What's with the hatred of Cats?

Posted: 1/21/16 at 8:50pm

I've noticed for a while that there seems to be a large number of people that hate Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cats. I've seen a recent production of it in my county and I thought it was wonderful. But it seems like a lot of people have a bit of a "love/hate relationship" with it, and I've always found that strange. I've personally never understood the whole hatred that many people have for it. And now that it's coming back to Broadway, I've noticed many people on a recent thread discussing it appear to be moaning about it coming back. I know a lot of other people love it as well, but the hate seems to be spreading well. So what exactly is up with that? Would anyone mind giving specific reasons as to why it's widely hated? 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 8:52pm

Why the hatred for many shows that do not deserve it? Why the hatred of Wildhorn?

 

Did not hate Cats just did not enjoy it and could not recommend it.

[TheGingerBreadMan]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 8:57pm

Many people do not like the fact that it has a very thin plot line. 

 

I, for one, find the show very enjoyable. It is not one of my favorites, but the music is good and it's an evening well spent in the theatre. 

[mc1227]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:00pm

Certainly, not one of my favorites but I didn't hate it.  I just don't see the need to revive it, it ran forever and could wait another decade.  

[LaurenG3]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:07pm

I can understand why some people hate it but I enjoyed it. Definitely not my favorite show of all time but I can think of much worse shows that could on Broadway right now. Some people like it and some don't. It's just a matter of preference I guess

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:09pm

I love the score and the staging and the costumes and the overall message of sacrifice and rebirth. It's a magical show. I suppose people just think a musical about cats is dumb. But really, a musical about Alexander Hamilton seemed really dumb to me in 2013. And I'm sure in the future that musical will have many people who don't like it just because it's overexposed. So really, the hate outweighs the praise in this case. It's clearly loved quite a lot. 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:18pm

Maybe I can shed some light. I hate cats. The score is OK but I just feel it's so stupid. It's literally cats running around for two hours trying to compete to get to kitty heaven. So strange. I respect it as being a huge entity in theatre but I just don't care for it at all. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:35pm

I think the score is beyond tedious. When the show first opened, I listened to one side of the vinyl LP and never turned it over. "Jellicle Cats" should be a TV ad jingle; if only it were under a minute long!

 

The best I can say is that when I finally saw the show because a friend was in it, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

 

And if the hatred of the show seems out of proportion, it may be because many of us who lived in NYC in the 1980s felt the show had been shoved down our throats. It arrived pre-sold on the basis of overly ecstatic British reviews toward the end of a period when everything English was extolled as superior to everything American. I think we all give the Brits their due when it comes to straight plays, but the insistence by American critics that British musicals were also superior to ours was too much!

 

Or to put it more simply: think COMPANY to FOLLIES to A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC to A CHORUS LINE to SWEENEY TODD to ... CATS. It seemed a huge step backwards.

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 09:35 PM

[RaiseYouUp]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:42pm

Like broadwayboy said, it's just a bunch of cats running (dancing) around onstage for a couple hours for absolutely no reason, so you feel kind of ridiculous watching it. And the fact that so many people love such a thing makes it seem that much weirder. To me, it's like the Donald Trump of Broadway shows: it's absurd in the first place, so then you detest it even more when a lot of people like it. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:44pm

B*tches don't know how to act.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:44pm

I don't like cats. As in the animals. I'm a dog person. Give me a musical Dogs and I'm in. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:48pm

RaiseYouUp, I honestly think most people loved the original run just because they had been told to love it. First by the British critics. Then by the American. Then by the sheer longevity of the show which made it seem like it must be popular.

 

The above isn't true of everyone, of course. I'm not claiming any individual here has been hoodwinked.

 

But I remember a huge "WTF?" reaction by show people and civilians alike when CATS first opened.

[Dave13]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:48pm

I don't hate it.  Just couldn't keep my eyes open watching the show. 

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:52pm

Cats is not a terrible show. It's a solid concept review and the original had impressive production values, whether the massive Broadway production or the far more intimate and notably different original London production (and the very low budget version that initially opened.) the original staging is beyond iconic and I am very grateful.

