretty boring, anyway!

Updated On: 1/17/18 at 09:15 PM

gypsy101 said: "the only way Charlie could be considered even a mild success is if you completely change the definition of the word “success”"



What's your definition of a successful show?

And?

Should we just define success as "not Charlie" or perhaps go with Potter Stewart's logic on determining what something is, then?

Literally all of you ignored the OP's very polite request.

Probably because we're familiar with the OP and her MO.

I happened to enjoy Chirty Chitty Bang Bang more than most people.

I loved Chitty! I thought Raoul was woefully miscast, but otherwise, an absolute delight in every way. Maxell and Kudisch were hilarious.

CarlosAlberto said: "Dear Original Poster,

This show was a piece of excrement.

The End."



Thank you for your clever and insightful contribution to the dialogue!

Agreed. This notion that "if the show brought one smile to one child's face, it was a success" is just far too diabetes-inducing for me. But I acknowledge its appeal to a certain sector of our species that is extraordinarily susceptible to cheap sentiment.

Can I send the $250k to your onlyfans page?