DISASTER Previews — Page 2

Don't care much for some people's reviews on this board (lol), I will be watching this show in my next NYC visit (May)

I'm afraid this one is all too aptly named; it calls to mind the kind of disasters that used to pop up in decades past. The show can't decide if it's parodying disaster movies or itself, but the fact is, the movies themselves were funnier than anything in this attempted spoof, which lurches clumsily along in fits and non-starts. So many talented performers are wasted here, most of all Faith Prince. Given the most embarrassing material to work with, she flings herself wholeheartedly into it like the trouper she is. She deserves everyone's admiration.

Making matters worse still was having to listen to all those awful schlocky pop songs from the 70's that I had mercifully forgotten.

Jordan! <3

I searched "Disaster musical" on Twitter and saw nothing but positive reviews.

The show is obviously supposed to be campy. Maybe those who say they were laughing at the show were actually laughing with the show? If it's a parody of disaster movies, then the dialogue is probably meant to be as bad as the dialogue was in those movies.

Or maybe the show really is terrible. Who knows.

I'd much rather see The First Wives Club come in with Faith then this...

I see this as the only possible show to upset "The Hamilton" @ Tony time.

How was Manoel Felciano? How big is his role? I've loved him since the Doyle Sweeney Todd and he hasn't been on Broadway since then so I would quite like to see him even if this is an actual disaster.

^

His part is small, though he does well enough by it. His talents deserve so much better, as was shown by his impressive performance in the recent off-Broadway production of The Changeling.

hamiltonboys said: "I searched "Disaster musical" on Twitter and saw nothing but positive reviews."

Because for the most part, they're tagging the show's handle. It's much riskier to tweet a pan and tag the show. Go look for the subtweets.

Ironic that this thread's title has two meanings.

This may be my favorite Whizzer review ever. I confess, I've been thinking, from bits and pieces seen and heard, that this sounds like an all-"star" cabaret act straight from Don't Tell Mama to Broadway. Perhaps it was the inexpensive nature of the endeavor that convinced a few somewhat-experiened producers to take it on. I do wonder what the salaries are.

I've been fascinated by Rudetsky for quite some time - like a certain breed of celebrity from the mid-twentieth century, he has no exceptional talent for acting, singing, dancing, music - but he does have a "colorful" fast-talking persona, one that is manically devoted to musical theatre. And that alone seems to have turned him into a touchstone of sorts for a few thousand other maniacal musical theatre fans across the country. But I wouldn't have guessed that it would have led him to a semi-full Broadway production.

Updated On: 2/10/16 at 07:36 AM

I venture that the reason all of the songs are snippets is because to sing any longer means to pay royalties.

The ultimate goal here has been and is to log the required number of Broadway performances and get the reviews. Then to build a marketing foundation to license the show. No matter how awful the reviews there will be isolated words that make for positive pull quotes. The reviews could even turn out to be good (there's no accounting for taste) in which case their marketing is strengthened.

I venture that the reason all of the songs are snippets is because to sing any longer means to pay royalties.

That's simply not true. Any public performance of a copyright-protected song that generates a 'commercial benefit' must be licensed (royalties paid). You're confusing this with a couple of other intellectual property issues; specifically the unauthorized broadcasting of a recording created by someone else + the overwrought "fair use" clause/statute.