"Reviewing" first or very early previews- Page 2

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 9/28/16 at 7:38pm

This board is really more of a case of word-of-mouth than of reviews, albeit accelerated word-of-mouth.  And i agree with what people have posted:  full-price tickets make sharing one's opinion a perfectly valid thing to do, not just legally but ethically.  Here in my city, there are a number of local theatre companies that do actually charge significantly discounted prices, e.g. either half price or sometimes even lower ($10 or $20) for a few preview shows, and then they switch to their regular pricing.  I see that much less often with Broadway shows.  A few seem to have some kind of gimmick pricing (e.g. $15.95 for a show set in 1595, etc.) for a few shows, and in that case i really would treat those performances more like protected developmental stages than the ones that are already charging the public full price. 

        Personally, i only read reviews or discussions on this board if i have already seen a show and am curious to see if others reacted similarly to how i did, or if i have decided that i won't see it due to uninteresting subject matter, or if i have never heard of it before and don't know what the thread is about.  In the latter two cases, i sometimes read discussion boards or reviews in case there is a general consensus that something great is happening, in which case i might change my mind and decide to go see it after all.  If i already know that i want to see something either because of the creative team, subject matter, or performer(s), then i don't want to know what anyone else thinks until i have formed my own opinion first with a minimum of extra information. I have ended up seeing shows that i wasn't planning to see after reading about them on here (sometimes without even having heard of them via any other channel).  But i have never decided not to see a show that i was already planning to see. 

        Social media allows shows to find more of an audience by amplifying word of mouth beyond the reaches of just local theatre-goers or the occasional tourists who happen to know other tourists seeing shows in NYC.  Shows tend to stay open longer now than in the past, causing more theatres to be occupied with long-running shows than 40-50 years ago, and ticket prices have increased faster than inflation over that time period, so producers/shows seem to be benefiting from the widespread word of mouth that the internet provides.  But the flip side is that if many people don't like the show, people may hear about that too.  But without the internet, many shows used to close quickly without finding an audience, even if they were well-liked by those who saw them.  At least now such shows have more of a fighting chance for people who might like them to actually hear about them on time.

[kristinj1]

Posted: 9/28/16 at 11:55pm

I've seen shows change radically during previews, including mediocre shows becoming great, so I always think it's wise to take early comments with a huge grain of salt. 

Based on many years of experience, the three areas where I specifically tend to discount pre-opening feedback are;

1)  Vocal quality and/or energy, as actors are often doing long daytime rehearsals prior to evening previews and may be extremely tired.
2)  Show length, which I've seen change by 30+ minutes during previews, particularly with new material or tech-heavy shows.
3)   Overall flow of show, as actors are sometimes taking the stage with material they only received earlier that day and the show hasn't gelled yet.

For all of the above reasons I think previews should be sold at reduced prices to audiences who understand what they're buying, but I realize that doesn't often happen these days.  I also really dislike it when critics base reviews on previews, which they rarely disclose, but I know it sometimes happens at least in Regional markets.

 

Posted: 9/29/16 at 2:22am

It's a fascinating discussion. I saw "Shuffle Along" twice -- the very first preview (WHICH I LOVED!) and two weeks later where it was a whole lot shorter but somehow, to me, not as good.  

At that first preview I was so excited -- I felt like everything was there, just needed pruning -- except there was no 'outro' music as the audience filed out of the theater.  I thought that was deliberate, and felt it was a choice, and was a stark difference between that show and everything else happening.  But then two weeks later there WAS music as the audience left -- somehow the overall impact for the show was diminished, even though I could see it was tighter and a more workable length.  I was so rooting for this show to get it together that it never occurred to me to write anything -- because it would have been negative.

To me, that's the dividing line -- those are real people up there, it's a work-in-progress -- if I love it I won't be shy in saying that -- but if I don't, I don't want to pile on and make it worse for them while they still have a chance to get it right.  

But I come from the folk music tradition.  The magazine "Sing Out!" has been published for more than 50 years. They don't publish bad reviews.  Their philosophy is that they do not want to take up valuable space trashing someone's work when there is plenty of good work that never gets reviewed because there's only so much space each issue.  Of course with the internet there's no shortage of space, so that argument is moot.  

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 5:20am

adam.peterson44 said: "This board is really more of a case of word-of-mouth than of reviews, albeit accelerated word-of-mouth.  And i agree with what people have posted:  full-price tickets make sharing one's opinion a perfectly valid thing to do, not just legally but ethically...

"

There has never been a LEGAL aspect to this. Even a professional critic COULD publish their review.....it's simply common courtesy not to.  (There only recourse the producers have is refusing to give the publication or writer comps to future productions of theirs.)

