Are we the new BUTCHERS of Broadway? — Page 2

Are we talking about Fantasia's who who again?

---

I think "Butchers of Broadway" would make a great musical.

Think a cross between Sweeney Todd, Ethel Merman and a bunch of Queens running around with that evil glint in there eyes and knifes.

It's disingenuous to believe that this board and All That Chat have no impact whatsoever. Print and TV journalists read these boards and what is said here ends up constituting a show's buzz, for better and for worse. Buzz used to be generated in the industry from talking to other theatre types you knew while having a drink at the bar at Joe Allen. Now, it's much easier for a journalist to sign on here and see what a bunch of anonymous people are saying about a show online, rather than go out and talk to someone he actually knows and trusts. Only problem is that not every word said over here or over there is by someone impartial. Moreover, there are clear cut cases when a show either genuinely warrants great buzz or terrible buzz, but more often then not, the chatters have been out of step with the actual critics. Look at Passing Strange for a recent example.

People are going to write what they want to write, and that's the state of things. You'll praise certain shows and dogpile onto others. (Witness the people already turning against Cry-Baby after one performance). However, to pretend like what is said here doesn't matter is hopelessly naive.

---

So it was YOU scallion! Bette will never forgive you.

I remember there were some threads about how awful The Little Mermaid was, and the show ended up closing out of town.
It could have been selling out if it wasn't for opinions.
But that's what "buzz" will get ya I suppose.

---

I 2nd tazber.

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 04:07 PM

Little Mermaid and Lestat were panned out of town but opened in NY because they had corporate behemoths behind them. It's the shows that are not produced by corporations that need some breathing room before getting slaughtered by every bitchy showtune queen in the universe.

---

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 05:59 PM

My view is this: if a show is giving a performace, be it preview or regular, for paying audience members (we won't even mention how much they're paying) then once the show's over, the audience has every right to comment and give their opinions on said show. It's ridiculous to think that we, as audience members should hold our comments until after the show opens. Like somebody already said, if they didn't want us to talk about it, they wouldn't give preview performances. They'd have private critics-only shows and then open.

And to say that non-coprorate produced shows need "breathing room" before they open is just silly. Does that mean that because Cry-Baby and A Catered Affair aren't produced by Disney or Mel Brooks or Time Warner, we shouldn't comment on them in previews the way we commented on Young Frankenstein and/or The Little Mermaid when they had previews? If the show's bad then it's bad, no matter who's producing it. Now I haven't seen Cry-Baby or A Catered Affair, so I can't judge either of them, but if I were to see either one of them in previews, I certainly wouldn't hesitate to give my thoughts on it on this board.

---

Updated On: 3/16/08 at 06:16 PM

Okay, so say I paid, oh, $54 to see a preview of a new musical. If I walk out of the theater and say to myself "wow, that was the worst piece of crap I've ever seen," I should refrain from posting my thoughts, but if I enjoyed it, I can happily laud it with praise?

There's no difference between posting here or discussing it over drinks at Angus' within earshot of the show's creators, who also happened to have gone to Angus' for post-show drinks, not to mention Michael Riedel, who trolls the place like Larry Craig trolls airport bathrooms.

As long as there are paying audiences, I don't think any show deserves "breathing room." If it's a steaming pile of dogcrap, then the paying customers should by all means spew hatred on top of it. They paid for their seat, they have a right to express their opinion. If the creators don't want the audience judging their work, they shouldn't let their show play in front of one.

And I know I've written (and have read) many posts detailing how horrible shows can be fixed. Unfortunately, not enough people take them seriously. In fact, I've never seen a show where the creators take the suggestions that I've posted (which are usually echoed by others here and on ATC) seriously.

Frank Rich was the butcher of broadway.
He never made nearly as many simple grammatical errors as do the posters on this site.

So no, we're not.

But I would say that we have an influence, but not as large of an influence as one might think. After all, a lot of posters go to poorly-reviewed shows just to see how bad they are.

As far as I know, A Catered Affair is being produced by a small consortium of producers led by Harvey and his brother, but I could be wrong. The show has a very low capitalization so if reviews aren't good, the show could fold rather quickly?

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

---

I am wondering whether certain shows will now aim to open up in London rather than on Broadway where the unions are weaker (and salaries for actors, musicians and stagehands are lower), the critics are not as bitchy AND the blogosphere is less toxic. Sister Act, for example, is bypassing Broadway and heading straight to London in the fall.

---