Disney's NEWSIES On Broadway -- Previews- Page 4

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 9:56am

CukorLover,

It must have been around 5 PM.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 9:57am

I mean both 9 to 5 and Crybaby had very effusive previews audiences who were very vocal and ecstatic but both shows flopped due to the realization that that material overall was subpar.

I think Newsies has two things going for it the others did not:

1) The Disney brand
2) Broader audience appeal

I also personally think it has a stronger score than the other two you mentioned. It's score was one of the reasons the film developed a cult following in the first place.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 10:28am

Just thought I'd chime in. I've never seen the movie before so I didn't know any of the songs and only knew a basic outline of the story.

I was pretty blown away. I'm generally not one who likes the big commercial stuff, but I had a fantastic time. It's going to be a massive, massive hit. I've never been more sure of the fate of a show. Not only will be it a huge it, I think it's significantly better than the long-running shows on Broadway, which I feel it will likely join years from now.

This is easily Alan Menken's best theatre score. Now I don't know what was in the movie, so maybe the statement could/should be amended, but this felt like a real score, as opposed to the songs from the movie plus filler like a lot of the Disney shows.

Choreography and dancing was fantastic and the dialogue snappy. I've never seen an audience react the way they did at this performance. Literally show stopping.

[Nick Murphy]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 11:04am

Saw the show Monday night and was disappointed. There is no emotional involvement in any of the characters and the new songs range from dull to awful. The music is generally poorly produced and the orchestra sounds thin. The boys are all quite wonderful and Jeremy Jordan is superb. The dance numbers are fun but all seem the same. As others have mentioned, the audience goes wild right from the top of the show but as the evening went on I became aware that the loudest reactions came from the back of the house while people down front were merely polite in their response. I went in hoping for Oliver! but this isn't even close. It's a competent regional theatre production, nothing more, nothing less.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 11:20am

Just what is this "cult following" so many people say Newsies (the movie) has?

A "cult following" refers either to people who authentically love a quirky/unusual piece of work (Rocky Horror, Pink Flamingos), or to people who love a work because it's amazingly bad (Valley of the Dolls, Showgirls).

Since Newsies (the movie) can't be called quirky or unusual, do people mean there are audiences who love Newsies because of how bad it is?

Updated On: 3/20/12 at 11:20 AM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 11:35am

newintown- I think that's absolutely the case. Just Saturday one of the complaints I heard at intermission was that the dancing was 'too Broadway' in the show. The man was saying how it looked like kids dancing in the street in the movie, but here it was too precise. They were also peeved at the lyric changes in 'Seize the Day,' and when the original lyrics are merely the repetition of 'Neighbor to neighbor/Father to son/One for all/And all for one' (far from Sondheim) over and over again, I think either a lot of people have very bad taste in what's considered quality, or else there's a love for the ridiculousness that was the mistakes in the film.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 1:01pm

I was referring to a cult following as a fan base that didn't originate from the film's original release. A "cult following" doesn't always have to do with the quality or quirkiness of the subject. For example, Freaks and Geeks was not a bad series, nor was it especially quirky or unusual. But it developed a reputation as one of the best one-season series to have ever aired on television. It's not "mainstream" and not everyone is familiar with it, but it has very passionate fans.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 1:11pm

Newsies founds it audience through video and TV, I'm sure Disney Channel has replayed it many films before or after successful TV films like High School Musical and Camp Rock.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:13pm

I don't think that "cult following" is quite apt, if that's the case. I believe my definition above is the accepted one, and neither "Freaks and Geeks" or "Newsies" really fits the bill.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:23pm

newintown, I disagree that the object has to be, by some highly subjective defintion -- as any such definition would be -- quirky or unusual, though I would agree that much of the art that has garnered cult followings would fit such definitions.

Matt's assessment, I think, is more accurate -- an ardent, niche-ish devotition to something, specifically after mainstream popularity has passed it by.


EDIT: devotition. I'm keeping it.

Updated On: 3/20/12 at 02:23 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:29pm

Okay...I believe my definition is just as accepted as yours and "Freaks and Geeks" and "Newsies" fit the bill.

"Freaks and Geeks" is almost always paired with the term "cult" in any article on the show, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't "fit the bill". And if you Google "Newsies" and "cult", you'll find articles stating as such ranging from Wikipedia to Entertainment Weekly to The Daily Beast to Playbill and a variety of newspaper sites. None of them define the cult status of Newsies by the film being bad or quirky. There is a TON of material written using the exact definition of "cult" I explained, but hey, maybe I'm just making it all up.

