CHICKEN & BISCUITS - Reviews- Page 3

[JSquared2]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:33pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "With a play like this (no famous people involved and disastrous ticket sales), a NYT review can ABSOLUTELY make or break it. As anyone who has worked on Broadway shows will tell you, a rave NYT review will cause a sharp uptick in sales. It’s the only publication with that weight. The uptick might be short-lived, but it is the ultimate tastemaker for the core NYC theatergoing audience. Chicken and Biscuits was no doubt trying to appeal to that group (as any show does) being that they are on life support. And while I don’t have stats, I think there is a subset of the core ticket buying audience who does care about the name of the critic."

 

This was somewhat true twenty years ago.  Now...not so much.

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:47pm

Maya Phillips is GREAT, but her interests seem more vast than just theatre. I wonder if she would feel too constrained simply focusing on stage? Her recent pieces have included reviews of movies (Vivo, Shang Chi, Small Engine Repair, Free Guy), TV (Loki), art installations (Van Gogh), theatre (Williamstown, Lackawanna), and feature stories on all those artforms. She has also written poetry, and has a book about "nerd culture" coming out next year. Her current "Critic at Large" role might serve her best.

I don't know who I would recommend to the NYT as the next Isherwood. They also have a decent number of go-to second stringers (Elisabeth Vincentelli, Laura Collins Hughes, Alexis Soloski) from whom they could choose, though I hope they won't elevate one of them.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:48pm

Maya Phillips is GREAT, but her interests seem more vast than just theatre. I wonder if she would feel too constrained simply focusing on stage? Her recent pieces have included reviews of movies (Vivo, Shang Chi, Small Engine Repair, Free Guy), TV (Loki), art installations (Van Gogh), theatre (Williamstown, Lackawanna), and feature stories on all those artforms. She has also written poetry, and has a book about "nerd culture" coming out next year. Her current "Critic at Large" role might serve her best.

I don't know who I would recommend to the NYT as the next Isherwood. They also have a decent number of go-to second stringers (Elisabeth Vincentelli, Laura Collins Hughes, Alexis Soloski) from whom they could choose, though I hope they won't elevate one of them.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:48pm

I guess I’m just comparing now to when I was a teenager in the 1990’s devouring the criticism of Frank Rich, John Simon, and Ben Brantley. No one - not even Jesse Green - has that kind of power anymore.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:56pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "With a play like this (no famous people involved and disastrous ticket sales), a NYT review can ABSOLUTELY make or break it. As anyone who has worked on Broadway shows will tell you, a rave NYT review will cause a sharp uptick in sales. It’s the only publication with that weight. The uptick might be short-lived, but it is the ultimate tastemaker for the core NYC theatergoing audience. Chicken and Biscuits was no doubt trying to appeal to that group (as any show does) being that they are on life support. And while I don’t have stats, I think there is a subset of the core ticket buying audience who does care about the name of the critic."

Yeah, maybe. I won't read that NYT review because of the paywall, so I wouldn't know. Twitter and Instagram, however can provide a much bigger and better picture whether the show is worth seeing and who the audience is. The name of the NYT critique and what their opinion of the piece is not relevant for the 20s-30s crowd.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 12:56pm

I think it has little yo do with the writer...social media has reduced that power....and we start hearing opinions withe the first previews.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:02pm

No, the power of critics has definitely become democratized, and the idea of a "star critic" sort of died with Brantley's retirement and the deaths of Clive Barnes and John Simon.

The publication is paramount: the Times is #1 by a longshot. Followed by the WSJ, Chicago Trib (which also appears in Daily news), Washington Post, and NYMag/Vulture. Then the trades (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline). Then the lower-level dailies/weeklies/TV (NYPost, TimeOut, amNY, NY1, pix11). Then the theatre publications and independent bloggers.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:07pm

gibsons2 said: "Twitter and Instagram, however can provide a much bigger and better picture whether the show is worth seeing and who the audience is. The name ofthe NYT critique and what their opinion of the piece is not relevant for the 20s-30s crowd."

Twitter/Instagram/TikTok are a great extension of word of mouth if you trust the opinions of the friends who are recommending the shows there. But it's a small bubble. As we've seen with BE MORE CHILL and plenty of other shows that had rabid online fanbases, that online buzz does not matter in the slightest if the critical consensus (or a brand name like Beetlejuice) isn't there. It's all about getting people into the theatre to see a show in the first place; reviews and feature stories and Tony Awards can do that.

The 20-30 crowd is not any producer's target audience –– it's nice if they show up, but they are tough to convert and often aren't paying top-dollar for tickets. That's not great for the future of theatre, but producers can only think short-term.

Updated On: 10/11/21 at 01:07 PM

[gibsons2]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:33pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "gibsons2 said: "Twitter and Instagram, however can provide a much bigger and better picture whether the show is worth seeing and who the audience is. The name ofthe NYT critique and what their opinion of the piece is not relevant for the 20s-30s crowd."

Twitter/Instagram/TikTok are a great extension of word of mouth if you trust the opinions of the friends who are recommending the shows there. But it's a small bubble. As we've seen with BE MORE CHILL and plenty of other shows that had rabid online fanbases, that online buzz does not matter in the slightest if the critical consensus (or a brand name like Beetlejuice) isn't there. It's all about getting people into the theatre to see a show in the first place; reviews and feature stories and Tony Awards can do that.

