Broadway bound Jekyll & Hyde gets negative reviews in Chicago - Page 2

Posted: 3/16/13 at 6:26pm

Chris Jones is my favorite critic working today. He truly loves theater and doesn't go out of his way to trash things.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 12:46pm

It sounds like a pretty fair review. I was a HUGE fan of J&H right up to the point when they destroyed it on Broadway. Unfortunately, that is what most people saw and the DVD of that awful production featuring the worst replacement lead only cemented that version of the show in the public mind. I've longed for a return of what the show used to be, but it sounds like this production is not it.

[NOB88]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 12:52pm

The first reviews out of Chicago were brutal but there have been several the last few days that are much more positive - but suggesting some tweaking.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130317/entlife/703179937/photos/EP1/?interstitial=1

http://www.chicagotheatrereview.com/2013/03/a-revival-in-need-of-more-work/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-revival-in-need-of-more-work

http://www.chicagoontheaisle.com/2013/03/16/review-jekyll-and-hyde-constantine-maroulis-deborah-cox-pre-broadway-tour-chicago-cadillac-palace/

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 12:56pm

Surprise! The show that's been getting mixed reviews all over the US got mixed/bad reviews in Chicago! I'm so shocked...

Here's the deal... if you go in with an open mind, this show is sure to impress and entertain. The sticks in the mud will hate it because it's not the original. My tiny violin plays for them. How dare someone try to reinvent a show by giving it a completely new concept and conceit? Blah. Blah. Blah... Whatever... I'm over all the J&H hate!

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 3:37pm

I went in with an open mind (having never seen the show before) and I hated it. Who are you to lay judgment on people who don't care for it. In my opinion it was a cheap and poorly cast reinvention. I'm no stick in the mud either. I wasn't impressed or entertained.

Go check yourself.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 4:09pm

How dare someone try to reinvent a show by giving it a completely new concept and conceit?

I certainly didn't feel that way when I went to see it on Broadway. I was pretty excited going in. But what I saw was terrible and having seen what it previously was just added to the confusion and disappointment. With the exception of Cuccioli and Eder, I was not impressed or entertained though I did have an open mind. A new concept and a new conceit doesn't mean it's going to be a good production or that it will work or that you're a stick in the mud if you don't enjoy it.

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 7:16pm

Bettyboy72 and Mister Matt, I see your points. I was hyperbolic. I'm just over rehashing the same old thread. This thread could be "Broadway bound Jekyll & Hyde gets negative reviews in [Insert City Name Here]."

What it comes down to is that many out there hate this production without giving it a fair shake. And if it got mixed reviews all over the nation why would we expect Chicago to be different? I think people just need to let it go. Let the reviews be whatever they are going to be. From experience, I have seen that negative reviews are just as capable of selling seats as positive ones. Sometimes people are want to see for themselves what the critics found so disheartening. And while we are on the subject, Wildhorn has never been universally loved by critics. This is nothing new, and I doubt it will ever change.

For me, the show delivered what I was promised it would, which was a pop rock conceit with a steampunk-like edginess to it. I think Wildhorn is having fun with the material, and 90% of it worked for me. I thought the animations during "Confrontation" got out of hand, but other than that I loved the production. It was intriguing and fascinating to see it removed from the staunch, Victorian setting of the original productions (which I also love). I think Wildhorn did an excellent job exposing how versatile the show is and how it can appeal to a myriad of tastes depending on what concept you use.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 8:37pm

"I went in with an open mind (having never seen the show before) and I hated it. Who are you to lay judgment on people who don't care for it. In my opinion it was a cheap and poorly cast reinvention. I'm no stick in the mud either. I wasn't impressed or entertained.

Go check yourself."

Ditto.

It's nice that you liked it, but that makes me wonder about your level of taste.

And to say "What it comes down to is that many out there hate this production without giving it a fair shake. And if it got mixed reviews all over the nation why would we expect Chicago to be different? I think people just need to let it go. Let the reviews be whatever they are going to be." is asinine.

This board is here to discuss theatrical productions. The show is getting crappy reviews all across the country. Just because you have a wet spot for the show doesn't make EVERYONE else wrong.

If you are getting sick of the comments, then stay away from the threads.

