What is our theater community coming to when we take the opinions of others? When we make fun of people for loving a show that we hate BASED on the opinions of others because, guess what, we haven't actually SEEN it?
The LENNON haters. The Christina Applegate haters. Those who say PIAZZA looks "boring".
The list could go on.
This is a contagious disease that's spreading around and I'm noticing it more and more when I talk to people I meet at stage doors. No one gives anything even a chance, even those who get student rush tickets. Why are we so afraid to invest 3 hours of our lives into something new? Why are we afraid of change?
Broadway is never going to be Rodgers and Hammerstein again. I wish it could, but it won't. So why don't we embrace change and feel more EXCITED about it?
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
If I want to see something then I will see it, no matter what the reviews and word of mouth are like. But if I am ambivalent towards a show or not interested at all, it would take enormous amounts of persuasion to get me to plunk down my cash to see it.
Nothing precious, plain to see, don't make a fuss over me. Not loud, not soft, but somewhere inbetween. Say sorry, just let it be the word you mean.
Of course, Bobby. But that's not what I'm saying. To walk around and tell other people that it stinks without even having seen it is a TERRIBLE thing to do.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
Even in the days of Rodgers and Hammerstein (and well before), theatre fans met and gossiped and talked about the shows they heard were terrible and warned each other to avoid. And back in those days there were a LOT more shows that opened and as a result a lot more to avoid. For every R&H hit back in the 40s there were DOZENS of flops that didn't run a week or closed in New Haven. Gossip columnists from Walter Winchell to Dorothy Killgallen and others spread the word about the latest turkey to limp into town with more venom than Riedel could summon on his best day.
But, the main difference in the 40s and 50s was that Broadway ticket prices were under $5 (with balcony seats available for under $1) so taking a chance on a new show was no big deal -- shows cost the same or less than movies.
Today, for those of us who aren't students, a ticket to a Broadway show is going to cost us at least $50 (through discounts or TKTS). That's several times the cost of a movie and bottom line, not an insignificant amount of money in any context (some people's food budgets for the week are less than that). This has NOTHING to do with "embracing change" and everything to do with the fact that for $50+, in this very tight economy, most people want to be absolutely sure that a show is worth that kind of investment. We rely on word of mouth, reviews (both professional and message boards) and decide whether a show merits the expenditure of time and money.
Can you really blame people for hesitating blowing money on something like "Lennon" given the dozens of awful reviews it has received both on the the boards and in the press? Yes, it has its fans, but again, is it worth $67 (which is what it would cost to a non-student with the current discount plus telecharge fees)?
As long as tickets prices are as ridiculously high as they are, you cannot blame people for not risking their hard earned money on shows with less than stellar reviews. Unless you're independently wealthy (and/or supported by your parents), you have to be careful how you spend your money if you want to keep a roof over your head in this extremely expensive city and throwing it away on junk is not the wisest move.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in the original post. But let me just say, if not for the opinions expressed on this board, I may not have "committed" three hours to Light in the Piazza.
As far as the comment of Rodgers and Hammerstein......to that I say "Thank God!"
I always encourage people to see a show before forming an opinion. Now, sure, I listen to people's opinions of shows before I go, but they don't really deter me from seeing a show (they may convince me to see a show, but never the other way).
There's agreat article in this week's Variety that talks about pre-Broadway tryouts and word-of-mouth, and how only the sure-fire hits benefit from out-of-town tryouts.
Your avatar is making it really hard for me to breathe, iluvtheatertrash.
... back to topic.
On a serious note, we are all sort of guilty of this, I guess. We try to spread positive word of mouth with threads like the "plea" ones we've got going now, but the internet is a breeding ground for word of mouth that can kill a show - people who see early out of town tryouts, and things, and then post about how horrid it is.
I think what is being said here is don't say something sucks, if you haven't seen it. He is not saying don't listen to the opinions of othere to decide wheter or not you want to see a show. Take for instance this Michael Crawford thing that was going on a while backago, so many people on a great deal of message boards would go on sayin that Michael Crawford is the best and the only Phantom, but if you were to ask these people if they have ever actualy seen his performance in the show many of them would say no. How can one say he is the best if you haven't actualy seen him do it? How can you say Christina Applegate sucks in Sweet Charity if you live in Fresno and never made it to New York to see her in the show? If you haven't seen it then your opinion really is not woth that much. I love reading reviews, both professional and ameture alike, but these are reviews, meaning they have seen the show. Word of mouth is a good thing. By all means say, "I heard this was really bad." or "I heard this rocked." but don't say "This is bad" without actualy knowing.
Even discounted theater tickets can still be expensive for some of us, and we're not going to pay that much for something we've been told we probably won't like. If I were rich, I'd probably see everything, but that's not really possible.
There are people who run around saying, "PHANTOM SUCKS!" who have never seen it. I just think that, before we form our own opinion, we need to see the show.
If you have no desire to see it then, frankly, you shouldn't bother having an opinion.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
I got what you were saying. And I agree with you. I'll even take it a step further.
There are people who KNOW they won't like a show, go see it so they can say "well, I saw it", and then gleefully slam the show in every thread they can to keep others from having any interest in seeing the show.
And those who rely on other people's opinions to make up their mind about which show to see will stay away from a show that just may have been perfect for them.
* disclaimer for those determined to make this thread about money: This has nothing to do with people who can't afford to see every show. This has to do with people who have the money in hand, and are waiting in the TKTS line. They see two shows listed and think "hmmm....so and so on the BBW boards trashed this show..I won't see that one".
"My dreams, watching me said, one to the other...this life has let us down."
"People have their opinions and that doesn't mean that their opinions are wrong or right. I just take it with a grain of salt because opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one".
-Felicia Finley-
really? I was never a Les Miz fan until I saw it in SF only a couple of years ago, so I don't know the whole backstory regarding the show. Did it really open and catch on only because of word of mouth? I always thought it opened and was a smash hit immediately.
"My dreams, watching me said, one to the other...this life has let us down."
LES MIS (the english version) had its world premiere at the Barbican Theatre in London, Sep 30 1985. The reviews weren't that great, mostly mixed. According to Cameron MacIntosh himself he was prepared to close the show quite early after the opening night but very soon after the opening night he visited the box office of the Barbican (not a West End theatre in London) and found out that they had sold about 5000 tickets that morning only. So the word of mouth had had a positive effect in a matter of days even though the reviews weren't exactly praising the production. And CM decided to move the show to the West End's Palace Theatre where it had its West End opening Dec 4th 1985, a little over two months after its world premiere in the Barbican.
GIDGER. It's UTterly predictable. Predictablepredictablepredictable. You know what's going to happen from the SECond the maid enters with the bowl of roses - JOHN. Tickets are impossible to come by; when did you even see it? GIDGER. See it? Oh, I have no interest in seeing it. Seeing it might get in the way of my opinion.
I don't think saying "It stinks," (having not even seen the show that's in question) and "I heard it stinks," are remotely the same thing.
The first statement would be irresponsible and misleading, if the person is discussing the entire show. But to say, "I heard it stinks," is merely repeating either someone else's opinion or a consensus opinion, and I don't see anything wrong with that, in and of itself... if it's taken exactly for what it is. Just heresay.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Until then, most shows were bright and flashy. Most, not all. In comes Les Mis, dark with all the main characters dying (not to mention it was an English import).
But, hell, Cameron could have made Good Vibrations live for 5 years. Updated On: 9/14/05 at 09:02 PM