The 20-30 crowd is not anyproducer's target audience –– it's nice if they show up, but they are tough to convert and often aren't paying top-dollar for tickets. That's not great for the future of theatre, but producers can only think short-term."

Well the 20s-30s should be the target audience. They are the future sole audience of the theater and they will never form their opinion based on what a NYT critique said from behind the paywall. Young people (or their parents) pay top dollar for very successful shows like Six, Beetlejuice. These shows became what they are now due to social media and word of mouth. Sure, people still make their ticket purchase decisions based on the antiquated opinion columns but it will be a thing of the past very soon. 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:39pm

gibsons2 said: "Well the 20s-30s should be the target audience. They are the future sole audience of the theater and they will never form their opinion based on what a NYT critique said from behind the paywall. Young people (or their parents) pay top dollar for very successful shows like Six, Beetlejuice.These shows became what they are now due to social media and word of mouth. Sure, people still make their ticket purchase decisions based on the antiquated opinion columns but it will be a thing of the past very soon."

Dude, you sure have a stick up your butt about the NYT paywall, don't you??  LOL!  Are you aware that you can read 10 articles a month for free?  Also -- how are today's 20-30 year olds the future SOLE audience?  Will there not be another generation after them (assuming the planet survives that long)?

 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 1:51pm

SouthernCakes said: "This is all such a strange issue. It harkens back to only actors of disabilities being able to play said disabilities. And I get it. But now we are saying white people review white people? And black people only review black people? I always hate the whole “you just didn’t get it.”

Tyler Perry’s stuff can be both funny and still not great quality."

Has anyone suggested that? Counter-balancing systemic racism by broadening the range of people providing opinions is not suggesting "white people [only] review white people." And Baritone certainly did not say that. Your false choice reinforces the very evil being addressed.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 2:17pm

As with most things, there are no single answers because there is no single audience, target or otherwise. Some people pay attention to specific reviewers, some to specific publications, and many to nothing. Certainly their are no outsized personalities like Rich today but that does not mean that I do not pay attention to whose review I am reading. (Hell, I do the same when I read reviews on here.) For some, it is the pull quote that defines the outer edge of their awareness. One thing we DO know is that the people in the best position to assess impact (i.e., producers) are eager not only to get reviews but to get the money review. As someone else said, a good review from the Times can indeed make a difference for a struggling show. And depending on the show, a bad review can kill it. Are there shows that are critic proof? Of course and ya know what, even Rich reviewed plenty that turned out that way and even wrote a book cataloging them. Our individual attitudes toward reviews doesn't mean diddly-squat: they remain a thing.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 5:40pm

My Bianca Del Rio imitation:

Let me ask you a Very Fair Question.  When WAS the last time a middlebrow, mainstream-minded comedy in the Neil Simon/George Kaufman/Yazmina Reza vein opened on Broadway to raves from the New York critics?  

Quickly. 

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 7:27pm

I mean short of across the board raves this show was done, they have been comping the house to death and I would be shocked if it was still running come thanksgiving 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 8:50pm

Personally, I take the same approach as I do to product reviews. 1) Identify a consensus 2) Verify if it has the features I'm looking for without significant drawbacks

I prioritize gathering as much information as I can about a show (without spoilers, preferably) more than finding out if someone liked or disliked it. 

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 10/11/21 at 8:50pm

Fair point BorstelBoy. It’s a comedy. It’s not gonna be for everyone. Move on.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 10/27/21 at 8:36pm

I think we'll hear a closing announcement from C&B this week.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 10/27/21 at 8:57pm

^any particular reason reason you say that, besides generally poor ticket sales? 

[adotburr]

Posted: 10/27/21 at 9:21pm

Let’s say this show does announce closing by end of a November. Could something go in Circle In The Square between December and March when American Buffalo moves in for previews? Would have to be a limited run so would it be worth it for that short of time?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 10/27/21 at 9:43pm

I don't think that will happen.

[jbm2]

Posted: 10/29/21 at 3:20pm

What age would this show be “appropriate“ for? Thinking of taking a 12 year old.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 10/29/21 at 3:53pm

jbm2 said: "What age would this show be “appropriate“ for? Thinking of taking a 12 year old."

Nothing "inappropriate" that they haven't seen or heard before -- but they'd probably be bored out of their mind.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 10/30/21 at 2:05pm

JBroadway said: "^any particular reason reason you say that, besides generally poor ticket sales?"

I've heard whispers from a couple of people who are right more often than they are wrong. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/31/21 at 9:56am

I went again last night and the show is much tighter than it was in previews and everyone is giving 110% the whole time. My friend who I brought was LIVING.

The only thing worth noting was that the theatre was depressingly empty. Like, whole rows and sections were empty. I venture the theatre was only about 30-40% full for a Saturday night. I can’t imagine this being open much longer. It’s a great, fun play, but I think the built in Audience has seen it already and there is ZERO marketing anywhere outside NYC

[Robbie2]

Posted: 11/2/21 at 7:24pm

quizking101 said: "I went again last night and the show is much tighter than it was in previews and everyone is giving 110% the whole time. My friend who I brought was LIVING.

The only thing worth noting was that the theatre was depressingly empty. Like, whole rows and sections were empty. I venture the theatre was only about 30-40% full for a Saturday night. I can’t imagine this being open much longer. It’s a great, fun play, but I think the built in Audience has seen it already and there is ZERO marketing anywhere outside NYC"

My agent friend said it probably won't last out the rest of the month