You could call me a “Christmas Carol” snob.

It has been a Christmas tradition in my family to see the production yearly, and, every year, I am brought alive in the spirit of the season by Dickens’ great work.

Dec. 1 marked the opening night for the annual musical reprise of “A Christmas Carol” at the Fabulous Fox Theatre, performing for a notably thin audience, despite the onset of the holiday season. A humorous portrayal of the classic story, the child-heavy audience was all smiles between the highly animated secondary characters and insanely exuberant ghosts of the past and the present.

The scenery, while not elaborate, was suitable for the scale of the production. There were no unnecessarily over-the-top arrangements that required complicated and extensive stage set-ups, rightfully allowing a stronger focus on the plot.

“A Christmas Carol” has been resurrected in so many forms that this focus was altogether unnecessary, though. Anyone over the age of 5 likely knows the plot of “A Christmas Carol,” and, in removing all enhancements to that basic storyline, the audience was left on the verge of boredom.

The cast was recognizably talented, each character bringing a true personality to the stage in an effort to counteract the potential for boredom. In the case of the two charity workers and young Fred’s friends, the play was given a fresh outlook, but, for the majority of the actors, the obvious talent that this cast amassed could have been reallocated to a more appropriate, sentimental persona.

Marley entered the stage looking as if he had fallen prey to electrocution on his way toward the hunting-license office. Decked in what could best be described as a camouflage jumpsuit and draped in fishing nets, held together by a chain-link fence, Marley provoked a stronger feeling of fear for his sanity than his ghostliness.

Ebenezer Scrooge, the traditional villain of the story, shed his despicable ways for a more animated aura, thus becoming neurotically endearing instead of the classic object of unadulterated hatred. This twist was momentarily pleasant, the crowd’s laughter originating with Scrooge’s escapades.

At points, though, the character ventured into a state of seeming intoxication, the ghost of Christmas present even serving him a steaming drink that only accelerated that portrayal. This abbreviated the humanistic value of the protagonist, instead of allowing an association from the crowd.

Despite the humorous connection to this representation of Scrooge, a certain element of believability was sorely lacking. Jeff Horst, who played Scrooge, is in his early 30s, a stark comparison to what the character of Scrooge is supposed to be, in the traditional sense. As he pranced across the stage, laughs were inevitably elicited, but the actions were so inconsistent with the character of Scrooge that the human value diminished quickly.

In every production of the play I’ve seen, the scene featuring the ghost of Christmas present manages to bring a tear to my eye. I’ve seen it done many ways—a chorus of candles, a 10-foot tall ghost and haunting carols all topping the list. The Fox’s production broke out the sparklers for the number, though, and that was about it. The scene was performed well, but the “wow” factor was absent, childish pyrotechnics failing to make the cut.

“A Christmas Carol” is a beautiful and heartwarming story about the magic of the holidays. While the Fox’s production delivered on that message, the true beauty of the original story was absent.

Thanks for the laughs, but I wouldn’t have minded a couple of heart-happy tears, too.