 

Didn't a few publications get tired of Spider-Man's games and publish before the actual opening?

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 7:04am

Several critics broke embargo and reviewed SPIDER MAN prior to the official opening, including Brantley. 

[rjm516]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 7:05am

It totally depends on the publication and reviewer. If it's posting on these boards or on most of our tiny insignificant blogs, then it's not an issue. If it's a professional reviewer in a mainstream publication, that's not acceptable. Of course the problem lies with the ever-blurring line between professional and non, but for 99% of the cases it's clear.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 8:49am

All of us on this board might know the difference between a preview and regular performance, but I can guarantee you that not all ticket buyers know or understand the difference. I was at Heisenberg last night and some tourists struck up a conversation about the show (how long has it been running, etc). I mentioned that it had an off-Broadway run before making the transfer to this theater on Broadway. "Oh, so this theater is considered Broadway even though it's not on Broadway!" I told them that it was still in previews, but not to fear because they had been working with the material for so long that it should feel like a regular performance. "What's a preview?"

I'm not sharing this to denigrate these tourists at all, but rather to illustrate how little the general public may understand about the preview process. If they hadn't liked the show and tweeted or posted about it, I'm sure they would have been baffled if someone had snapped that it was only a preview and to give the show a break. They were fans of Mary-Louise Parker and bought tickets without knowing if it was the first performance or if Heisenberg had been running longer than Wicked! 

Sometimes shows do pull a Shuffle Along or 13 and change a lot during previews, but they are the exception, not the rule. I will often go back to see shows later in previews/after opening and it is shocking how little many shows actually change. 

Decades ago shows would preview sometimes for just a handful of days and yet it seems more work was done during that brief time than in the month of previews most shows afford themselves these days. Shows like Big Fish and Catch Me If You Can played 34 and 32 previews respectively and changed little to nothing during that period, even though both shows could have used some serious work; I saw Big Fish 3 times and Catch Me 4. 

The Encounter was too long, as are most shows at their first preview! I think it's a given that even the worst of shows will tighten up a bit over the preview period. Sometimes saying the runtime is too long is less of an insult than a disclaimer that a good part of the reason I may have only liked this rather than loved it is because the ideas are good, but the presentation is currently a little messy. 

Prices for previews are truly through the roof. It can't be stressed enough. At the time the box office opened for The Encounter the cheapest seat (last two rows in the mezz I believe) was $89! Sorry, let me spell that out for you so I can use all caps, EIGHTY-NINE DOLLARS! I think those have since been lowered to $69, but for many weeks the cheapest seat being sold in previews was $89. Of course, around here we all know how to use discounts, TDF, lotteries, rush lines, etc, but not everyone is aware. 

As far as the actors go, yes performances get better over time, but you will never see the cast more excited and enthusiastic than at the first preview. After weeks/months/possibly years of rehearsals, workshops, try-outs, tech week (I'm in tech!) they are finally in front of an audience on Broadway and unless the show is such a trainwreck that the set is falling down around them, their spirits will be high and the energy palpable. 

 

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 8:56am

"Decades ago shows would preview sometimes for just a handful of days and yet it seems more work was done during that brief time than in the month of previews most shows afford themselves these days."

 

Some examples, please?

[AC126748]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 9:05am

I think he is conflating a shorter preview period with a more substantial turnaround on revisions. But as others have noted, extensive out-of-town tryouts used to be common -- sometimes multiple tryouts for one show -- whereas now they are the exception, not the rule. A lot of work was done on the road that would today get done during the preview period.

[Broadwaybeauty2]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 9:37am

I say we leave the "reviews" to the professionals and we read each others threads just as they are intended. A nice bunch of theatre lovers who enjoy a good show.

[kristinj1]

Posted: 9/29/16 at 10:05am

WhizzerMarvin said: "As far as the actors go, yes performances get better over time, but you will never see the cast more excited and enthusiastic than at the first preview. After weeks/months/possibly years of rehearsals, workshops, try-outs, tech week (I'm in tech!) they are finally in front of an audience on Broadway and unless the show is such a trainwreck that the set is falling down around them, their spirits will be high and the energy palpable."

This hasn't usually been my experience with first previews, except for shows that arrive at a theatre fully polished.  Actors are usually exhausted from tech and are saving energy to get through the remaining previews.  They're often unsure of how scenes will play to an audience and can be wrong-footed or not fully in the moment.  I usually find that fully-energized and excited performance comes later... often at opening.

One way to verify this is that, in my experience, actors very rarely encourage friends and family to attend their first preview to see the show at its best.
 

Updated On: 9/29/16 at 10:05 AM