[mklindstrom]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:30pm

I saw the first preview of Newsies last week and I totally loved it, and I pride myself in the fact that I have pretty good taste in theater. Newsies might have been a sub-par movie but the broadway musical is anything but "low quality". The choreography was incredibly difficult and every single boy on that stage nailed it, there was not one weak link. The staging worked well with the set and the direction was great.I actually was impressed with how emotionally connected all of the actors were throughout the show, especially Jeremy Jordan who brought a deeper level to the character of Jack Kelly in the prologue and Santa Fe. I've honestly never seen it done with such energy and passion before, so kudos to him for that. Other standouts in the cast were Kara Lindsay and Ben Fankhauser, each of these broadway newbies really impressed me. While I love the original Denton character (and especially Bill Pullman), Lindsay made me believe in Katherine and her addition to the show. I really wanted to not like her but I ended up loving her (especially in "Watch What Happens". Everyone should really see this show, regardless of anyone's opinion it is a must see for this season.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:40pm

Something with a cult following does NOT have to be quirky or "so bad it's good." It's definitely true that many shows/movies that have cult followings ARE in fact quirky or so bad it's good, but it is not a requirement.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 2:52pm

I could be more clear, true - "cult" following, like "camp" (in its original use, not a bastardized Entertainment-Weekly marketing speak sort of way), implies a certain (self-defined) additional layer of perception among the "cult" - they recognize a value in the work that is hidden to "philistines."

Thus, by that definition, the work has to be something that is misunderstood by the masses, who aren't aesthetically equipped to "get it" (not simply dismissed as low-quality bland commercial fare, like the film "Newsies," or a comparable... say, any Hugh Jackman romantic comedy).

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:14pm

Where is that implied? You're working off of "that definition" is a definition that you've stated. Of course "by that definition" it will support your argument, you created that definition!

I would, OF COURSE, agree that a large portion of cult fixations are exactly what you are stating it to be. But there's no need to be so narrow in definition, and there are certainly exceptions to this. Actual definitions (as in, in the dictionary) would also say that most cult items fit these guidelines, but you won't find one that says it HAS to or it's not cult.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter even. These don't fit your definition, but I don't see how it's is possible to truly argue that they don't have a cult following.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:17pm

Thus, by that definition, the work has to be something that is misunderstood by the masses, who aren't aesthetically equipped to "get it"...

But only as defined by the "cult" in your first paragraph and the opinions aren't always so lofty (as with the so-bad-it's-good subjects like Showgirls). There is a lot of stuff I consider garbage that has a cult following, but my opinion of the subject doesn't negate the existence of its cult following. Maybe you don't think Newsies is worthy of a cult following, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

Updated On: 3/20/12 at 03:17 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:26pm

I'm pretty sure that Star Wars and Harry Potter are far too popular to be described as cult classics. Where's the cult? Star Trek is now as well (although when it was first cancelled, it definitely did have a cult following).

As I pointed out above, the term once had a truly specific meaning; entertainment marketing and journalism has watered it down, because so many people would like to congratulate themselves that they are part of an elite qualified "cult" that recognizes quality that others cannot, bestowing the term upon successful mainstream fodder (Harry Potter?), bland and unsuccessful commercial fare (Newsies, the movie), as well as true cult favorites.

I think the site below makes a good first stab at a simple definition.
Cult Classics

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:27pm

This one may be even better.
More on "Cult"

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:36pm

So your argument that all cult movies have to be be quirky/unusual or so bad it's good includes Willy Wonka, Scarface, and (most bafflingly) The Shawshank Redemption?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:37pm

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

!

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:40pm

I confess, I don't get the Shawshank inclusion...

But then, I didn't compile either list - I was looking more at the definitions (as I said).

But honestly - you don't think Willy Wonka and Scarface are "good," do you? I think they both fall into the unintentional camp camp. I enjoy them, but not for the reasons intended.
Updated On: 3/20/12 at 03:40 PM

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:46pm

I don't like any of those three movies I listed. But I definitely know people who do. And if you asked them, they wouldn't say it was because they were quirky or subversive. They'd say they thought they were actually good. Newsies is the same for many.

Further, there are novies that I do love on those lists (Blade Runner, This Is Spinal Tap) that I find legitimately great. No camp value in my books.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:48pm

I do think "Willy Wonka" is good! It's not height of filmmaking, but it's at least "good." "Scarface" is a messy piece of trash.

I'd probably contest "Willy Wonka" as a cult movie, though, as it's got a pretty mainstream adoration, almost universally so.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:52pm

Clearly it's all too subjective to be agreed upon, except within each individual cult.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/20/12 at 3:55pm

I agree.