Avenue Q = Just OK?

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:08am

So...i finally saw Avenue Q last night. And Before anyone chops my head off, let me say that I enjoyed it.

HOWEVER!!! i didn't think it was great. Maybe it's cause I watch family guy and my sensitivity level is already at it's lowest point...but i just didn't think the show was THAT hysterical (and if you're looking for laughs...go see jewtopia).

For example...the wife (xmas eve i believe?)....a chinese accent does not deserve laughs in this day in age. that's like a second grade joke...it's just not that funny.

however, i think the biggest reason for this was the lack of enthusiasm by the performers. maybe it's because i went to a tuesday night show and they have two performances tomorrow...but i don't pay good money to see a broadway show in order to see a half assed performance. In each song you could tell that they were holding back on their voices, and I just didn't feel that "in your face" kind of intensity. i was very disappointed.

My other issue was the sound....i could barely hear a thing...which is a problem in a comedy. when you tell a joke, you either have to wait for the laughter to die down, or turn up the volume. instead, you would hear a joke...people would laugh...and then you'd miss the next five lines.

I don't know if the shows on broadway just aren't as good, or if people's expectations have been lowered, but i just don't think that the quality of shows on broadway is what it used to be (and I know most people on this board are obsessed with these shows and are going to kill me...but here it goes anyway) Wicked...good...not GREAT. Hairspray...good...not great. Brooklyn...barely even good...and definitely not great (except for the lead...wow, what a voice). and Avenue q...definitely very good...but definitely not great.

When Rent first opened..that was a GREAT show. but if you've seen it at the beginning, and you've seen it now...you KNOW that it's just not as good as it once was. now it's like..."hey, you sing? you wanna be on broadway? we'll put you in Rent and maybe you can start a career" Like I said, i pay a lot of money to see great shows and great performances...and they're just not there anymore.

so, my rant and rave is over. i know most people on this board wanna kill me cause theyr'e so obsessed with wicked, and avenue q, and hairspray...but i know what i've seen..and it hasn't been that good.

[Corine2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:12am

Huh?
Look, you are entitled to your opinion. I just can't believe it.
You are comparing Jewtopia (the most annoying show of the year)
to Avenue Q?
Why? What was funny about Jewtopia? Was it that every Jewish character sounded like Fran Drescher or a valley girl?
Great theater!
Sorry you did not enjoy Q. I found it to be one of the most adorable shows on or Off Broadway.
I also think the entire cast on AVENUE Q put passion into what they do.
Stephanie, Rick, Jen and Barrett are especially talented.
Jewtopia on the other hand made me cringe. I could not stand it.
My best friend found it so offensive she wanted to leave.

Updated On: 5/4/05 at 09:12 AM

[Raggy Q poo]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:25am

I, like Corine, loved Avenue Q 100X more than Jewtopia. I didn't find Jewtopia offensive or 'bad', but I just thought Q had much more energy and excitment. You are entitiled to your opionion and thats ok. Thats why there is vanilla, chocolate, strawberry...etc...
Nobody is gonna kill you or chop your head off.

Updated On: 5/4/05 at 09:25 AM

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:27am

i don't think jewtopia is a GREAT show...but i definitely laughed more during jewtopia than i did during avenue q. maybe i watch too much family guy which is easily the most offensive show on tv...and i think that is hysterical.....but avenue q was going for that offensive/funny comedy, and i just don't think it was over the line enough.

and in response to the actors in AQ being so great....that may be so...but they lack the professionalis to give 100% everynight. if they can't handle putting out 100% each night, then they should be rotating in understudies.

[Corine2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:32am

Where were you sitting.
I saw it 6 fantastic times and each and everytime was fantastic.
I have never seen a bad performance.
EVER.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:38am

I guess Ave Q just wasn't over the line enough for you. I don't watch Family Guy, nor does it interest me, nor does Jewtopia because I'm originally from Houston and probably would not be able to identify with it much, but I loved Ave Q. When I saw the show, I was in the rear orchestra and the sound was great. I heard everything. It sounds like you had high expectations going in that the show was not written to meet. It's not as offensive as Family Guy because it's not trying to be. It's just doing it's own thing and as far as being unique, witty, and intelligent, I think it's a winning show. Yes, the Christmas Eve accent is an old joke, but it still works just as it worked for South Park and Team America and Margaret Cho. Seeing as it is modeled after Sesame Street, the ethnic accent made it even funnier considering nearly all the "real" people on Sesame Street sounded like White Americans, regardless their ethnicity. It was funny and I loved it and I'll probably see it again. The Bad Idea Bears had me in tears.

