DISASTER! Reviews- Page 3

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 9:53am

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "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.

Darling actually got quite a few good reviews, but came in with a lot of bad press from the road and no advance.  It was also in an out of the way theatre, and opened in January, which didn't help.  Routledge gave a great performance and richly deserved her Tony.

I haven't seen Disaster, but can already think of an awfully of serious candidates for that Tony nomination: two from Color Purple, one from Hamilton, two from On Your Feet, presumably Jane Krakowski, Jessica Hecht, two from Waitress...all of which are liky to be in the running for other Tonys as well.

 

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 10:00am

I'm not saying that Simard is a lock, but I think it can sometimes help being the major standout in an otherwise iffy show, as opposed to a simply good performance in a well-reviewed show. Plus, I think the only real locks for a nomination in that category are Renee Elise Goldsberry, Jane Krakowski, and at least one of the women from The Color Purple. I don't see Jessica Hecht or anyone from On Your Feet being considered.

[BroadwayLuv2]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 10:57am

I got rush tickets to this show with a group of friends, we sat front row center and had an absolute blast.  This is a fun show!  Happy to see that it's garnered some positive reviews!  I will for sure return for a 2nd ride!

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:06pm

At the end of the day, I don't believe the reviews will make or break this show. If they were all raves, it may have helped sell tickets. 

The bottom line is they are having trouble selling tickets and I don't see that changing. 

26 percent gross potential + average ticket price $44 = tick...tick...tick...

[JayG 2]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:07pm

OMG, is triple threat Seth the new triple threat Linn Manuel?!  Has the torch been passed so soon?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 12:24pm

Maybe it has a hidden angel pumping money into it

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 1:41pm

10086sunset said: "At the end of the day, I don't believe the reviews will make or break this show. If they were all raves, it may have helped sell tickets. 

 

The bottom line is they are having trouble selling tickets and I don't see that changing. 

 

26 percent gross potential + average ticket price $44 = tick...tick...tick...

 

I agree that the reviews are probably not going to help or destroy it. Last week was the first of it's initial 4 weeks that the grosses went up, but not by very much. 

 

Everyone can disagree with me, but I personally think this could have worked better as a Syfy movie. With the awful and unbelievable effects they use in those, it could have been funny like everything else from that channel. I still think that's why it didn't work for me. 

"

 

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 2:00pm

I like Ben Brantley's reviews and he usually echoes my sentiments. Congrats to the cast however for a great NY Times review. Sales are skyrocketing!!!

 

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 2:02pm

Pootie2 said: "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.

 

 

 

I am sorry but please tell me what the point of having critics is at all then?  It's like being a food critic and opening a can of Spam You write it is the most delicious thing you have ever tasted. Lots of people agree with you. Isn't the point of a critic is that they are supposed to be people who understand the difference between Spam and a really delicious meal. That's what this is like. Disaster is Theatre Spam. It's awful. It's ground up crap. But there is always going to be someone who is going to love it.  A theatre CRITIC should know the difference between a can of Spam and a gourmet meal. . If he/she doesn't then they shouldn't be writing. When I think about all the better shows I have seen that have gotten panned and this awful show gets a Rave and a Critics Pick it makes me sad for the state of theatre. Maybe my standards are too high. Maybe the standards of Theatre have become so low that Spam is acceptable. I was in the balcony, so maybe you needed to be in the first ten rows to get the jokes. Maybe that's as far as they went.  Some of these reviews are just baffling to me. Theatermania writes about Seth "Rudetsky makes for an astute straight man to the absurdity around him.". Are you kidding me??? It was such an awful performance. I give up. I love Camp. I get it. Give me a Charles Busch play with him in it and I am in heaven, but I will never let my standards stoop so low that I believe "Disaster" is anything but junk. If that makes me a theatre snob, then so be it. Like I said before... I can go onstage and fart and someone is going to laugh. Maybe I keep farting and some people will keep laughing. That's about the quality of this show. If Isherwood thinks farts are funny that is great. But he doesn't belong at the NY Times.

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

Updated On: 3/9/16 at 02:02 PM

[Hackasaurus_Rex]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 3:06pm

I see your point Curtains Up, and it is a well articulated one.  However, I think the "Spam" analogy is not completely correct in this instance.  This is how I personally would say a theater critic relates to a food critic...

