While “Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: The New Musical” is a magical tale of an impoverished child getting to live out his dream of becoming a chocolatier, the overall production was a bit too bland for my taste buds.

I went to July 31 opening of “Charlie” at the Paramount’s “Broadway at the Paramount” series, the final installment of the theater’s 2018-2019 season, the curtains proverbially parting for a packed crowd.

The show follows Willy Wonka, played by Noah Weisberg, as he hatches a hair-brained scheme to gift his world-renown chocolate factory to a child most deserving of taking on his mantle. The scheme is simple: hide five golden tickets in his latest batch of chocolate bars, and the lucky kids who find them get to take a tour of the factory. The kids think that they are competing for a lifetime supply of chocolate when, in actuality, they are interviewing for Wonka’s job. It becomes clear early on that Wonka wants a certain Charlie Bucket, played by Rueby Wood in the production I saw, to take over the factory, and that the entire contest is just a ruse to orchestrate that end.

This narrative schematic is a departure from the 1971 film, and Dahl’s 1964 book, both of which paint Charlie as a lucky young lad with a heart of gold. In this version, Charlie is both of those things, but he also has a confusing relationship with Wonka, in disguise as a run-of-the-mill candy man during the first act. Wonka clearly wants Charlie to get the final golden ticket, and it isn’t clear if Wonka planted the ticket that Charlie ultimately finds, or if fate decides to give both Charlie and Wonka their greatest wishes. This notion is complicated by the fact that Wonka seems unsurprised that Charlie finds the ticket, yet the narrative shows no overt meddling on Wonka’s part to rig the contest in Charlie’s favor.

Instead of changing these plot elements from the 1971 film’s structure that simply uses happy luck as a plot device, the show’s writer, David Grieg, muddies that water to put his own stamp on the story. I am sure Grieg was trying to create a plot that didn’t rely so much on luck, but all he accomplishes is an overly complex, Wonka-is-omniscient storyline that still relies on luck as a plot device.

Beyond the issues present in the plot, there were some inconsistencies in the musical’s setting — specifically, the era. In the 1971 film, the events are presumably set in the mid-20th century, with the value of a dollar going a long way. In this production, most of the first act centers on this presumption. Characters talk about saving a few cents over multiple years, and the Bucket family uses candles for light and scraps of wood as fuel for heat.

Later it is revealed that the Buckets are simply too poor for modern amenities. Still, the audience assumes that the musical is set during the same era as the 1971 movie until a couple of the characters use tablets and video games. All I am saying, is that the show should have established its membership to the internet age before the audience spent much of the first act assuming that we were watching a period piece.

The show’s book was written by David Grieg, and the original music was composed by Marc Shaiman, with the lyrics written in collaboration between Shaiman and Scott Wittman. Notably, most of the music from the 1971 film, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” was retained in this show — a fact that I’m not so sure helped the production value. Don’t get me wrong: I love the original music. The film was a favorite of mine as a kid. However, when great music is strung between soulless, churned out, Broadway drivel, the original score gets diminished.

Never is this more apparent than when the bubblegum-chewing Violet Beauregarde, played by Brynn Williams, introduces herself as the “Queen of Pop” in a sprawling, yet entirely unnecessary, pop anthem that gets all the mileage it can out of a double meaning for her Double Bubble. She sings pop music and pops her bubble gum at the same time. Hooray.

Perhaps most jarring was the problematic inclusion of the Oompa Loompas. These fantasy creatures are similar to the Munchins from “The Wizard of Oz,” yet they are cocoa-bean loving little people who were being hunted by terrible monsters in a faraway land, only to be saved by the enigmatic Willy Wonka. He “hires” the Oompa Loompas to run his factory for a small salary of beans. I don’t know about anyone else, but this seems like indentured servitude to me. Regardless, these creatures are part of the story, and I am not writing this to pick apart Roald Dahl’s classic story. However, instead of casting diminutive actors to play the Oompa Loopas, director Jack O’Brien opted to use actors who sat on their knees with their heads poking out above tiny body puppets that they made dance with their hands.

This direction was met with cheers from my fellow audience members; not everyone can be saved.

With all that said, I do want to highlight a few of the performances. It’s not the actors’ fault that the show’s book fell flat, that some directorial decisions were questionable, that the new music was an assault on the eardrums and that the choreography by Joshua Bergasse would have been better complemented by no movement at all — I mean the show had people coming out of the wings, waving their hands above their heads shout-singing the words, “Willy” and “Wonka,” at regular intervals.

For their parts, Weisberg made a believable Wonka, and Wood played a Charlie that would have melted even the most hardened of hearts. Wood was charismatic and enthusiastic. He was on point with his singing, and he successfully convinced me that his only dream was to become a chocolatier like his hero, Willy Wonka.

While it took Weisberg an entire act to fully don the garbs of Wonka’s eccentricities, he knocked it out of the park in the second act. It is unclear whether Weisberg toned down his performance in the first act because he was Wonka impersonating a candy seller. For this reason, I will focus on his performance in the second act, which did its best to convince me that he was not, in fact, a child predator.

The standout performance of the night, though, came from an actor that was only in the first act. Amanda Rose played Mrs. Bucket, and she dazzled as a widow and single mother who simply wanted Charlie to have realistic expectations. She played the part of the only true antagonist in the show, since she actively tried to get Charlie to come back to Earth and not hinge too much of his hopes on a golden ticket that would go to one child in a million. Since antagonists are those that work against the goals of the protagonist, Mrs. Bucket fits the bill. Yet she also shows us the wonderful love a mother can have for her child, eventually letting Charlie participate in the contest. Out of the entire cast, Rose was the most believable in her role.

The technical aspects of the production were suitable, if a bit lazy. Most of the sets were computer-programmed to display on huge screens behind the actors, resulting in few traditional set changes. The lighting was effective and the actors almost always found their spots.

Overall, I would not recommend this musical to anyone other than children, but — come on — children deserve quality productions too. Personally, I believe that they are better off watching the 1971 Gene Wilder film.

“Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: The New Musical” will be showing at the Paramount Theater until Aug.11. Visit stgpresents.org/paramount/events for tickets and show time information.