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:39am

i was sitting in row 0 on the center aisle seat. but i don't think that has to do with it...the theater is tiny. i just wasn't that impressed, that's all. it was a good show, and i enjoyed myself very much...just didn't live up to the hype.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 9:48am

I do plan on seeing the "Q" someday in the next few months, but there is nothing on the OBCR that makes me want to run out and see it.

For you "Q" fans out there, how well does the recording hold up to the live performance.

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:06am

and what does everyone think about the quality of shows these days? i know everyone loves wicked and avenue q and hairspray...but do you think they stand up to the classic greats? les miz, phanton, or even 42nd street?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:31am

When I think of classic greats, I think of Oklahoma, West Side Story or Gypsy, but I don't try to compare new shows with the old. I think classics stand the test of time and cannot be determined until at least 25 years down the road. Every decade has created its classics as will this one. So far in this decade, I think Urinetown, Hairspray, The Producers, Wicked and Caroline or Change will probably fall into the "classic" category either for their artistic merit or their renown. Avenue Q might make it as well, but it is not something that will likely be revived or carry a life in regional productions as it is highly specialized and very much of this time and place. I do think that it is an important work that earned its place, but Wicked will most likely outlive the show in the history books. You can probably count on Spamalot to make it into the classic category as well, like the show or not.

[Loppy]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:51am

"I was sitting in row O on the center aisle. but i don't think that has to do with it"

It may not entirely, but it may play into it a bit. I've seen Q four times...twice in the first four rows, once in the read orch, and once in the mezz. Both times that I was closer to the stage I enjoyed it more. You pick up on more of the tiny details up close. I loved it each time, however.

I'm very surprised to hear "lack of enthusiasm" or "unprofessional" when used to describe the cast of AVENUE Q. I've heard people who haven't enjoyed the humor, however, I've NEVER heard of people who didn't find the cast to be across the board phenominal.

Of course, you just listed "The Phantom of the Opera" as a "classic great" so it's probably fairly safe to say that we don't really have the same opinions.

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:35am

i'm actually not a huge fan of phantom, but as mentioned above...it's a classic. and to be honest, i'm suprised that i said "lack of enthusiasm" as well...but it was what it was. i've seen my fair share of shows and been in my fair share of shows and i know when an actor isn't giving their all and last night they certainly weren't.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:42am

It is interesting that the "classics" you chose to compare with are modern classics and far from what people consider broadway "classics" such as rogers and hamerstein shows, cole porter, kander and ebb,....etc etc.

I'm sorry that you did not enjoy the show. All I can say is that I have seen the show 3 times on different nights of the week, with different cast and the performances have been nothing but amazing! I too watch family guy but the comparison just isnt valid. They have nothing to do with each other. Again, I'm sorry you disliked the show, it is not a show for everyone. But it does not dimish how great this show is!

[Corine2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:42am

Can you honestly look at Barrett Foa and say he lacks anything.

You should have seen him at the Lortels.
He looked adorable in a pink dotted shirt and tie.
I just want to pinch his face.
So adorable!
He is the only member of Q that I have not met.
And the guy who plays Brian. Updated On: 5/4/05 at 11:42 AM

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:58am

yes, i can honestly look at Barrett Foa and say he lacks something. i'm sure he's great, but last night i just wasn't blown away. i've heard how talented he is, but like i said, it seemed liek they were holding back.

[mirramar]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 12:00pm

I HATED Jewtopia.

[Corine2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 12:05pm

Mirramar-
I hated it beyond words.
Such an insult to single Jewish women.
We don't all sound like the nanny.
HUMPH!

Posted: 5/4/05 at 12:42pm

Modern classics? harumph. It's always hard to predict what show will grow in esteem and which will flounder. West Side Story was said to be lacking when it debuted on Broadway and it wasn't until the movie took off that people starting thinking it was "Classic."

Theatre is also the medium where you can't compare the shows of yesterday with today. I doubt anyone on this board saw the original Oklahoma or Guys & Dolls. Probably damn few even saw the original cast of Phantom or Les Miz. And even if you could compare "Cats" to "Avenue Q" you've lived a span of 25+ years- how your expectations and experiences have changed!

