@UncleCharlie I understand what you are saying but mocking, belittling and criticizing the marketing of shows is a part of the standard traffic here. We have been told here, for example, that Hamilton's logo (when first displayed on the marquee) was terrible and would not help sell the show, that Hello Dolly's ad and FOH designs did not convey anything about it (as needed to sell tickets) and that the choice of what aspects of the show to reveal in marketing was disastrous, and (for g
UncleCharlie said: "Some of the people on this board just make me laugh. They'll piss and moan endlessly about a show that hasn't done enough to get publicity, not enough ads, nocreative efforts to make it stand out and get people talking about itand when a producer does that, it's hokey and they'redesperate. Yeah, OK, whatever."
My sense is that most of the pissing and moaning is in relation to EFFECTIVELY marketing a show. If, for example, a produce
I am always mystified by the need folks here have to treat opinions as having a right or wrong quality. They don't, so anyone suggesting someone else's opinion is wrong is just exposing their own lack of security in their own opinions, as is anyone who takes such suggestions with more than a grain of salt. The fact is: the reviews were really bad, but that does not make them right. FWIW I did not like the production and QT in particular. I'll just say he did not strike fear in the
There are a lot of things in this world that could and probably should be done in a smarter way. And we have two choices. As I said you're welcome to make your own choice. But I'll stand by my analogy. On the other, I'll be brief because I can find a good way to make this on topic: Winners, maybe the Dodgers (for best solidification), losers, the Mets and the Nats, who ended up holding a lot of bags. Feel free to PM me if you disagree
BTW I actually just made up the analogy after I posted and went back and edited it. I'm not sure if it's really original or I just forgot where I heard it.
@UncleCharlie, I don't want to restrict what words you choose to use; have at it. At the same time, you are on a board where people, you included, are aware that there are terms of art in this business and they have specific meanings. You can take the same position regarding, say, soundtrack vs cast recording, but when you do it is at your own peril.
In my other interest at this time of year, baseball, we also have the word "hit" and it has a particular meaning. Yet
I think we've pretty much said everythng that can be said based on what we (now) know, but to the last, let me say, re Bobbie, that (a) he is 72 and does not need a "career" [and even if, somehow, his Chicago weekly checks stopped] and (b) I doubt that he has spent enough time around the show to generate a huge number of "stories." Usually, directors might come in a couple times a year to check up on things, often just watching performances and then giving the stage ma
@Rainah, as someone who has been around a long time, what he does is not what "other producers" do. You can believe that if you want, but the one thing you can't believe other producers do is fail consistently. Or (ironically) also have the temerity to charge people to "teach" them how to produce. One can drink the Merrick kool-aid if one wants, but Merrick was a successful producer. It's kinda what producing is all about, no? If you want to produce things without
Yeah, we all have things that resonate for us more than other things. And in particular I notice theatre posters in the subway etc but I blast right past most of the movie posters without even noticing that they are there. I think we can probably agree there is not enough of a market for this show to begin with (it's one of those organic failures, aka DOA shows) but I also don't think they cracked the full potential of people who know the words to most of the songs.
the "proof" that the marketing is not fine is that my non-theatre friends, almost all of whom are in the target market, are completely unaware of the show when I mention it.
@FJL2 Not sure where you got the idea anyone was talking about a criminal case: it's a far fetched notion.
@BKLYN8567 what we have atm aside from random (on and off the record) comments are Jeff's contemporaneous texts. My point is that they are generally found to be reliable and true. While that is sourced in a legal principle, that principle is founded in centuries of common experience.
#7 falls in the trap of trying to logic from personal taste.
There are a lot of specific things but the biggie is that he has never helmed a successful production. In show business, that's all that really needs to be said.
FJL2, you seem to be coming a lit untethered from facts. A few points. First, there is not a shred of evidence that the producers were involved in this decision yet you have placed the blame on them. I am not a fan of the Weisslers, but I don't like scurrilous accusations. Second, the lawsuit stuff you write about has nothing to do with anything going on right now in this matter. Finally, I don't know who has suggested the external facts weigh in any particular way. The sense I get is
I find that I agree with Ben about 75% of the time, he is pretty consistent, and I like much of what he champions, but I don't think he is a very good writer. The comment about Rich is, uh, naive.
EllieRose2 said: "You should have given your opinion in the existing thread and not been lazy about it."
One could make a ferocious argument that starting a new thread is less lazy than adding a post to an existing one. You have to think up a title all on your own, click to start a new thread, and then type out the entire title. Then and only then can you type your message.
adamgreer said: "The NY Times has a piece about the suicide today. Not much new information except for the fact that Stifelman hasn’t been at the show since Loeffholz’s passing."
if you take the number of people who would be inclined to see the show because of the physical presence of all or some of the Go-Gos (not that large I would think), and subtract the number of people who would be inclined to see the show because of the Go-Gos' songs without them (an even smaller number), the idea that bringing them in (even were there an incentive or desire for them) would sell enough tickets to make a difference is pretty uninviting.
