Profile for Andy Bates

10086Sundays said: "Because the initial exceptions of the show havekept a large number of people from seeing it at all, unfortunately, hence why it's closing. Despite the good word of mouth from those who see it anyway and walk out impressed. Exceeding expectations isn't bad, the low expectations are."

I was responding to the statement, "I'm glad people enjoyed it, but if the audience is surprised at the quality, something's not going ri

Kitsune said: "I'll admit I don't totally understand the resistance to the idea of Groundhog Day as a musical. But yes, I've also heard a lot of "I was surprised it was so good!" I'm glad people enjoyed it, but if the audience is surprised at the quality, something's not going right."

This makes no sense to me. A show exceeding expectations doesn't mean there's a problem with that show. It means that it over-delivered on what peo

blaxx said: "Not on Broadway, no. Any investor or producer would know what you mean by flop.

You can call it what you want with your own standards, the term won't change meanings within the industry."

The question of the thread is "How do you define a 'flop'?" The question wasn't, "What is the accepted standard industry term for a flop?"

Most of us aren't investors or producers. We're not in financial meet

HogansHero said: "See, this is why the non-economic definition is silly: what does it mean? That in your opinion a show is no good artistically? Once again we are back to finding euphemisms for " I didn't like it." Wouldn't you feel silly calling Mamma Mia a flop?"

Nonsense. First of all, language is inherently fluid and open to interpretation, so it seems arbitrary to say, "The specific economic definition is the only one that applies.&qu

Okay, here's my story: Last summer we took the kids to England for about ten days, and we were looking at shows to see while we were there. A friend of mine recommended Groundhog Day, which hadn't opened yet at that point. We all saw it early in our trip and loved it!

Then the last day of the trip, we didn't have anything to do that night, and I suggested seeing the show one more time (there were mezzanine tickets for like $20 each!). But we had a big travel day the next da

After Eight said: "What's "unfounded" about it? I saw it, and thought it was ghastly. The repetitive scenes were mind-numbing. The score was a chore and a bore. What more does one need say? Does one have to write a doctoral dissertation to proclaim a show bad, or ask and receive someone else's permission to claim it so?"

If you found the show repetitive, maybe you should have checked about the subject matter before seeing it.

N

After Eight said: "Frankly, I don't see why audiences should care to root for one, or why they should be expected to, or worse, obliged to. Not to mention that both the show's book and score were extremely bad."

Clearly you didn't get the show, especially if you don't understand the idea of having a character that can be relatable and still be an asshole. And I'm sure it got all those awards and Tony nominations because it

Owen22 said: "So many people (obviously including the creators) coming up with justifications for this number. Unfortunately, no redux explanation will work. It's structurally wrong and calls attention to itself (luckily it starts the Act so it doesn't necessarily interrupt the flow)."

Yeah, I don't know why a musical number would want to call attention to itself! It's almost like it was done intentionally. But if you want a show that doesn't do t

"And since I'm mentioning people who sang, there's a really beautiful song that the lyricist, Minchin, should get some credit for. I think it's called "Being Nancy", I think that's the name of the song, and there's a girl named Rebecca Faulkenberry who's sort of like the hot object of Punxsatawney, you know, if you can be the hot object dressed sort of like in a fur hat, almost like down clothing. She does it, she's very attractive.

But, this

raddersons said: I think what it comes down to is... Is it worth stopping the whole show (I mean seriously, the action freezes around her) just to have one minor character sing a ballad that really isn't necessary?

First of all, you're coming right off of the intermission and a 30-second entr'acte, so it's not like you're right in the middle of the action and suddenly everything stops. People are still finding their seats, putting down dr

It's an attempt to make the audience see the townspeople as more than just simple idiots, but it ends up being more jarring than moving. It goes completely against the flow of the first act and entr'acte, and audiences are left saying "Am I still seeing the same show?"

As previously noted, this is intentional.

It makes Nancy seem like she's going to be a major character down the line, but she isn't.

She was a promi

That's funny, because Playing Nancy is probably the song I've listened to the most off of the soundtrack. And just having seen the show this past week, here is my interpretation of why it's there.

First of all, for people saying it stops the flow of the show: Yes, it does that intentionally. The second act starts with a rousing entr'acte, with a crowd of people onstage...and then everyone freezes for the entire Playing Nancy solo. It's abundantly clear that the crea