I believe (like with food or any art or creation of any kind for that matter) a critic's role is to look at what the artist (writer, chef, etc...) are trying to accomplish and how well it serves THAT interest.  How well do they articulate their vision and is it a satisfying representation of THAT.  

For example, (using your food analogy) the French Laundry in Napa is trying to do something completely different from say Dreamland BBQ in Alabama. However a food critic's job is not to paint both with the same wide brush of standards.  One might say Dreamland BBQ (a "guilty pleasure" of cheap, rustic regional cuisine) is just as delicious a dish as something from the French Laundry, even though it is not "high cuisine" and made for almost exclusively the masses... or those of discerning taste who wish to get their hands dirty.  

I have not seen Disaster so I can't comment on that show specifically but in general I think a critic can and should judge a show like that based on it's own merits and not in comparison to say, "Hamilton" (which is arguably trying to do something very different).  

Also comedy is tough to judge.  It is far more subjective than drama.  What is funny to one is not to another, and the one thing you can never do is explain to someone WHY something is funny. It is a losing endeavor.  Thus it makes critique of comedy incredibly divisive.  

I personally love a good "fart" joke and hate a bad one.  There is low brow humor that is brilliant.  Again, not saying anything about this particular show but I personally have massive respect for a critic who feels confident to articulate the merits of a well crafted fart joke rather than one who dismisses that sense of humor out of hand because of some pseudo-intellectual insecurity.

 

[fflagg]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 4:02pm

The show will be gone in less than 3 months. The Times' clout is diminished given ticket prices. Plus, Isherwood is a campy man who likes campy shows. 

Theatre queens and Seth's 17 fans will see the show. And then? No one will pay full price for a show that plays like a musical feature from "The Carol Burnett Show" with Eydie Gorme. ??

[decotodd]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 4:17pm

Frankly, DISASTER should aspire to be as funny as a Carol Burnett sketch. I also love a good piece of camp; this show isn't it. I've seen Seth's "Deconstructing Broadway" show, and very much enjoyed it. I guess that's another reason DISASTER was so disappointing - I know he can do better. The low-rent, tacky sets at least seemed amusingly appropriate in the small, off-Broadway theater.  I can't imagine how this transfer must look in a big house, especially to a tourist who may have just seen a gorgeous production like AMERICAN IN PARIS the night before.

[Hariku]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 5:11pm

Egglondon said: "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.

Well, it's closing July 3, so the summer won't help it much. Plus, there seems to be a majority of mixed to bad reviews, with a few outliers thinking this version was as good as Off Broadway.. Plus, lots of message board and industry gossip about how bad it is.... I don't think there's anywhere for it to take off....

 

 

 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 5:31pm

Even with it's mixed reviews, I highly doubt this makes it to it's July 3 closing date. It's grosses have been terrible. I might be gone by Memorial Day.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/9/16 at 6:14pm

Here is a list of shows currently playing that did not get designated as Critics' Pick by the Times. I am not sure when the Times started designating shows as Critics' Pick so some of these older shows may not apply.
Can anyone add shows that have closed?

Aladdin

Beautiful

Chicago

Finding Neverland

Jersey Boys

Les Miserables (current production)

Lion King

On Your Feet

Something Rotten

Wicked

Off Broadway:
Black Angels Over Tuskegee
Buried Child
Daddy Long Legs
Prodigal Son
Ruthless! The Musical (Current production)
Shear Madness
Smokefall
Women without Men (Mint)
The Woodsman

 

Updated On: 3/9/16 at 06:14 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 9:06pm

Just got an invite to see it this weekend and I am going.

[Hariku]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 11:55pm

uncageg said: "Just got an invite to see it this weekend and I am going.

My condolences.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 12:53am

Hariku said: "uncageg said: "Just got an invite to see it this weekend and I am going.

 

My condolences.

 

 

 

As mentioned before, I loved it off Broadway. Had no plans to see it again but will go to see how it plays on Broadway. I just feel it should have stayed off Broadway.

 

[Hariku]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 2:09am

uncageg said: 

As mentioned before, I loved it off Broadway. Had no plans to see it again but will go to see how it plays on Broadway. I just feel it should have stayed off Broadway."

