The Pirate Queen: And It Isn't, It Isn't A Glorious Thing

[MungoGypsy8232]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:07pm

So broadwayworld.com posted a new article about our favorite current flop. It points out the hypocrital and bland mess that is the Pirate Queen. I think it's funny how one of the only positive points that they mention are the amount of 'large codpieces' that are in the show, but that can only take a show so far. I heard that the Hilton can drop the Pirate Queen if its intake drops below a certain point. Does anybody know what that point is or if the Hilton would, when that happens, oust its tenant? I don't want this to sound like a hate-thread, I'm just curious.
link

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:25pm

Are the reviews really affecting (effecting?) the audience participation? Everyone I've talked to could care less about the reviews.

[MungoGypsy8232]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:28pm

That's good! I really want to see it before it closes.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:29pm

Wow. What a pointlessly vicious and childish review. I didn't care for PQ, but this reviewer just seems to want to prove insulting they can be.

As regards to your question, every theatre has what is known as a "stop clause". That varies from show to show, but essentially, if a show continues to lose money, below some previously agreed-upon number, the theatre can indeed throw out the tenant, regardless of how deep the producers pockets are, and how willing they are to continue to lose money.

This could very well happen to PQ, as there has been talk of Young Frankenstein's interest in the Hilton.
Updated On: 4/29/07 at 08:29 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:31pm

Great article.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:55pm

I found that review to be childish. And, I'm sorry, but at least make sure you're spelling everyone's name right (Marcus CHIAT?).

[MungoGypsy8232]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 8:59pm

He was pretty mean, but who knows...maybe The Pirate Queen ran over Michael Dale's dog?

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 9:22pm

"It's okay to kill someone who is trying to stop you from robbing and terrorizing innocent people as long as you're a positive role model for young girls."

I can't figure out what the hell he's talking about here and I've seen the show a few times. Is there any chance this sentence is in reference to Wicked?

This very daring article has certainly broken new ground with its bold, unique view of an otherwise critically lauded show.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 10:30pm

"Critically lauded"?????

Exactly what show are you talking about, because it sure aint PQ.

[massofmen]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 10:34pm

no matter what this show is done in Nov anyway when the Grinch comes back in. The Grinch is the ONLY show that has made a profit in that theater.
Done and Done.

[galindagirl2]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 10:38pm

Stephanie J. Block was very engaging in this show. I don't know what the heck he's talking about.


[SPOILER!]
And P.S.!! The reason the queen's henchman (sorry, can't remember his name) becomes the "villain" in the end is because he refuses to accept the diplomatic agreement reached by the two women.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/29/07 at 10:39pm

Actually massofmen, the Grinch did not make it's money back.


Seanmartin, I think Tech was being facetious.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:30am

Tech, I think that quote was meant to imply that Grania O'Malley is just as faulted as her arch-nemesis, Lord Bingham, and to bitchily point out that the show covers up all faults to make her an upstanding member of society. Wicked-lite. I personally can't wait to see the next episode next Saturday morning.


And I agree wonderfulwizard11, Tech was being sarcastic (I hate the word "facetious") about the horrid originality of the article. I wonder what inspired BWW to publish this, anyway.

Updated On: 4/30/07 at 01:30 AM

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 8:36am

My greatest beef with this article is "Why now?" My god, the show opened a month ago and they're puting out a review now?

Plus I don't find the Queen Elizabeth costumes to be gaudy at all. By the looks of them, they are historicaly accurate.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 8:48am

>> Seanmartin, I think Tech was being facetious.

I sure hope so, but around here you never know. Remember what happened after the Chicago critics said it wasnt all that?

>> By the looks of them, they are historicaly accurate.

To a point, they are. I mean, the basic construction is right for the period, but some of the detailing does go a bit (excuse the pun) overboard. But hey, who said critics are historical authorities anyway?

[Tesse]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 12:38pm

I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Dale's review. Had the musical been based on the actual history of Grace O'Malley, it could have had plenty of dramatic intensity. By basing the show on a bodice-ripper, that's all we're left with onstage: a romance novel brought to life.

