Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:45pm
To Ado
I do not know if you even saw it but Darling Of The Day was a very entertaining show in its day. She deserved the nod but the show got a very good review when it was re reviewed by the main Times critic but by than it was to late to save the show.
Updated On: 3/8/16 at 10:45 PM
Posted: 3/8/16 at 10:52pm
I did not see it Mr Roxy, but I do know that it has since become one of those hidden musical gems (per the York's dual Mufti productions of it). I was merely referring to how short-lived it was on Broadway.
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:16pm
Can't believe this piece of crap is on Broadway and shows like Dr. Zhivago aren't (it's not to say Zhivago didn't have its problems but it was far better)
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:18pm
Isherwood didn't give it the only good review- most of the reviews were positive, surprisingly. I don't think this is theater's best, but I think those calling it the biggest flop in history in the preview thread are missing the parody of it all.
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:21pm
To Broadway Boy
It is the dumbing down of Broadway
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:26pm
To woeisme3: I said it was the one of the worst shows I've ever seen on Broadway. I didn't say it was the biggest flop. There is a difference. I get the parody, This show just isn't funny and Broadway is not the place for it.
It like going on stage and farting... you might get a laugh but that doesn't mean you have created theatre.
I agree it's the dumbing down of Broadway. Its sad to me and makes me angry. I think it's the Critics Pick that is most offensive. If he had said he enjoyed it that was one thing, but there are far better shows that don't get the Critics Pick stamp of approval.
I don't see other good reviews.
Updated On: 3/8/16 at 11:26 PM
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:56pm
Isherwood's review when this was off-Broadway is what convinced me to see it then. It sounded campy and fun, but it wasn't either. i should be the target demo -- I saw all those disaster pics as kid in the 1970s. They seemed ripe for easy parody. This turned out to be just lazy high school level writing. It angers me to think people may waste their time and money on this when there are so many well done shows on Broadway at this moment.
Posted: 3/8/16 at 11:59pm
So far there are 8 critics reviews compiled on Show Score: 2 negative, 2 mixed, and 4 positive. Not that it's abnormal for a Broadway show, but the reviews are all over the place. Talkin' Broadway says it "fails on every level" while Theatermania calls it a "perfect storm of enjoyment".
Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:08am
I enjoyed myself when I saw it, but by no means is that a positive review. It's the cheapest, tackiest show I've seen on Broadway. I'm appalled at those sets and the ****ty direction. And the book has a ton of problems. And the show stops and starts way too often, and it's way too long. But I'm sure it will live on in regional theaters.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:45am
Much better reviews than anyone , probably even the cast and producers, ever expected.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:46am
CurtainsUpat8 said: "This review severely damages the Times credibility in the world of theatre. I will never take another review he writes seriously. One can debate the merits of The Humans or John.... but neither of those shows are in the same category as Disaster.
Disaster is one of the most horrible shows ever seen on Broadway. This review is a disgrace. It's an insult to everyone who goes to Broadway and every show that strives to get the NYT Critics Pick stamp of approval but didn't.
"
Not surprised. He wrote at the beginning of his Allegiance review, "but the first requirement of anyBroadway musical is to entertain."
Posted: 3/9/16 at 1:07am
Isherwood is a terrible critic. He often seems easily tricked by appeals to his glory days, and he is poisonously incurious.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 1:46am
I loved, loved, loved it off-Broadway and can't wait to see it again. The set was cheap off-Broadway but I would have thought it would have been pretty spectacular at the Nederlander. Sad to hear that is not the case.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 1:59am
LOVED this show off-Broadway. Hadn't laughed that hard at a show in a long time. It should have stayed there. This is not a Broadway show. I do think the Times review is on target though. Jmo
Posted: 3/9/16 at 2:07am
I LOVED it Off Broadway too, but thought this version was DREADFUL. Painfully bad. Stars don't help (and aren't better than the Off Broadway cast for the most part). Plus, the set is just a big empty space...scenes are just "on the stage" and nowhere specific...I think we give a show in a tiny theater the benefit of the doubt...
This was not staged well at all...which makes me think they were lucky there was no space Off Broadway because they were forced to keep it simple, which was the extent of their abilities..
Posted: 3/9/16 at 8:13am
Sorry to upset all the haters on here, but with a majority of good reviews and the summer approaching this might really start taking off.
Updated On: 3/9/16 at 08:13 AM
Posted: 3/9/16 at 8:21am
At this point it has nowhere to go but up, or else close, so let's see what happens in the next few weeks-Spring break season starts in a few weeks-At this point, Roger and Kevin are probably most known for their TV work, specifically the Disney Channel, which might drive families to see this who get sold out of Lion King, Matilda, or School of Rock.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 8:28am
Not terribly shocked by Isherwood's review. He loved ROCK OF AGES (albeit a much better show than DISASTER!) when everyone else was tearing it down.
I do hope this translates into a possible Tony nomination for Jennifer Simard.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 8:37am
So because it only got 2 negative reviews and the rest were mixed or positive then it means all critics are wrong? Erm ok
Posted: 3/9/16 at 9:25am
Isherwood is pretty straightforward in saying this will never be considered a great musical while saying that he also completely enjoyed himself. The Times, while often criticized for being self-serious, have long had a willingness to show appreciation for shows that don't intend to be anything other than a good time (see also: Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia, etc.).
For what it's worth, I had a really good time at Disaster. It's intentionally silly, and while it grated on my nerves off-Broadway, I thought this particular cast raised it to the level of pure pleasure.
We will all find shows that critics love that we hate and vice versa. Most recently for me, Brantley's rave for Whitaker in Hughie left me baffled. But it's silly to think that just because we don't always agree with their takes, they're somehow terrible at their jobs.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 9:41am
Critics are individual people with individual tastes, so anyone is lucky if they find a particular critic with whom they largely agree. That does not mean that one critic is absolutely always "right," nor does it mean all the other critics are wrong either. I'm always amused when supposedly smart people on this board react so vehemently when they constantly rediscover the concept of "different opinion." Besides, there aren't a lot of major theatre critics compared to the mass-analyses we can get with Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, and the population using this board is not the target tourist group.
In any case, I think comedy is the most difficult genre to translate consistently to large numbers of people, especially cross-culturally, because of reliance on contextual linguistics and meta-knowledge for concepts like sarcasm and irony.
Posted: 3/9/16 at 9:52am
This was always going to be totally hit or miss with the critics. They lucked out in having 4 critics who really enjoyed the show in spite of its flaws. That's enough positive PR to keep the limited run going to its planned closing date. A couple new commercials with positive pulls from the Times emphasizing how funny the show is should keep it afloat.
