Are we the new BUTCHERS of Broadway?- Page 2

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 5:50am

Are we talking about Fantasia's who who again?

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:40am

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 06:40 AM

[Urban]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:41am

I think "Butchers of Broadway" would make a great musical.

Think a cross between Sweeney Todd, Ethel Merman and a bunch of Queens running around with that evil glint in there eyes and knifes.

[artscallion]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 8:30am

Yeah, I remember one time, my friends and I were in the mall, talking about how bad Bette Midler's TV series was, and then, like a week later, we heard it was canceled! You have to be really careful! We all feel really bad about it now.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 10:32am

It's disingenuous to believe that this board and All That Chat have no impact whatsoever. Print and TV journalists read these boards and what is said here ends up constituting a show's buzz, for better and for worse. Buzz used to be generated in the industry from talking to other theatre types you knew while having a drink at the bar at Joe Allen. Now, it's much easier for a journalist to sign on here and see what a bunch of anonymous people are saying about a show online, rather than go out and talk to someone he actually knows and trusts. Only problem is that not every word said over here or over there is by someone impartial. Moreover, there are clear cut cases when a show either genuinely warrants great buzz or terrible buzz, but more often then not, the chatters have been out of step with the actual critics. Look at Passing Strange for a recent example.

People are going to write what they want to write, and that's the state of things. You'll praise certain shows and dogpile onto others. (Witness the people already turning against Cry-Baby after one performance). However, to pretend like what is said here doesn't matter is hopelessly naive.

[suicidalmickeymouse]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 10:44am

BroadwayBaby6, the answer here is just not judge the show by the review someone posted. Go see it for yourself, make your own opinion. It's really quite simple!

[tazber]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 10:44am

So it was YOU scallion! Bette will never forgive you.

I remember there were some threads about how awful The Little Mermaid was, and the show ended up closing out of town.
It could have been selling out if it wasn't for opinions.
But that's what "buzz" will get ya I suppose.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 1:55pm

All I'm saying is- can we wait till the show opens officially before fully releasing our venom sacs?

I saw Catered Affair in San Diego and thought the show had a lot of problems. It is my understanding that the show is undergoing some changes now in NY and as a result, I'm going to wait till seeing the finished product before critquing the show.

The shows that are staged by corporate behemoths like Little Mermaid and Lestat are the ones that seem to always make it to NY despite bombing out of town. It's shows that are not being put on by big corporations that could easily lose investor funding after being killed out of town.

If we want Broadway to become something other than NY Disneyland then we should be a little more open minded and give a fighting chance to shows like Catered Affair and Catered Affair, to name just two.

[shh282]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 3:53pm

I 2nd tazber.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 3:57pm

would you please leave our Sacs out of this BB6.
Updated On: 3/16/08 at 03:57 PM

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 4:07pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 04:07 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 4:08pm

I BLAME HILLARY!

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 5:41pm

Little Mermaid and Lestat were panned out of town but opened in NY because they had corporate behemoths behind them. It's the shows that are not produced by corporations that need some breathing room before getting slaughtered by every bitchy showtune queen in the universe.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 5:48pm

With all due respect, are you telling me that if I pay 50 -120 dollars to watch a show in previews, postviews, performance, matinee, late night showing, boys night or whatever they want to call it...we owe them silence at any point? Hello?!

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 5:59pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 05:59 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:16pm

Ok, so certain shows are ok to talk about, but other ones aren't, depending on who's producing.

[James885]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:16pm

My view is this: if a show is giving a performace, be it preview or regular, for paying audience members (we won't even mention how much they're paying) then once the show's over, the audience has every right to comment and give their opinions on said show. It's ridiculous to think that we, as audience members should hold our comments until after the show opens. Like somebody already said, if they didn't want us to talk about it, they wouldn't give preview performances. They'd have private critics-only shows and then open.

And to say that non-coprorate produced shows need "breathing room" before they open is just silly. Does that mean that because Cry-Baby and A Catered Affair aren't produced by Disney or Mel Brooks or Time Warner, we shouldn't comment on them in previews the way we commented on Young Frankenstein and/or The Little Mermaid when they had previews? If the show's bad then it's bad, no matter who's producing it. Now I haven't seen Cry-Baby or A Catered Affair, so I can't judge either of them, but if I were to see either one of them in previews, I certainly wouldn't hesitate to give my thoughts on it on this board.

Updated On: 3/16/08 at 06:16 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:18pm

I wonder what shape Follies, A Chorus Line or Gypsy were in during the out of town dress rehearsal.

A Chorus Line moved from Off-Broadway, and the audience went wild at the first night of previews.


Have you read the threads here about Next 2 Normal or August or Xanadu? There's as much support for the non-corporate shows as there is vitriol and vice-versa.

Exactly. What's naive is to base your argument on the assumption that only negative posts would have an impact. If we had as much power as you're claiming, Next to Normal would be selling out the Winter Garden. It's illogical to point the finger at BWW as the ruin of Broadway for criticisms while not giving any credit for the support.

Updated On: 3/16/08 at 06:18 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:27pm

Okay, so say I paid, oh, $54 to see a preview of a new musical. If I walk out of the theater and say to myself "wow, that was the worst piece of crap I've ever seen," I should refrain from posting my thoughts, but if I enjoyed it, I can happily laud it with praise?

There's no difference between posting here or discussing it over drinks at Angus' within earshot of the show's creators, who also happened to have gone to Angus' for post-show drinks, not to mention Michael Riedel, who trolls the place like Larry Craig trolls airport bathrooms.

As long as there are paying audiences, I don't think any show deserves "breathing room." If it's a steaming pile of dogcrap, then the paying customers should by all means spew hatred on top of it. They paid for their seat, they have a right to express their opinion. If the creators don't want the audience judging their work, they shouldn't let their show play in front of one.

And I know I've written (and have read) many posts detailing how horrible shows can be fixed. Unfortunately, not enough people take them seriously. In fact, I've never seen a show where the creators take the suggestions that I've posted (which are usually echoed by others here and on ATC) seriously.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:30pm

Frank Rich was the butcher of broadway.
He never made nearly as many simple grammatical errors as do the posters on this site.

So no, we're not.

But I would say that we have an influence, but not as large of an influence as one might think. After all, a lot of posters go to poorly-reviewed shows just to see how bad they are.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 6:30pm

Frank Rich was the butcher of broadway.
He never made nearly as many simple grammatical errors as do the posters on this site.

So no, we're not.

But I would say that we have an influence, but not as large of an influence as one might think. After all, a lot of posters go to poorly-reviewed shows just to see how bad they are.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 7:08pm

The general theater going public is not aware that this board even exists. To say we're killing Broadway or even keeping people away from a show is to give ourselves entirely too much credit.

And isn't A Catered Affair at least partially being produced by MGM?

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 7:18pm

As far as I know, A Catered Affair is being produced by a small consortium of producers led by Harvey and his brother, but I could be wrong. The show has a very low capitalization so if reviews aren't good, the show could fold rather quickly?

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 7:22pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 07:22 PM

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 7:37pm

I am wondering whether certain shows will now aim to open up in London rather than on Broadway where the unions are weaker (and salaries for actors, musicians and stagehands are lower), the critics are not as bitchy AND the blogosphere is less toxic. Sister Act, for example, is bypassing Broadway and heading straight to London in the fall.