BONNIE AND CLYDE only selling tickets until Dec. 30...- Page 19

[littlebutterfly10]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 11:52am

Thanks for that very informative post, Chester3. It seems like you have an inside scoop and it's both interesting and confusing to me to read those details. I've been browsing through the CTI's Guide to Producing Plays and Musicals, just for my own interest, and what you said really reinforces everything I've gained from the book thus far - that producing is a HUGE risk. Essentially, investing in a show should be viewed as making a donation to a charity - you wouldn't expect to get your money back, but you'd be happy knowing that you contributed to something you believe in. It's sad to me that the show was undercapitalized going in, and if I were a producer I would have put the show on hold until more funds were obtained. But then, I've never been one for risks, and when the pieces of the puzzle align as far as cast availability, theater availability, etc., you have to move forward or miss your chance.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 12:08pm

"You're not at all familiar with Broadway, are you?"

More than someone who lives in Chicago - a city proud to be called "hog butcher for the world."

Well, it's certainly not evident in your ideological view of those who attend Broadway theatre. An "art-lover" can enjoy art as well as entertainment for any reason they choose and Broadway has never been limited to art, so the point is moot. Seeking art in a Broadway musical is a personal choice, not a requirement and the progression you mention is based on one's own personal experiences, tastes, interpretations and decisions. If you expect your opinions to be those of others, then you're pretty much working against the idea of art and more towards restrictive fundamentalism.

What I do find quite interesting is this notion that those who agree vehemently with the critics and are against the idea that perhaps the Wildhorn name did not color their reviews don't display the same sort of passionate response in agreeing with the reviews of Lysistrata Jones and conjuring up images of art and ideals and delusional audiences.

Earlier someone mentioned that this closure indicates the end of Wildhorn's career on Broadway. I remember reading the exact same pronouncements after the closing notices of Dracula and Wonderland. I think the predictions on the death of Wildhorn's career is pretty much on par with the predictions of the death of Broadway. Always mentioned, but never an actuality. Wildhorn may never have a hit on Broadway, but as long as he finds success regionally and internationally, he'll still probably drum up investors. Just like Jeanine Tesori.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 12:19pm

"Entertainment" and "art" aren't two different things. I think you're confusing those terms with "low-brow" and "high-brow."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 1:28pm

Entertainment and art can be mutually exclusive. It's based on intent. Sometimes they are combined to varying degrees of success, both critically and financially. I'm not confusing anything. Using derogatory terms to differentiate taste and audiences doesn't define art or entertainment. It's just pretentious.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 1:28pm

""Entertainment" and "art" aren't two different things. I think you're confusing those terms with "low-brow" and "high-brow.""

John Simon would be proud.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 2:40pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 02:40 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 2:44pm

There's one word missing in all of those posts: can you find it, bobbybaby85?

Hint: 4 syllables, starts with "c".

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 2:59pm

Really, they're not saying that?

Correct! As you so kindly provided in your examples. I explained it more than once and provided an example from an actual interaction I had with a critic on the very subject, but I guess you missed all that. Or perhaps it's a conspiracy!

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:06pm

Bobbybaby85 quoting ME: "Because Wildhorn's shows have not made money on Broadway doesn't make them trash."

Bobbybaby85: "What does it make them then? They didn't sell tickets... Most never found audiences... and they were all critical bombs."

ME: His shows (long running or not) made it to the biggest stage in the world, entertained thousands of people, employed hundreds of people, and some of have gone on to do the same on other stages around the world. "Trash" is something of zero value. Your characterization was inaccurate as well as disrespectful.

Bobbybaby85: "And I'm sure you'll all go around saying that historians and authors "have it out to get him"."

ME: You keep saying that and generalizing about "us". Again not accurate and disrespectful.

Bobbybaby85: "Just because someone produces a show doesn't mean "many someones" want to see it."

ME: You previoiusly said "no one" in NY wanted to see his shows. When I said "many someones", I was attempting to correct you and show you your exaggerated comments exacerbate your inaccurate depictions of Wildhorn and those who like his stuff.

Bobbybaby85: "What is delusional is claiming the critics ruined the show or had it out for Wildhorn or claiming that the show deserved to be looked upon differently despite the seasoned writers working on the piece. Wildhorn has a reputation for writing trite-full material and Don Black has a history of writing God awful lyrics. The show got the same shot that any other show gets when opening on the Great White Way. Do you think that critics don't go into a Sondheim show or a Webber show with expectations based on their previous body of work?"

ME: As I stated, only a small handful made outright claims blaming critics. Most were angered by the thought SOME MIGHT have written the review (or part of it) prior to seeing the show. Going in with expectations is fine. But, before going in, if you have written the first line of the review that states something like "B&C is just as bad as anything that came before it", then that's not OK. SOME feel this was a possibility - and only of SOME reviewers. You attempt to lump far too many into the delusional class. And that is offensive.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:16pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 03:16 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:22pm

bobbybaby - ghostlight, Pauly, et al are using a child's arguing tactics on you ("You said that the critics are out to get Wildhorn." "No, I didn't." "Yes,you did, here it is in writing." "I didn't use those exact words...").

