13 Reviews- Page 4

[theminutepast]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:31pm

That was definitely not negative. It was mixed-negative.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:32pm

I would call the New York Times review mixed-positive not mixed-negative, but that may be because I was expecting a total dis and that's not what it is at all.

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:32pm

Keep in mind that the NY Times didn't give WICKED that great of reviews, look at that show.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:34pm

WICKED and THIRTEEN are totally different shows. WICKED had a semi-built-in fanbase, was doing well during previews, and had strong word of mouth. THRITEEN has none of those things.

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:36pm

13fans.com ...it has a fan base.
The show has changed drastically during previews.
Watch the word of mouth video on 13.


Also none of that stuff has anything to do with the fact that the NY Times didn't give WICKED good reviews, the 13 review is better than the original WICKED one.

Updated On: 10/5/08 at 10:36 PM

[bythesword84]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:37pm

I thought this show was incredibly entertaining and adorable, and I'm glad it didn't get ripped to pieces.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:43pm

All shows have fans. GOOD VIBRATIONS and CRY BABY had fans. And the Word of Mouth panelists gave positive reviews to THE PIRATE QUEEN, THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN', HIGH FIDELITY, and a bunch of other shows that got mixed if not scathing reviews and flopped. I don't think they are very credible sources of what the regular theater goer is telling their friends.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:44pm

Can someone link the NYTIMES article? I can't find it.

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:51pm

I guess the kids are alright after all... :crosses fingers:

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 10:57pm

"and a bunch of other shows that got mixed if not scathing reviews and flopped."

But 13 got positive reviews for the most part. Some mixed, but even those had positive parts to it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:04pm

WICKED is a once-every-20-years kind of Broadway phenom. Seriously, why people always want to use the case of its mixed reviews when defending a new show's mediocre notices is beyond me.

That aside, you could never even beging to compare WICKED - a huge grand scale musical to the small scale 13. That's like comparing LES MIZ to BABY.

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:09pm

Have you seen 13 before you go saying stuff about it?



I'm not comparing the two, there totally different. I'm say WICKED being the big phenomenon it is got negative reviews from the NY Times, 13 which not many people have seen is getting mixed reviews from the same newspaper which was not so nice to this huge phenomenon. I'm not saying 13 is better but the fact that the NY times gave it better reviews says something, and I say that as a die hard WICKED fan who just happens to love 13 as well.

[jagfkb]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:09pm

On the other hand, Billy Elliot IS that sort of phenom, but needless to say, this is turning out to be pretty good. I might also call that review from Brantley mixed to slightly positive, mainly because of the expectations of an all out pan. I'm glad some critics are getting this show.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:19pm

In addition to what Michael Bennett said, remember that "older people" want to see WICKED because of its relationship to one of the most beloved movies of all time: THE WIZARD OF OZ.

13 has no such connection with anything so iconic. When you think about it, THE WIZARD OF OZ is kind of an anomaly too. Women AND men of all ages love it...even those who are self-professed "musical haters." It has a vast "built-in" audience.

Without a pop-cultural reference like THE WIZARD OF OZ, WICKED may never have exploded the way it has.

Anyway, I haven't seen 13, but I wish it luck.

(AND re: BILLY ELLIOT. Its "record-breaking mass appeal" has yet to be proven.)

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:31pm

I don't think THIRTEEN will last through the year.

A show like this - with no stars, not much buzz, that's pretty modest compared to most of Broadway - needs all the help it can get. "Eh" reviews aren't going to do it: a ticket buyer wants to know that his purchase is going to be worth it, and a show that almost completely cuts off any and all demographics other than the teenager crowd probably isn't going to even get a flame going at the box office, especially with today's economy.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:35pm

If it markets itself wisely, I think it could do all right. Productions of High School Musical are always sell-outs. Of course, that's because of the movies, etc., but hopefully the people behind 13 can think of a way to make it stay open.

~Steven

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:35pm

Brantley also said people over 13 wouldn't enjoy it...

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:49pm

That review is not mixed-to-positive OR mixed-to-negative. He doesn't really praise anything about it, nor attack anything. It's a 1,200 word shrug of the shoulders.

It's simply 'mixed.'

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:56pm

michael bennett... well i'm just happy the reviews aren't extremely horrible and negative towards the show like how most people here are wishing they would be... they all seemed to be mixed to positive...

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/5/08 at 11:57pm

Nah, I'd say just mixed is more fair.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 10/6/08 at 12:00am

The Newark Star-Ledger is a Rave;

'Giving the impression of being real kids rather than cool professionals, the 13 members of an adorable ensemble jump and gyrate through Christopher Gattelli's exuberant choreography. Along with Gross' endearing portrayal of Archie, Phillips' agreeable Evan and Gillies' tempestuous Lucy are standouts among the leads, abetted by nice bits from Al Calderon and Malik Hammond as giddy sidekicks and Brynn Williams, whose vocals punch up the "Brand New You" finale.

Staged well and with a persuasive sense of spontaneity by director Jeremy Sams, the production benfits from designer David Farley's airy blue-sky settings and brightly hued teen fashions.

Expect nothing fancy from "13" -- just a sincerely good time.'

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/arts/index.ssf/2008/10/13_looks_like_lucky_musical_nu.html

Updated On: 10/7/08 at 12:00 AM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/6/08 at 12:02am

Yeah, these reviews will not help the already-struggling show survive through the rest of the year... unless the producers are willing to lose money week after week, month after month (much like the TALE OF TWO CITIES producers). I really can't believe the critics are letting Jason Robert Brown get away with writing what I consider one of the most terrible scores heard on Broadway in the past few years.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/6/08 at 12:26am

HeyMrMusic - there really is no interest in this show from actual teenagers and that is the difference between this and HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL. Now, if perhaps 13 had done some type of television movie before hitting Broadway, then it would be another story. Again, you just can't really compare the two entities.

I don't think 13 will run past the holidays and I say that with no malace.

[James885]

Posted: 10/6/08 at 12:32am

Well it seems that the show has gotten mostly mixed reviews. But the marketing team will probably be able to find some good pull quotes, although I agree with Michael Bennett. The show wasn't doing great business before the reviews and these mixed notices probably won't do much to boost the box office.

Updated On: 10/6/08 at 12:32 AM

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/6/08 at 12:35am

Michael Bennett, I'm a teenager and I show interest in it, 13fans.com is mostly teenagers!