While I certainly appreciate fans' affection for a panned show (Lord knows I've loved my share of flops), I'm surprised at the venemous reaction to Mr. Dale's review. If you disagree, explain why using logical defenses. Name-calling isn't helpful, and only makes the show's fans (who are perfectly entitled to their opinions) seem unable to defend it maturely. Debate is good. Insults aren't.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 12:57pm

It's not that I disagree with Mr. Dale's review. Just about every critic out there had similar reactions to PQ. I don't see the point in publishing this three weeks after all the other nearly identical reviews came out, and I still can't figure out what this sentence means. It's just incoherent writing.

"Lesson 3: It's okay to kill someone who is trying to stop you from robbing and terrorizing innocent people as long as you're a positive role model for young girls."

What is he talking about? What innocent people? I don't remember Grania killing anyone other than British soldiers in PQ, and frankly the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been a little robbery or attempted robbery (i.e. piracy) taking place.

[beyondthebreakofday]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:22pm

What's the point? The show has been open for nearly a month and this article comes out now? There are plenty of other similar reviews that theatregoers can read if they are contemplating seeing this show(though it does appear that theatregoers could care less about these reviews).

It's ridiculous to put out a remarkably childish article at a time like this- There is a time to critique a show, but there comes a point when say, after a month, we need to have best wishes for the cast, crew, and creative team who worked so hard to put this show up, and are continuing to work hard with what they have. And if someone can't bring himself to have good wishes, he needs to simply keep his mouth closed.

[courtnyj]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:24pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the BWW reviews always come out a few weeks after opening?

[kec]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:33pm

I do believe the BWW reviews do come a few weeks after the rest of them.

[Tesse]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:39pm

Beyond--
How is the review childish? Could you point out some examples?

And you said:
"we need to have best wishes for the cast, crew, and creative team who worked so hard to put this show up, and are continuing to work hard with what they have. And if someone can't bring himself to have good wishes, he needs to simply keep his mouth closed."
Why does he "need" to keep his mouth closed? Mr. Dale is BroadwayWorld's first-string critic, and as he was offered a ticket to the show in exchange for sharing his views, I would venture to say he's entitled to say what he thinks.

And why do we "need to have best wishes" for everyone involved in the show? It's certainly a nice thing to wish them well, but necessary?

[courtnyj]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 1:39pm

So what's the big deal? Just because he hated the show like so many others his review shouldn't be posted?

[Popular]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:13pm

This show in particular took so many beatings that the timing of dishing out another blow weeks later when it's just starting to heal comes off in poor taste. I wouldn't get on BWW's case about why they post their reviews so late. If this was a better review nobody would be complaining about when it was posted.

In regards to the actual review, I agree with the person who changed the subject line... REDUNDANT.


Updated On: 4/30/07 at 02:13 PM

[TargemQ8]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 2:52pm

As a one-time BWW critic and friend of the "childish" Michael Dale, I'd like to try to clear up a few points:

BroadwayWorld.Com does not get press tickets for the opening nights of Broadway shows. Generally, Mr. Dale gets invited to the second press viewing, not to say the second night of the run. In this case, Mr. Dale was invited to attend the show over a week after the opening. When he arrived at the box office to get his press tickets, he was told that all press seats for the weekend were cancelled due to "cast illness". He found out later that Stephanie Block was not appearing in the show that weekend, and quite understandably, the press agents did not want the show reviewed without the leading lady in it. The seats were re-scheduled for the following week.

In addition to the forgivable delay caused by PQ's press people, Mr. Dale has a very full writing schedule as well as a day job, and I'm sure he got the review in as quickly as he could (he is also likely aware that his sentiments were expressed by earlier critics).

On a side note, I would like to point out that Ms Block is not given Star Billing over the shows' title. I would be baffled by this oversight (I may not have liked the show, but she is unquestionably deserving of top billing), if it were not for the practical fact that the audience does not have to be told that she will not be appearing until AFTER they have claimed their tickets.

I was with Mr. Dale when he finally saw Pirate Queen, and I was almost suprised that his review wasn't MORE vitriolic. It is hard to accuse the review of being childish when it is describing a show which treats its' audiences like idiot children. The lyrics insult our intelligence, the script insults the true story of Grainne O'Malley, and the phoney "girl power" moments are an insult to women everywhere.

I echo Tesse by asking for specifics of the "childishness".

[queenbee2]

Posted: 4/30/07 at 10:07pm

TargemQ8-

Any defense of Mr. Dale's inability to spell principal performers names correctly in his "review"?

-QB