Why I Will Not Promote the Japanese Production of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Content note: This post discusses sexual abuse allegations, harassment directed at a minor, and distressing fan behavior.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a children’s book, adapted into a family musical. I believe it should be produced and presented with children and families as its primary audience.
For me, the Japanese production failed to meet that standard for three interconnected reasons: the involvement of a major idol agency with a serious and unresolved abuse scandal in its history, harmful fan behavior tied to that involvement, and production, marketing and ticketing choices that prioritized adult idol fandom over families and children.
Background: the agency and public controversy
In 2023, extensive reporting and investigations brought long-standing allegations against the founder of a major Japanese idol agency into the open. Multiple survivors came forward with allegations of sexual abuse of minors. The agency acknowledged the abuse, issued public apologies, and established a compensation process. An independent review also documented systemic failures beyond a single individual.
A team investigating sexual assault allegations against the late founder of a talent agency for boy bands says it has found the charges cred
As part of this process, the company later renamed itself SMILE-UP. This decision followed intense criticism at a press conference, where journalists questioned whether continuing to use the founder’s name showed a lack of consideration for victims. A separate victims’ relief company was created, and as of late 2025, the official relief committee reports that more than 1,000 compensation claims have been submitted.
These facts are not abstract background to me. They were widely reported, ongoing, and unresolved at the time the Japanese production opened in October 2023. I find it deeply troubling that a musical aimed at children and families became financially and publicly connected to a company in the midst of such a process.
Timing of the production and my concerns
The Japanese production premiered while daily news coverage and public debate about these abuses were still unfolding. Given that timing, I hoped for extreme care, restraint, and sensitivity in how the production was framed and received.
Instead, some fan reactions were alarming. Certain posts explicitly linked the musical to the late founder’s legacy, framing the production as a form of symbolic succession or homage. Seeing a children’s story used in that way, during such a period, was deeply upsetting.
Problematic fan behavior and harm toward a child performer
After the premiere, some fans publicly compared characters and themes in the musical to real individuals associated with the agency. Other posts used the performance dates and even the agency’s renaming as occasions for celebratory hashtags that, to many observers, appeared dismissive of survivors.
More seriously, a child actor who played Charlie later received harassment online after posting that he had attended a concert by the lead actor. Some fans speculated that he had received special treatment and directed hostile messages toward him. This incident was reported by the media, and the lead actor publicly condemned the harassment and defended the child.
The fact that a child performer became a target of adult fandom hostility is something I cannot overlook. For me, this demonstrated that parts of the surrounding fan culture treated the production as an extension of idol fandom, not as a family-oriented work meant to protect children.
Promotion, presentation, and ticketing choices
The production’s official promotion placed the lead performer overwhelmingly at the center. The original author’s name and the children’s roles were given reduced prominence in posters, websites, and promotional materials. Story explanations were minimal, and visual emphasis consistently favored the star rather than the ensemble or the child characters.
Ticketing practices reinforced this impression. Sales prioritized fan club presales, and ticket prices were set at high, fixed tiers with no lower-cost options typically aimed at families, children, or school groups. In effect, the structure favored adult fans with disposable income over families, the very audience this story was written for.
When compared with other productions, including family-oriented campaigns abroad and even other Japanese musicals that clearly foreground their source material and ensemble, this imbalance became even more apparent.
A special website for another musical production by the same company:
ミュージカル『ジョジョの奇妙な冒険 ファントムブラッド』2024年2月 帝国劇場にて上演決定！
catcf jp musical website:
ミュージカル『チャーリーとチョコレート工場』2026年3月ウェスタ川越、4月日生劇場にて上演決定！
(Examples of family friendly campaigns from other productions were visible online.)
Because of the agency connection, the fan behaviors I witnessed, and the production and sales decisions that consistently deprioritized children and families, I cannot in good conscience promote this Japanese production to other fans of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I would like to see this work staged in Japan by a different production team—one that genuinely understands the spirit of the original book, centers children and families, protects child performers, and presents the musical as what it is meant to be: a story for children, not a vehicle for adult idol fandom.
Sources and further reading
Johnny Kitagawa: J-pop agency boss resigns over predator's abuse
The CEO finally acknowledges the rampant sexual abuse committed by industry titan Johnny Kitagawa.
Johnny Kitagawa's sexual abuse: Japan's worst kept secret
For decades, sexual assault accusations marred his career - and for decades, the media failed to investigate.
Johnny Kitagawa: Hundreds seek compensation over J-pop agency founder's abuse
More than 300 people seek compensation for being sexually abused by the late Johnny Kitagawa.
I actually liked the idea of Tim Drake's parents being put into Witness Protection; I wish DC hadn't chickened out on it or handled the concept better.
It would be far more interesting characterization-wise for them to reckon with the years of absences and neglect of their son when they can never return.
(Much more than what we got in the New Earth continuity, where Janet dies and Jack is canonically- CANONICALLY- abusive, only getting his act together the week before he died.)
If I were writing an adaptation, I'd have them mess up big time on one of their expeditions and have the subplot be their efforts to get back to Tim. (And have them confront their mistakes BEFORE putting that on their kid.)
I don't think there's enough stories of estranged parents putting in the work, recognizing their flaws, and actually KEEPING their promises.
Sometimes A lot of the time, I really wish Crystal had actually been an adaptation-expansion of the manga, with the Dark Kingdom arc taking the entire 26 episodes. I get that people don’t like things they perceive as “filler,” but at the same time, I present you with Usagi not immediately gaining a new tiara and having to learn other ways to channel her magic.
And yes, a very very small portion of that is me missing the combination attacks from the earliest Classic anime episodes. But given that Crystal season 1 used a lot of real-time attacks and comparatively less stock footage attacks, can you imagine how cool that would have looked?
#367726 of pet peeves i have: those people who will critique adaptations with “they should have stayed absolutely 100% faithful to the source material!” and then turn around and gush about the villeneuve dune movies that, y’know, cut the mentats and CHOAM and Paul’s first kid dying and thufir hawat meddling with the arena fight and the two year timeskip and alia killing the baron with a gom jabbar. like buddy, hate to break it to you, but changing the source material isn’t an inherently evil crime that has to be outlawed
(and also most of the time the thing that set you off was the inclusion of poc/queer/female characters that somehow “breaks” your engagement, but that’s a whole other discussion to be had about that)
first, keep in mind that the creators were open about making changes to the story, and this is a good thing. for me, faithfulness to the original down to the minute details should not be the end-all measuring stick of adaptations. sure, it's important, but in the end, i believe that adaptations also have to be judged on what they are by themselves, which leads me to my second point:
i will try to judge the series based on what they ARE doing vs what they AREN'T doing. i kind of failed this multiple times during my review of episode one, but the more important thing here is looking at how the story functions with the elements that are present, for example, episode one played a lot with mix-and-match from different scenes and episodes but the result was a cohesive mini-arc that worked well
and finally, whatever the end result ends up being, we can still all have an intelligent conversation about both the good and the bad without bashing a piece of media into bloody pieces (the exception being the atla movie. the atla movie knows what it did)
(getting more into subjective territory here, it's also really weird comparing the atla and percy jackson adaptations and how they're being received, like--both of them had bad movie adaptations followed by a tv adaptation, but the hype for percy jackson versus its confusing end result is really strange when compared to some of the the downright dismissals i've seen of atla before it even aired. you can disagree with me, but i just think it's worth thinking about)
