Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on Broadway?

[gstrus2]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 6:29pm

Is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory from London still eyeing a Broadway run? I'd love to see it come over, but it seems like talk has died down. I have not heard about it for a while. Hope it is still in the works.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 6:50pm

I think Warner Bros is waiting for Sam Mendes to become available due to him directing the next Bond film so it won't be until late 2015 or early 2016 if it does come at all. They'll need to find a big theatre for, I imagine the Broadway, Lyric, St James or Hilton are most likely,

[mikey2573]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 8:51pm

I wonder if the fact that we in the USA are much more enamored with the classic Gene Wilder film than those in the UK might be causing them worry, and that Broadway audiences might be expecting to see that version, and might walk away disappointed when they don't.
Of course, it didn't seem to hurt Mary Poppins. (Or did it?)

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 9:11pm

"Or did it?"

Poppins was by no means hurt by not being a carbon copy of the film; it ran for over 6 years.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 9:27pm

But Mary Poppins on stage was so much better than the mess that is Chocolate Factory.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 10:59pm

But "Mary Poppins" is a perfect movie, and with the exception of Gene Wilders performance, "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" is not.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 11:01pm

I say no. To all of this.

[IndyTheatreGeek]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 12:10am

Charlie seems to be struggling to fill seats in London. Not the sort of show that you would think would fill a big house without some serious show doctoring. Most people I've spoken with in London who have seen the show did not find it to be a great show. It's reputation is as a second show to take the kiddies to if they've already seen Matilda.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 2:38am

Yes the show was a massive disappointment when I saw it. Very bland, no magic, mystery or whimsy. I didn't love Matilda but I'd put that and the lion king far above Charlie as a family must see show

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 9:17am

Apparently they don't even get to the factor until Act 2?! That's stupid. That's what we all came to see.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 9:24am

Wonka finally makes an entrance at the end of Act one, but even when they enter the factory, you have been so bored by what took place in act one, that nothing can save the show, awful book, songs that are forgettable, it really was a major letdown

Updated On: 8/9/14 at 09:24 AM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 9:34am

A friend of mine who posts on these boards once constructed a musical version of Willy Wonka based on a combo of the film and the otherwise lamentable stage adaptation licensed by MTI (in adult, Broadway Jr, KIDS, and TYA editions). I'm not exactly an arbiter of quality (Tanz der Vampire is one of my favorites), but I'm willing to bet, by all reports, that it's better than what Shaiman, Wittman, and WB came out with.

Updated On: 8/9/14 at 09:34 AM

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 9:35am

With the amount of money that's been thrown at it you'd think that the physical production would be better. The factory sets are quite ugly, the chocolate room is like a reject from the wizard of Oz and the chocolate waterfall could have been so much more effective than a stationary piece of plastic. And the arm the glass elevator is on is clearly visible from some seats

[Timmer]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 8:54pm

Ugh. The 1971 "Willy Wonka" was MUCH better.

[Broadwaywest]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 10:11pm

I saw the show a few weeks after it opened...yeah it's kind of a mess. The pacing is really off. Act 1 felt liked it dragged on forever, with each kid getting a number when they receive a golden ticket. Although I really did love the use of the television. The chocolate factory set I found alright, I did enjoy veruka's russian nut ballet. But for me the show didn't really come alive till the last 15minutes. I loved how they did charlie's drawings and inventions with the book, and of course pure imagination is a great song. Although it's sad that the only song I can remember is from the infamous 1970's film.

This show will need some major overhauling if it ever plans to come to broadway. I would actually love to see it as a one act. I did think Douglas Hodge was quite good and menacing as wonka, would love to see him come back in a revamped version

[Jingjo2]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 10:19pm

I think the first act was only an hour long but thr same things (just different kids) went on and on and it got old..
The second act saved the show. I don't think it will work on Broadway because it's not as stylish as Matilda and not as mainstream as Annie. And if I hear anything about Charlie & The Chocolate Factory being adapted in whatever media (or Peter Pan!) i feel like I'm going to throw up.