[homeimp]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 9:21pm

The comments on this board are demeaning to all. Of course I feel like that about many of these boards. It's obvious these people in general have closed minds, despite their repeated statements that they are open-minded. Stop commenting on shows you haven't seen, see them, form your own opinion. How supposedly intelligent people cannot see how intolerant and nasty they are is incredible. I cannot imagine criticizing someone for liking a show nor the reverse. You make me ashamed to be a theater attendee. What's really scary is I may well have talked to some of you and thought you were terrific people. I saw this show on tour in Toronto. Not the best show, not the worst. I'm quite sure most people who went found something to enjoy.

[PepperedShepherd]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 10:22pm

"Here's the deal... if you go in with an open mind, this show is sure to impress and entertain."

No, here's the deal, DEClarke:

I DID go in with an "open mind" -- and found J&K to be a laughably horrible waste of time.

But then, I also bothered to read your posts. Apparently you could not be bothered to read mine.

Updated On: 3/17/13 at 10:22 PM

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 11:27pm

PepperedShepherd, I did read your post. I also already admitted to being hyperbolic.

First of all, I've never pretended that this show was/is perfect. My own review of it when it toured through Houston even indicates that.

Yet, we can all stop pretending that people don't just trash the show because it's a Wildhorn show. We can all stop pretending that people don't trash the show just because they're upset that pop singers are cast in two of the three lead roles. We can all stop pretending that people trash the show because it's not an exact duplicate of the 5th Avenue and TUTS production or the ORIGINAL Alley Theatre Production (which was the best version of the show yet).

I'm not foolish enough to think the show will have a long run on Broadway. I'm also surprised that the one element that has been universally remarked on for need of improvement ("Confrontation") hasn't been changed at all.

With all that said, I still think that even with all the problems that this incarnation of Jekyll & Hyde delivers on its promises of being a fun and entertaining night at the theatre. Is it frivolous? Sure. But so are other highly celebrated pieces of musical theatre.

I certainly respect everyones right to their own opinion, but I seriously think those opinions need to be made during and after attending a performance of said show, and I sincerely doubt that everyone who is reveling in some of the critical panning of this show and discussing how horrible it is has sat through a performance. I also know these boards too well...

[BWFan101]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 2:03am

I just can't bring myself to buy tickets to a show with an American Idol alumnus -- unless if it's William Hung!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 5:33am

"I certainly respect everyones right to their own opinion, but I seriously think those opinions need to be made during and after attending a performance of said show, and I sincerely doubt that everyone who is reveling in some of the critical panning of this show and discussing how horrible it is has sat through a performance. I also know these boards too well..."

Obviously you don't, because I see a thread filled with people who have seen this production (including myself) and didn't like it.

You seem to be ignoring those people and are convinced people are just making up negative reviews.

For me, it has NOTHING to do with Wildhorn, but the fact the script is a clunky mess and the songs, although great on their own, do not fit in the story and just seemed shoehorned into a boring script. It doesn't give you characters you can care about, and if you do care, then you are bringing that into the theatre with you.

I also know these boards too well, and get tired of blindly fawning fan girls, and DEClarke is starting to sound like them all.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 8:41am

Received a phone call over the weekend from a friend asking if I was going to run a group trip to Jekyll & Hyde. My reply was "unfortunately not" and that was even without hearing any reviews.

I am not a Wildhorn basher/hater. I actually love Jekyll & Hyde very much. I saw it several times and even the final performance. Although I did not love Hasselhoff he was a familiar name with a popular following in Europe - things we all know already - and we agree didn't work as hoped.

Each Wildhorn show I saw after Jekyll & Hyde progressively got more and more hopeless for me to the point that I was attending the newest show just to witness the newest train wreck. I saw Scarlet Pimpernel (original, no reincarnations), The Civil War, Wonderland and Bonnie & Clyde.

I really wasn't enjoying his work until Bonnie & Clyde so I hoped his work had reached a turn around point. Critics and audiences are stuck in a runt of ripping him before they experience his newest work while others jump on the hate wagon just because of his track record.