I will say that nothing peeves me more than going to see a show where the cast is coasting. Unforgivable! I saw "Annie Get your Gun" long into Bernadette's run and was appalled- the cast was visibly bored with it, and so, needless to say, was the audience.

I hope you just had an off night- sounds like the rest of the board reports good performances.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 1:51pm

Phantom is certainly popular, but it takes a few decades before it reaches "classic" status, though I'm sure it will someday.

JoeKv - I know what you're saying. When I saw Rent last summer, I felt sorry for anyone seeing it for the first time (like my boyfriend) and was appalled that some of the actors were allowed to get paid for their "performances". It was the first time I'd ever seen performances phoned in on Broadway (though I've seen it in the West End) and I was pissed.

[MissNY]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 1:55pm

"Can you honestly look at Barrett Foa and say he lacks anything"

Amen to that Corine! I know that Q is not for everybody, and I have no problem with the fact that you didn't love it. But i too am surprised that you found the cast to be lacking in enthusiasm. I've seen the show 8 or 9 times and have never had that feeling. I find that the energy they give off is incredible. I've sat everywhere from front row to row G of rear mezz and have enjoyed it every single time. Though obviously, the closer you are, the more fun it is. Its always possible that actors will have an off night, but if you found the entire cast to be lacking, I dont think that was it. I'm glad you did find some enjoyment in it at least.

[QtKt]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 2:07pm

(in agreeance with Corine and MissNY and Joekv)
I've seen the show 15 times since it opened, and every performance has been fantastic. I've never had the feeling that they weren't giving it their all, though I completely understand if they're having an off day, I feel that they still go on and give the best performance they can.
I've never been disappointed, though that has been the case with some other shows I have seen. Hence the fact I keep going back to Q, where I know I won't be disappointed.

"For example...the wife (xmas eve i believe?)....a chinese accent does not deserve laughs in this day in age. that's like a second grade joke...it's just not that funny."
Yet the Jewtopia jokes worked for you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions, and i'm sorry you fell that way about Q, I hope you go see it again, maybe win the lotto or something, and have a better experience.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 3:09pm

"...what does everyone think about the quality of shows these days?

Since 9/11 the emphasis has been on light, fun, silly, sarcastic shows like HAIRSPRAY, MILLIE, or AVENUE Q. It's too much of a muchness: We are back to where the theatre was in the 1930s: spectacle and high entertainment value but low on substance. I have to credit WICKED with at least trying to touch on some serious issues, but judging from what I read from the WICKED-heads here, most of it sails over their heads. It is too bad that so much of the novel was lost in translation. But then maybe the show would not have been as popular.

So many people love the works of Sondheim. I wish more of the contemporary writers would follow his lead and layer more subtext into the writing. The great playwrights do this: O'Neill, Williams, Miller and Albee. While most Broadway songwriters are happy just to come up with two lines that rhyme (sometimes not even properly) few take the time to choose words with resonances for the characters and situation. That's the secret of Sondheim's success. Not a very well kept secret but one that seems increasingly esoteric to musical theatre writers these days.

Laziness is the biggest obstacle here: People want the familiar and don't want to pay attention in the theatre. They want to sit there munching on their M&M's passively watching instead of getting emotionally involved.

Sad thing is if the theatre catered only to the true theatre fans that do want to focus on the stage (and don't need food or drink or cell phones while watching the show) shows would run months instead of years and never make any money. To survive the theatre needs to reach that mass audience.

[whatyouown223]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 4:03pm

I, for one, think Rent's current cast is every good as bit as the original.

[ahhhhpoop]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 4:16pm

"I, for one, think Rent's current cast is every good as bit as the original."

i haven't seen the show in at least a year...but, i saw it with the original cast, and each time after that was worse and worse and worse. however, i was at each show with people who had never seen the show before...had never seen the original cast, and they seemed to have enjoyed it as much as i did the first time i saw it.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 4:19pm

Rent's current cast is a disgrace with a few exceptions. Diana Karrina, Caren Lyn Manuel, Josh Kobak (if he is still there), and Merle Dandridge... all are delightful performers. Other than that.. RENT should be completely recast, retaining only those performers.