#1
Posted: 1/11/08 at 6:21pm
Since another popular [but bad(?)] show has opened up (The Little Mermaid), I think now would be a good time to review (pun) why we need critics and why they aren't awful hate mongers.
Critics serve a vital function in ANY artistic community. They keep artists striving for a higher standard. Good reviews and awards encourage artists to keep refining their technique and making their work better. Without critics, it becomes a game of marketing and statistics. Put out some machine processed crap that the latest poll says that they'll all like. And without critics saying its bad, some piece of crap marketing product may become the new standard of art.
Now, you may say, "People will realize its bad and tell others not to come." But that exactly my point! If you get rid of critics, eventually, they come back as a part of the natural process. They are important, they aren't mean nasty haters who want to kill everything in sight.
Which brings me to my next point. A critic's job is NOT to poke holes in something. His/her job is too evaluate it. Praise what's good, point out what's bad. If you don't believe me, I can point out some review threads that can prove this. (Xanadu, some pointed out that Beane's work on Tony Robert's character was sub-par, but loved the show otherwise).
You may or may not agree with critics, but that doesn’t mean that they are worthless, stupid, or awful. And just because a large number of people are flocking to something doesn’t make it good, it makes it popular. Popular does not equal good. (Snakes on a Plane, anyone?). A critic's job is to evaluate whether or not it is good. If you disagree with them, say so plainly and state your reasons (hint: popularity is not a good reason!) rationally. Don't whine!
And another thing. If a show is fun, but not good, do not act as if fun = good. I am positive In My Life would have been a blast! But would it have been good? No. There are plenty of fun shows that are also good (Hello Dolly! / Hairspray / Xanadu / The Drowsy Chaperone). But again, do not loudly proclaim that it was fun as if that made it Pulitzer worthy. Say it was fun, say you loved it! But do not act as if that alone made it good. Again, if you did think it was good, calmly and rationally say why.
To address this show, many have said that they think it got bad reviews because it was Disney. I STRONGLY disagree. I think almost everyone in the theatre community wanted this show to be good because they loved the movie and knew what great potential was there (I think some reviews even mentioned such things plainly). According to this line of thinking, some shows will get bad reviews no matter what. Which we know is not true. Xanadu? Sweeney Todd? The Lion King? Spring Awakening?
Again, critics aren't perfect. Many thought Chicago's score was crap when it came out. Over time, opinions have changed. But they aren't monsters either.
Critics serve a vital function in ANY artistic community. They keep artists striving for a higher standard. Good reviews and awards encourage artists to keep refining their technique and making their work better. Without critics, it becomes a game of marketing and statistics. Put out some machine processed crap that the latest poll says that they'll all like. And without critics saying its bad, some piece of crap marketing product may become the new standard of art.
Now, you may say, "People will realize its bad and tell others not to come." But that exactly my point! If you get rid of critics, eventually, they come back as a part of the natural process. They are important, they aren't mean nasty haters who want to kill everything in sight.
Which brings me to my next point. A critic's job is NOT to poke holes in something. His/her job is too evaluate it. Praise what's good, point out what's bad. If you don't believe me, I can point out some review threads that can prove this. (Xanadu, some pointed out that Beane's work on Tony Robert's character was sub-par, but loved the show otherwise).
You may or may not agree with critics, but that doesn’t mean that they are worthless, stupid, or awful. And just because a large number of people are flocking to something doesn’t make it good, it makes it popular. Popular does not equal good. (Snakes on a Plane, anyone?). A critic's job is to evaluate whether or not it is good. If you disagree with them, say so plainly and state your reasons (hint: popularity is not a good reason!) rationally. Don't whine!
And another thing. If a show is fun, but not good, do not act as if fun = good. I am positive In My Life would have been a blast! But would it have been good? No. There are plenty of fun shows that are also good (Hello Dolly! / Hairspray / Xanadu / The Drowsy Chaperone). But again, do not loudly proclaim that it was fun as if that made it Pulitzer worthy. Say it was fun, say you loved it! But do not act as if that alone made it good. Again, if you did think it was good, calmly and rationally say why.
To address this show, many have said that they think it got bad reviews because it was Disney. I STRONGLY disagree. I think almost everyone in the theatre community wanted this show to be good because they loved the movie and knew what great potential was there (I think some reviews even mentioned such things plainly). According to this line of thinking, some shows will get bad reviews no matter what. Which we know is not true. Xanadu? Sweeney Todd? The Lion King? Spring Awakening?
Again, critics aren't perfect. Many thought Chicago's score was crap when it came out. Over time, opinions have changed. But they aren't monsters either.
PLEASE! Do not post anything negative or dramatic! DidYouReallyHearMe has LOST the ability to ignore such posts and he will comment! Please, help him.
With Clay Aiken in Spamalot, all of Broadway is singing a collective "There! Right! There!" -Me-
"Not Barker, Todd is the only person I've ever known who could imitate Katherine Hepburn...in print." -nmartin-
With Clay Aiken in Spamalot, all of Broadway is singing a collective "There! Right! There!" -Me-
"Not Barker, Todd is the only person I've ever known who could imitate Katherine Hepburn...in print." -nmartin-