That stated, shows that run as long as Cats did usually become dusty, terribly maintained and horribly tired. 

The greater issue for me was always the type of audience that is attracted to a show such as Cats. I'd gladly see the show in a regional or stock house of any size and appreciate the show for what it is, and I have. But on Broadway, in a commercial setting, the audiences that gravity to Cats make me MISERABLE.

[Broadway Guru]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:16pm

broadwayguy2 said: "Cats is not a terrible show. It's a solid concept review and the original had impressive production values, whether the massive Broadway production or the far more intimate and notably different original London production (and the very low budget version that initially opened.) the original staging is beyond iconic and I am very grateful.

 

That stated, shows that run as long as Cats did usually become dusty, terribly maintained and horribly tired. 

I strenuously disagree with your assertion that long running shows become dusty, terribly maintained and horribly tired. I worked at Cats for two years and spent three years at Phantom. I saw each of these shows eight times a week over the span of those years as new people came and went....Long running shows have the same problems new shows have. Good night. Bad nights. Good performers. Bad performers.

I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on. Have you ever worked on a long running show?

 

The greater issue for me was always the type of audience that is attracted to a show such as Cats. I'd gladly see the show in a regional or stock house of any size and appreciate the show for what it is, and I have. But on Broadway, in a commercial setting, the audiences that gravity to Cats make me MISERABLE.

 

"

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:21pm

cats is awful. not a big mystery.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:26pm

This revival is going to really help people reassess CATS, one of the most beloved children's shows since Uncle Floyd.  Rediscover your happy place with Missy Grenades, the prostitute cat, Obladonger and Twizzeltwats, the prolapsed anal cats, again.  For the first time.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:02pm

[hork]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:07pm

Can't. Look. Away. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:46pm

Wow! The fact that this is coming back to Broadway and the lot of you are getting your panties twisted in a bunch is fvcking HILARIOUS....kill yourselves now!!!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:55pm

Whose panties are in a bunch?  When mine get particularly bunched up I turn them into a scratching post for my kitties Mr Boom Boom Room and Vadgey.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 12:19am

Gaveston put it simply and to the point:

"Think COMPANY to FOLLIES to A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC to A CHORUS LINE to SWEENEY TODD to ... CATS. It seemed a huge step backwards."

 

Coming right after the glory days of the DREAMGIRLS/ NINE civil war, CATS showed up on New York's doorstep in 1982 and presaged all the bloated over-designed thru-sung monstrosities that would litter the Broadway stage for the next decade and beyond and just refuse to leave: STARLIGHT EXPRESS, LES MIZ, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, MISS SAIGON. CATS felt like the beginning of the end for those of us who loved musical theater as literature. That damn cat's eye billboard blackened the face of the old Winter Garden marquee for what seemed like an eternity. Now and Forever indeed.

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 12:19 AM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 1:57am

I don't get the use of the word hate or hater or hatred.  Just because someone my not care for a show or a performer or a director does not make them a hater.  It's misused like awesome, which once referred to a religious experience and is now applied to a pair of shoes.  I know that these words are largely used by young people but still.  Hate, especially, is a more weighted word than some may realize.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 2:40am

 

I blame this show for non theatre people's negative perception of what musical theatre is.

It also is from the "spectacle renaissance" of tacky 80s broadway. 

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 02:40 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 8:19am

Shortly after the show opened in New York, I remember watching Randy Newman - of all people - telling some tv host - Tom Snyder I think it was - how much he hated it.   And adding that the only thing he enjoyed was the experiential absurdity of paying a whopping and up to that point unparalleled $45 top ticket price to see it.   $45 dollars!   If we can even imagine that by today's standards.

I don't think it's a bad show.  But overexposure can certainly demonize anything, especially a musical that's foreign, big on production, allegorical, quirky and seen by many as thin (and by some as shallow) with pretensions to grandeur... and, all together now, about cats.

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 08:19 AM