'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' was a great success

[IlanaKeller]

And here's why:

https://www.app.com/story/entertainment/theater/2018/01/17/charlie-and-chocolate-factory-broadway-success/1034378001/

***I'm sure many will disagree with my definition of "success" here. Do me a favor. Instead of the immediate snarking, tell me what makes a show a success in your eyes. Then snark away as you see fit.***

[Call_me_jorge]

No

that was a big stretch. And it broke. 

[Cfried]

Yeah...no. 

[newintown]

It aimed for a 5 (out of 10) and hit a 4, maybe. Is that success? A Success Of Mediocrity?

And many of the kids in the audience at the performance I attended were far from captivated; talking, whining, kicking seats, getting up and walking around. So there's that, I suppose.

[BroadwayConcierge]

No, it wasn’t.

Edit: Also, your argument that it was successful because it made kids happy (and I can attest to several relatives and friends whose children left extremely disappointed) is poor because I can name 40 other shows that do the same thing—and are actually good.

This should have been beyond amazing and just totally failed. 

[BroadwayRox3588]

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

Edit: Okay, BroadwayConcierge at least attempted to honor said request.

[newintown]

I'm not sure that I would call it particularly "polite" to dictate to people how to respond on an open forum.

[Kad]

I think defining "great success" as something that can capture the attention of a child is a very low bar.

[dramamama611]

Especially considering the OP is really only looking for hits on her blog.  And no, JUST making kids happy is not a success.

[EDR1971]

What makes a show successful especially for children is a show delivers visually as well as enjoyable.  I have taken my 9 and12 year old nephews to Charlie, Aladdin, Spongebob, and School of Rock and they enjoyed all except Charlie.  When you ask them why the immediate response is the sets, and fun atmosphere.

 

when kids are use to watching Pixar movies, playing on iPads and other devices they need to be drawn in visually immediately 

that did not make Charlie a success, when family of four pays $750 for Orch seats parents will think twice in future when presented with d3sire to purchase seats.

[IlanaKeller]

BroadwayConcierge said: "No, it wasn’t.

Edit: Also, your argument that it was successful because it made kids happy (and I can attest to several relatives and friends whose children left extremelydisappointed) is poor because I can name 40 other shows that do the same thing—and are actually good.

This should have been beyond amazing and just totally failed."

Does one show being a success preclude another from being one, either in the same or a different way? There are indeed a ton of successes out there, thankfully. 

So, if the bar is makes kids happy AND is good in this case, how are you defining good? What elements are you looking for?

Alternately, if a show is very successful in one aspect of one's definition of the word, and not successful in another, what's the qualification for calling it a success or not?

To various others, I do believe "do me a favor" and still inviting snark would qualify as polite. You, of course, are welcome to disagree. And double-check the definition of a blog. 

Would love to continue this dialogue: What qualifies a show as a success in your eyes?

[michaelhale]

IlanaKeller said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "No, it wasn’t.

Edit: Also, your argument that it was successful because it made kids happy (and I can attest to several relatives and friends whose children left extremelydisappointed) is poor because I can name 40 other shows that do the same thing—and are actually good.

This should have been beyond amazing and just totally failed."

Does one show being a success preclude another from being one, either in the same or a different way? There are indeed a ton of successes out there, thankfully.

So, if the bar is makes kids happy AND is good in this case, how are you defining good? What elements are you looking for?

Alternately, if a show is very successful in one aspect of one's definition of the word, and not successful in another, what's the qualification for calling it a success or not?"

To that first point: Yes, in this instance. We're saying here that CatCF "succeeded" in one way- making kids happy, and you've agreed that's it's failed in every other way listen on your site. While there are shows succeeded in even just one more category running (which pretty much every children's focused show currently on Broadway has), it kind of renders this "success" null. I am sure all the other children's focused shows will have just as many, if not more, future actors crediting them in the future. It's not special, CatCF succeeded in no notable way, therefore is not a success. 

For your other questions: you outline all the general markers for success/quality ranking in your post? Why are you asking people to just restate them, you can just assume they value the stuff on that list more, or, are looking at the big picture that "making kids smile" is not a rarity for a Broadway show geared towards children. And seeing as how it couldn't afford to stay afloat for even a year- how many kids was it even making smile?

 

 

[haterobics]

Using this metric, could any show ever fail? 

[adam.peterson44]

Empty cardboard boxes can captivate my nephews for hours.  I guess that means that cardboard boxes are a huge success.  Yay! 

[IlanaKeller]

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

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

 

[IlanaKeller]

michaelhale said: "For your other questions: you outline all the general markers for success/quality ranking in your post? Why are you asking people to just restate them, you can just assume they value the stuff on that list more, or, are looking at the big picture that "making kids smile" is not a rarity for a Broadway show geared towards children."

Not asking for a restating, but seeking an explanation or opinion on which (or all, or others) of these are necessary to make a show successful in a person's eyes. We know there's no magic definition of a successful show, and many people have differing opinions on just what that is or how much weight any of these markers should hold. So my question is -- what qualifies a show as a success to you?

 

[bwayphreak234]

For me, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory goes down as one of the biggest missed opportunities Broadway has seen. The production was a misfire in nearly every way. The design, direction, and writing were easily among the worst I have experienced on Broadway. I honestly do not think the show was successful in any way whatsoever.

[Alexander Lamar]

No. 

[GeorgeandDot]

Worst show I've ever seen.

[haterobics]

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....

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

It wasn't a success in any form. It lost money and was a critical failure.

While it may have made some children happy, I view it as having a big head start due to the licensing of a well loved story and some elements of a well loved movie and yet it only managing mediocrity

It's essentially the unsuccessful scion of a wealthy family, who was born on third base, but thinks (s)he hit a single (since (s)he ended up on first....)

[Kad]

The Gazillion Bubble Show makes children very happy and will still be running even if Manhattan sinks into the ocean. It even delivers what it promises: many bubbles. So it's the greatest success of all.

[HamilHansen]

I found that article to be rather charming. I did attend the show and saw no misbehaved children. Everyone was in awe of Christian and the cast and it played like the biggest hit on Broadway. 

[devonian.t]

OP if it was a success for you then good for you.

The wider consensus is that it failed to hit any of the artistic or commercial targets it set itself.

I suppose we could say every show is a success that manages to end the performance without setting fire to the theatre!

[James885]

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.