[JRRTolken]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 10:28pm

I saw the videts number and by that and that number it was the worst thing I have ever seen

[mikey2573]

Posted: 8/9/14 at 10:35pm

I know someone who did the MTI "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" recently (non-musical version) and they were shocked that the play they bought the rights to (advertised as FULL LENGTH) was not only one act, but that act was only about 44 pages long. They were equally shocked to discover that the first 8 pages of the script were basically narration, telling the audience what had happened "so far".

So, he decided to write a first act. It was basically taken from Dahl's book and involved the whole search for the ticket and how each kid found their ticket. It then ended with Charlie finding his Golden Ticker (which did not even appear in the licensed version he received!!) , showing up outside the factory gates, and the entrance of WIlly Wonka ending the act. Sounds like the musical version breaks the acts at the same point.
My friend then used the licensed version (minus the annoying narrator) from MTI for Act 2. It was a huge success and audiences loved it.
From what I have seen of the London musical, it lacks charm and the design is garish.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 3:48am

MTI only licenses musicals. Your friend must have gotten that elsewhere.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 4:11am

I enjoy the new score and I'm not typically a fan of this team. I do agree that act one drags a bit and they could probably benefit from a few changes. Perhaps combine all of the golden ticket winner's songs into a short montage instead of giving each of them their own number. That would get us to the factory faster and then they could possibly insert the act break in a new location or do it as a one act as suggested above. I think the inclusion of "Pure Imagination" was a good decision but I don't think they could have any success in the US without also utilizing some of the other songs from the film especially "I've Got a Golden Ticket." How could they leave that out?

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 10:55am

Plain and simple, anyone banking on a Willy Wonka-related musical succeeding without the film score, which has become timeless to generations of children, is barking up the wrong tree. Same thing with the Andrew Lloyd Webber attempt at adding more songs to The Wizard of Oz, which did semi-decent business in the UK where it's not a national institution, but died a quick death on a cheapo Troika tour in the US. People haven't learned yet that you really shouldn't tinker with a childhood classic unless it stands a chance of improving it (which I feel the additions to Mary Poppins did, giving it a little more edge and making it less cutesy and watered down compared to the P.L. Travers stories).

Incidentally, the point above reminds me of Pete's Dragon, which I think would be great for Disney to mine for its next family-friendly Broadway smash. Script is solid enough to work better on a Broadway stage than it did on film, there's a decent enough handful of songs that could work without shoehorning more into the score (think Peter and the Starcatcher; there's even material that didn't make it to the final cut of the film for at least one number preserved on the soundtrack, and you could literally write that back into the final version of the number and lose nothing), if they're worried they can slap the Hyperion name on it until it has proven it's not an embarrassment (like Aida), and if you want a gimmick, you go with what they originally intended for film and don't reveal the dragon for real until the closing sequence. Boom.

Updated On: 8/10/14 at 10:55 AM

[homeimp]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 11:34am

Glinda's new final song in ALW's Wizard was a beauty. I did not consider Aida to he an embarrassment. I felt the characters in Matilda were basically cartoons had wasn't interested in them.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 11:46am

I agree. Making a stage version of WILLY WONKA without the film score is destined for failure. They also need to keep the changes that David Seltzer wrote into his (uncredited) screenplay. If you read the book, it is very much a child's tale, with one dimensional characters, and motivations that come out of nowhere and make little sense. The biggest problem with the original tale is that Charlie wins the factory at the end because he is simply the last one standing. It was Seltzer who added that final scene with Wonka going off on Charlie and Grampa Joe and Charlie making that huge sacrifice. Those changes that Sletzer made are not in the MTI musical version, though many productions addd them anyways.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 12:04pm

I did not consider Aida to he an embarrassment.

What I meant in saying that was that Disney was uncertain about the commercial potential of Aida, and felt after all its trouble in out-of-town tryouts that it might be an albatross around the neck of the company's attempt to take over Broadway, so they didn't put their name on it, instead marketing it under the brand of "Hyperion Theatricals," which they went on to pretty much stick on any project they thought would be a commercial loser. Once Aida proved it had staying power, Disney got behind it like they weren't just trying to sweep it under the rug. I was suggesting they could take a similar wait-and-see approach with Pete's Dragon, which is no less commercially risky.

[JRybka]

Posted: 8/10/14 at 5:01pm

Wait.... Mary Poppins was a carbon copy? I thought there were some major changes to the show that are not in the movie.