Don't play that game with them - you need to be the equivalent of their Nanny, giving them a sharp little rebuke and banishing them to their nurseries without pudding for being nasty, disingenuous little contrarians, until they learn to engage in adult conversation. AND NO PLAYING WITH THE PUPPY.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:39pm

you need to be the equivalent of their Nanny, giving them a sharp little rebuke and banishing them to their nurseries without pudding for being nasty, disingenuous little contrarians, until they learn to engage in adult conversation.

Considering the source, taking this action seriously would be the equivalent of taking marriage advice from Kim Kardashian. No doubt she too considers herself to be an expert on the subject as well as "high brow".

[Pauly3]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:40pm

Newintown, nice attempt at being clever. It was about as successful as when you chimed in in the thread about B&C sheet music where you said you wanted a copy too (but "burned"). You're all class.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:41pm

No, conspiracy implies that they're all in on it together. What I was trying to say, and I think others were too, is that each critic held pre-conceived notions about Wildhorn and let those interfere with their perceptions of the show. Not that they had secret meetings in which they decided to all pan his show, which is what conspiracy implies.

See also: Confirmation Bias

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:48pm

"And according to Mirriam-Webster, the definition of "conspiracy" is 1, the act of conspiring together and 2, an agreement between conspirators. Their definition in the "English learner's" dictionary defines it as 1, a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal and 2, the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal. "

I'll buy that definition. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that no one is implying a confederacy. There is no secret meeting of critics, but most of them - independently - have a bias against Wildhorn. It's a simple but important distinction.

As to any nonsense regarding nannies and punishment. There is little that is more childish than making fun of those who dare to have an opinion that opposes your own.

Let's just say that some bad little boys act out so that they can get attention and be punished, and the best way to deal with them is to ignore them and withhold that punishment, so that they have to go play with their puppy all by themselves alone in their room.

You hear that? "NO PLAYING WITH THE PUPPY"!

[newintown]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:48pm

Oh, Pauly, you rival Oscar Wilde with your dry wit and sarcasm! I wish I could be at the New Year's party you plan to attend; I'm sure it'll be the scream of the season. (You, too, ghostie.)
Updated On: 12/29/11 at 03:48 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:53pm

Spork - I think at this point, they know precisely what we've said but choose to ignore it. That's the game they're playing.

ghost - I do get the feeling newintown loves being naughty and loves being punished. And to that I say, hand me the riding crop. It's not like I'm a prude or anything. I can totally fulfill the desires of newintown and bobbybaby if that's what they're after. I can even supply references.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:02pm

Oh, Matt, I hate to have to be the one to do it, but it seems you aren't aware of what's actually going on.

Yes, sweetie, the "conspiracy" word was used; yes, it was hyperbole. But bobbybaby also made it quite, quite clear that he was talking about hysterical and foolish claims made by many (he provided the quotes) that the daily reviewers were out to get Wildhorn before they even saw the show.

If you want to play childish games of semantics, and focus obsessively and literally on one word, you can; but don't throw a tantrum when no one will play the game with you.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:05pm

No, Mr Matt - hold strong! Not punishing them is the best punishment of all!

Hmm. Bit of a dichotomy there. What the hell, have at it.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:17pm

No, conspiracy implies that they're all in on it together. What I was trying to say, and I think others were too, is that each critic held pre-conceived notions about Wildhorn and let those interfere with their perceptions of the show.

Really? Each critic? I hope you did think a bit before posting that. They are all of different ages, tastes, education, backgrounds, and each represents a publication with its distinct point of view. To say that ALL these people went to the show with a preconceived notion is the most paranoid thing I've heard in my life.

I still don't understand why, when posters like a show so much, they need to prove at all costs that they are not wrong with their assessment, it is the critics that have it against the creatives.

To say that you simply thought differently is a much mature approach, than to subtly trash all NYC critics' ethics by blaming it in on a high-school type jealousy.

If you would claim that one or two reviewers seem unecessarily hard on the reviews when it comes to Wildhorn, I would understand. It would make for good analysis and discussion. But ALL of them? Please, just think about it for a moment.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:42pm

Yes, sweetie, the "conspiracy" word was used; yes, it was hyperbole.

Shhh...don't tell bobbybaby!

But bobbybaby also made it quite, quite clear that he was talking about hysterical and foolish claims made by many (he provided the quotes) that the daily reviewers were out to get Wildhorn before they even saw the show.

I would totally agree with you if that were true. I also made it quite, quite clear but the hyperbole kept popping up anyway. Your spin of the conversation is quite industrious, if not a bit contrived. And the fictitious tantrum was an intriguing creative embellishment on your baseless theme of immaturity.

Uh, oh...blaxx is playing that childish semantics game. A time out delivered by newintown is imminent. Or is it?

Updated On: 12/29/11 at 04:42 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:43pm

Sorry, that did make it sound like I meant everyone. Obviously not all of the critics, but I think Brantley and a few others.

Updated On: 12/29/11 at 04:43 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:58pm

"And to that I say, hand me the riding crop."

Could I have a go with it when you're done, Mister Matt?

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 5:36pm

Sorry, that did make it sound like I meant everyone. Obviously not all of the critics, but I think Brantley and a few others.

That makes more sense and it's probably true. Maybe we should all have approached this in a less dramatic and extremist manner.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/29/11 at 5:41pm

Mattbrain - Sure! I'll hold the camera.

Maybe we should all have approached this in a less dramatic and extremist manner.

But then newintown and bobbybaby would have nothing to do!