Totally agree! It worked great off broadway, but I guess you can't make money Off Broadway anymore...

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 5:03pm

Actually, I remember hearing when it opened off-Broadway that they wanted to take it to Broadway.  

 

I am on the tail end of this crappy cold thing going around and am still deciding if I am going.

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 10:37pm

I take moderate stock in what you guys say on here because I'm a college student on a budget. Since this was the only show running tonight that I hadn't already seen.

You know what? F the Haters, I had a great time!

I tend to be more snobbish than I should be with my theatre, but I went into this with no expectations of it to be great, or even remotely palatable. I was expecting a sh1+show. While it wouldn't rank anywhere near some of the performances I've seen, the cast was game and had a great time, the audience had a great time, and I had a great time (Some, a little too great, given that a throng of drunk chicks got removed from the orchestra during the first number after being belligerently loud). It was a campy gay ol' time for the rush price I paid.

SD: Pascal, Butler, Simard, Rudetsky, Lacretta Nicole, Max Crumm, and Travis Kent all came out. Faith Prince likely won't be at the door for a while since she's feeling under the weather per the door guard (but still performed like a champ). Also, some entitled teenager and his parents chased Kevin Chamberlin down the street despite him leaving a back exit.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/13/16 at 11:29pm

I was there this evening as well. I still think it should have stayed off Broadway but the good news is that even with bigger sets, they kept it as campy as the off-Broadway production. I didn't laugh as hard but still laughed and had a good time. If Ms Prince was under the weather it sure didn't show. She was hysterical. And then there is Jennifer Simmard as Sister Mary Downey. Her performance is just as funny as it was off-Broadway. Adam Pascal sounded great! Seth was not quite as stiff as he was off-Broadway but I just kept thinking that it must be a directorial choice. He also sounded great. He was hitting some nice high notes. After seeing Kerry Butler in "Clinton the Musical" I became a fan.

 

Unfortunately we missed a parts of the first 15 minutes due to a group of very drunk women in our row who thought that they were at a 70's concert. They were Singing loudly and talking to each other out loud. Kudos to the Nederlander staff for giving them 3 strikes and removing them from our row. The were smack dab in the middle and staff swooped in and got em outta there!

 

So all in all, even a bit congested with a cold(!), it was a fun night!

[@z5]

Posted: 3/14/16 at 1:10am

Also was there tonight, the drunk bitches were distracting, but I was happy they were thrown away from downstairs.

 

Was definitely pleasantly surprised by this show, better than I expected it to be.

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 3/14/16 at 5:14am

I'm responding to the comments about a reviewer's role. I'm a BWW regional reviewer, but this post consists only of my personal views. I'm not presenting BWW's opinions here - only mine.

When I review a tour, I tend to look at whether the show is worth the generally high ticket price. Also, I try hard to distinguish between a subpar performance and one where the performer and director make choices with which I disagree.

When I review a production in a community theatre, I have a different approach. Rarely will a nonprofessional production match a professional one, but sometimes it will. Those, I deem a "must see."  When the production is solid but may be lacking in some areas, I point out the good things and tell the readers whether the show provides laughs, food for thought, etc. Audiences pay a lot less for these shows, and they don't expect perfection, although sometimes they're lucky enough to receive it.

I'm fortunate as a reviewer in that, here in SoCal, even our community theatres are top-notch, and I also have an excellent  Equity  rep company to review. Frequently,  when I don't' like something, the problem is the play itself. I mention difficulties with the play , but don't dwell on them because audiences attending well-known plays are probably familiar with the script and want to know if the particular production is worth seeing - not whether I like a 20-year-old award-winning play.

I'm lucky that I've never been faced with a horrendous production in California.That makes it easy to speak about what the show has done right. My open secret is that, unless I say the entire cast turns in good performances, if I don't mention someone by name in a small cast, it means I probably didn't like his or her interpretation. I just don't see the benefit in mentioning a hard-working volunteer by name, only to add that he or she did a terrible job. I can tell people what I like without being a sh--head. If what I like is enough for them to think they'll also like the show, hopefully they'll attend.

Audrey

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/14/16 at 8:47am

I'm also in the camp that Jennifer Simard might pull a Micah Stock, in that she might be the one to score a Tony nod for a breakout role in a starry, yet mediocre show