leap of faith- Page 2

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 8:46pm

The patrons from Montauk might have very astute comments about the show. Montauk has a very "artsy" populations. People like Dick Cavett, Lauren Bacall and Edward Albee have homes in that area.

Montauk is far from being a hick town.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 10:07pm

Because really only an opinion on a modern musical by a Mozart lover who avoided vampires on TV would be of value.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 10:34pm

^

Of more value, certainly, than what a certain highly defensive someone has to offer.

Does the shoe pinch a bit, Eric?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 10:56pm

It fits fine--I grew up playing the violin since I was 4, so I have spent a great more time listening to Mozart than many other artists (though I prefer Tchaikovsky). And vampires aren't really my bag--I just don't see how that would be relevant in critiquing a Broadway musical with the goal of making it a commercial hit, which I assumed was the goal here.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 11:08pm

The survey asks many question about how one feels about the show.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 11:11pm

But, Eric, poor chap, I was discussing Jim and Judy from Montauk, and the much-maligned ladies who lunch, and the way they are denigrated by the likes of..... well, you know whom.

And by you, perhaps?

Do you share in those feelings, or don't you?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 11:13pm

In addiion to the things listed above, the questionnaire I got tonight had 8 questions about what was liked /disliked about the show.
1 Give the show a rating
2 Favorite moment
3 Favorite character
4 Connection to story
5 what song stood out
6 dislikes
7 would you reccommend
8 would you return

I'll disagree with some of the comments I've seen on these boards. Act II was NOT better than Act I. I was thoroughly bored throughout.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 11:24pm

I think it's a great idea to do audience surveys while in previews, if they are actually going to look at them for useful purposes. ONCE had audience surveys at the preview I went to.

I do not understand why anyone likes Raul in anything. He is, in my opinion, the single most over-rated performer currently working on Broadway (and there are a few).

This show will open, but that's about it. I won't be surprised if Raul is nominated for the Tony though, because for some reason he always is.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/18/12 at 11:48pm

I come from as far away as New York as you could almost get and live on the same continent, so of course I'm not Mister 8--don't be silly. And I never said that--my point was that I wouldn't trust someone's opinion more if they were a theatregoer who liked Mozart--nor would I if they were from Manhattan as opposed to anywhere else.

I recently read in Vanity Fair that the ladies who lunch crowd no longer exists in New York--what's your opinion on that?

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 6:43am

^

My opinion is that I have lunch with them all the time, including this very day.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 9:25am

Saw it last night.

All I can say is that I am tired of having to stand up during every single curtain call in New York, whether or not I want to, just because everybody else in the theater is standing up. It's not that I don't mind showing dissent by remaining seated. It's that I'd rather see the curtain call than the gluteus in front of me (well, there might be exceptions, but leaving that aside....).

In other words, the audience seemed to enjoy the show a lot. But then again, I haven't been to a musical without a standing ovation at final curtain in ages. Come to think of it, that's true of plays as well. It's become as obligatory as clapping.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 9:36am

Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson was the only Broadway musical in many years at which I can remember no standing ovation.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:31am

^Yikes.

I was there last night and the questionnaire is indeed distributed in the playbill. And it asks all the questions listed by dramamama.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 12:38pm

Well, this thread certainly has been...truncated.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 1:47pm

There are 2 different surveys that LOF is using... one is marketing and the other is concerning the show content. I stand corrected...

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 2:22pm

Oddly, I find standing O's (and I'm sure this depends on the city) ARE less common when seeing touring or regional shows, I just say oddly due to the fact that the perception would be the opposite. Of course I've found the same with the (ab)use of eating in theatres...

AfterEight, I hope your gossipy lunch is great fun!

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 5:53pm

^

Why do you assume/presume it was gossipy?

Talk about sexist stereotyping --- but then, perhaps the only knowledge you have of ladies who lunch is via a certain song.

I think it's time you ventured into the real world.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 6:07pm

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 6:56pm

You pressume too much, as perhaps I do too. If I go out for lunch with a bunch of friends--it's going to be gossipy. I don't mean gossip as a negative, but catching up, talking about what you've been up to, etc.

However the image of ladies who lunch in New York I have is the society scene--you know the women Truman Capote called his Swan's and would be with as much as possible for lunch. I don't think I'm alone in picturing that stereotype, but I didn't mean it for you. Certainly, I'm sure you're not as short as Capote, anyway.

Here's the VF article http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2012/02/ladies-who-lunched-201202

[bk]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 7:12pm

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far way creative people had the ability to watch their show with an audience, figure out what wasn't working, and - wait for it - fix it. Many classic shows were in deep trouble out of town - they didn't put Band-Aids on shows, or try to fix with bubble gum and spit, which is all any shows do nowadays and what this show has been doing since LA. No, they listened, discussed, and made, in many cases, HUGE changes - they were not bound by computerized sets and lighting as today's shows are - they could move scenes around, remove characters, replace songs, excise most of an act - sometimes their hard work paid off sometimes it didn't. But the one thing they never did was put a questionnaire in a Playbill. What's been happening to Broadway for more than a decade now, is Hollywoodization - where everything should work like it does in the film business, hence questionnaires, focus groups, etc. Eight years ago I did a revue in LA where one of the biggest laugh-getters in the show was "What if Broadway producers started doing coming attractions for their musicals in the style of today's movie trailers?" It brought the house down every night. Unfortunately, it's come true.

If creative people, after what, eight years of this, cannot figure out what their show is about, what is working and not working, how to fix it once and for all - then perhaps musical theatre is not for them. The theatre world was a better place when there were real producers, real directors and choreographers, and writers who knew they had to do what had to be done. They'll get all these surveys and do WHAT? If they haven't done it by now, well -

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:32pm

they didn't put Band-Aids on shows, or try to fix with bubble gum and spit, which is all any shows do nowadays and what this show has been doing since LA.

They replaced the director, recast the lead actress, cut a major character, added another one, brought in a new book writer, rewrote a bunch of new songs, and added a brand new framing device. How is that bubble gum and spit? You may not like the changes they made, but how can you deny that they did, in fact, make major changes based on what didn't work in California?

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:34pm

" I don't mean gossip as a negative, but catching up, talking about what you've been up to"

Oh, what a lot of ......... baloney. Pathetic, truly. Everyone here, including yourself, knows exactly what is meant ---and what you intended to mean --- by "gossip," and "gossipy."

So long, Eric.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:41pm

Everyone but you. :) Take care!

[bk]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 2:20am

To Yero: Yes, they did all that - and? Here we are. You basically have the same show with some different songs in act one, a framing device which is as silly as the Agnes de Mille dancing in LA, and, from all I've read, not much different in tone and plot and point. That, to me, is bubble gum and spit. I could write a lot more, but you get the drift.

The creative team has some extremely talented people involved. I don't think they have producers who are strong enough to do anything but put questionnaires in programs. What do you think David Merrick would be doing right about now? Just answer that simple question and this discussion will be over.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 10:07am

I have to agree - the best musicals ever written were created relatively quickly, compared to today's decade-plus-long gestation time. Look at Memphis - that simple-minded piece of nonsensical fluff took TEN YEARS to create?!?

Sometimes, you just have to know what you're doing and do it, otherwise, you're just shooting in the dark. You might make a hit, but you've done it accidentally, and where's the pride of accomplishment in that?

If this sloppy show hasn't been made good in 8 years, it's never going to made good, all wild optimism (or even realistic optimism) aside.