As for the revival of Jekyll & Hyde...I am not too enthusiastic. Although I love the music and previously enjoyed the show...just not into the cast or thinking about paying the high ticket price for a revival. Probably too soon even though it has been over 10 years. Not sure what Frank Wildhorn can do to get out of his own shadow too.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 10:27am

Yet, we can all stop pretending that people don't just trash the show because it's a Wildhorn show.

I'm totally with you on that.

We can all stop pretending that people trash the show because it's not an exact duplicate of the 5th Avenue and TUTS production or the ORIGINAL Alley Theatre Production (which was the best version of the show yet).

Maybe that's not why they're trashing it. You don't have to expect a replica of a good production to know the difference between a good production and a bad production.

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:05am

I also know these boards too well, and get tired of blindly fawning fan girls, and DEClarke is starting to sound like them all.

So, I reread my posts, and I can totally see this. However, I'm not ashamed of my love for J&H or Wildhorn! People cling to SOndheim, who I also love, but I'm passionate about Wildhorn. For me, his music just clicks with my soul.

What I find most aggrivating about this thread is that it treats the Chicago bad reviews as news. I know good and well that J&H has bad reviews in just about every city it has visited. I think us critics in Houston were the only ones that pretty much gave it an all around, "this is good despite problems." Instead or creating a NEW thread to state that a lot of people hate J&H, why not just append it to the other threads that already exist?

Now, I'd like to ask all of us to stop being tacky with each other (including me) and get back to critically discussing theatre with each other. We can agree to disagree on this show and put this debacle to rest.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:28am

What I find most aggrivating about this thread is that it treats the Chicago bad reviews as news.

What I find aggravating is that most of the Chicago "reviews" posted are just blogs. They are attached to websites meticulously maintained by someone, but read by...whom? I really should start one so I can start receiving press passes. If you haven't read the Tribune review, then I suggest reading it. It actually reminds me of some of the comments you've made about this revival. And not too far off from Everett's review in the Chronicle.
'Jekyll & Hyde' shows its split personality

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 12:31pm

The Tribune points out some good things, which I and the Chronicle reviewer pointed out. It's sad that they haven't listened to us.

I'm discouraged that "Bring on the Men" hasn't been restaged to use more dancing and less bondage. I'm sad that the visuals for "Confrontation" are still so over-the-top.

I haven't seen recent complaints about Cox's British accent. Was it dropped? Or did she fix it?

Mister Matt, maybe you should start a blog. Or heck, maybe you could be a voice here on BroadwayWorld. They are still seeking regional writers. And if you're in Chicago, since it's a big theatre city like Houston and New York and LA they may welcome the additional personnel on the front lines.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 12:46pm

As a Chicago-based actor, I also find the online reviewers pretty annoying, although they have written some of my best reviews, lol. I actually have a lot of respect the PROFESSION of reviewing theater, and it's hard to take seriously someone who is writing only for a website they created themselves.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:22pm

Who ARE all of these reviewers, anyway? What are their credentials?

I see a LOT of people with access to a computer and some very strong opinions. But then, I guess anyone with their own blog is a ‘critic’ now-a-days.

Just because you have your own blog, doesn’t make you a critic. It makes you just another person on the internet with an opinion.

Same goes for the regional reviews on this site.

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 3:45pm

Same goes for the regional reviews on this site.

Don't be so sweeping. I can't speak for all, but some on here are highly qualified and were screened before being picked to write for BWW.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 7:30pm

I think one reason why Wildhorn gets such a hard time by critics and posters on here and other sites is because it simply defies logic how his craptacular shows keep getting produced. It feels like every show he writes is worse than the one before it. After Wonderland, they should have run him out of town on a rail, but nope. Here comes a revival of his first stinker. Why? How? Who is putting money into this stuff?

[philly03]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 7:37pm

His producers do eventually make a lot of money off of record sales and regional productions, as well as ample amount of international licenses (particularly Jekyll & HYDE).

I wouldn't think reviving J&H is that bad of a business proposal.. its not like it closed overnight, it ran nearly four years, if I'm not mistaken still in the top 50 of longest running Broadway runs.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 7:42pm

If that's true, it is a sad statistic.

[Jersey Girl2]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 9:22pm

I believe Rock Of Ages replaced J&H for the 50 spot.
>>>It's nice that you liked it, but that makes me wonder about your level of taste.

LOL How are we measuring taste these days?