Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:32am
Which is why I don't think it's critic proof. Wicked didn't get these bad reviews.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:34am
These days, when it can take 2-3 years for a show to merely break even, I'd call a 1 year, 8 month run "not very long," implying "not as along as a successful show."
Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:52am
Sidetrack, a little: Can anyone weigh in on Row A (or B) of the Rear Mezz and what the view is like from there for this show?
If anyone is wondering, I'm looking into tickets for May and they seem so scarce. I don't know how it's happening, but it's happening.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:56am
Interesting that you say they are scarce. Hasn't it been a regular on TKTS? And with these awful reviews; I would say it might have a decent run with the money behind it...but not become a hot ticket.
Updated On: 4/16/15 at 11:56 AM
Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:59am
And I just found plenty of seats in May, June, July.... etc... not scarce at all.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 12:03pm
I think it's a little unfair to say MERMAID's closing was largely due to it's reviews. Let's not forget that, like ALADDIN, it was the best-selling show of its season and, once its closing was announced, the entire run sold out several weeks in advance of the final performance.
From what I've been told, the lawsuit that occurred after a performer suffered what may have been a career-ending injury really impacted the show financially. Additionally, Disney was just not very happy with the way it turned out.
With that said, would it have run longer if it had gotten raves? I'd definitely say so. But I think it could have run a lot longer anyway. Disney just wanted to cut their losses.
I think NEVERLAND will do just fine for a while. And I do think it will still be nominated over closed shows and SHOULDA for Best Musical.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 12:06pm
Well, I only said May. And that's because of the 6 or 7 dates I checked it seemed to be sold pretty well. That's all.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 12:27pm
The folks who are buying these tickets are parents and aunts and uncles of kids who were brought up on everything Peter Pan. I saw kids dressed up in Cambridge when I saw it and I can bet dollars to donuts they were brought there on the Peter Pan brand alone. Add to that the bright whimsical press pictures and the thought of children on stage ... and a dog and reviews do not matter. Throw in a pair of TV stars and the blind buying triples. This will take the same trajectory as Matilda and do really well at the start and spike when the kids are off from school. It should not be nominated for awards but that still wont matter. cant wait to see how Harvey gets the show on the Tony's if it doesn't get nominated.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 12:30pm
The show will probably run for a while, but these terrible reviews will still be hanging over it's head. THE ADAMS FAMILY ran for a while too. The comments about Morrison and Grammer not really being "into it" have to hurt the performers. Why are people saying this show is "critic proof"? Is it that NEVERLAND is in the title? Or the two "TV Stars"? Lots of shows with stars have tanked, and if putting NEVERLAND in the title all shows would do this: HONEYMOON IN NEVERLAND, IT SHOULDA BEEN NEVERLAND? I also believe Weinstein is savy enough to "fix" sales and advance reports to make the show look like it is doing better than it actually is.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 12:52pm
"cant wait to see how Harvey gets the show on the Tony's if it doesn't get nominated. "
He'll put up the money for them to perform, like countless other non-nominated shows in the past have done…
Posted: 4/16/15 at 1:27pm
Posted: 4/16/15 at 1:54pm
Critic Proof meaning: it will be financially successful in spite of the critics not liking it.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 2:07pm
"The comments about Morrison and Grammer not really being "into it" have to hurt the performers."
I think that comment is probably a crock of junk, I can't picture Matthew Morrison or Kelsey grammer going thru the motions especially with a new show. Maybe I am taking the comment wrong but it does not seem right to me.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 2:12pm
yankeefan - I saw the show and I can tell you those comments about Morrison and Grammar are RIGHT ON! Esp when compared to Jordan and McGrath
Posted: 4/16/15 at 2:27pm
I will never understand critics. I loved this show, and I've seen hundreds. I was falling asleep at On The Town- first time it ever happened to me- and it got great reviews. I don't think this show is perfect, but I don't think it deserved what Brantley gave it. I loved Honeymoon, but I can't imagine it being a better show than Neverland, according to Brantley. Oh well.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 2:37pm
I think you are all missing the point. The one thing critics cannot take, is a show that that they know is critic proof. Some of the worst notices I can remember, was for a little show called 'Les Miserables' I wonder what became of that.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 2:39pm
The actual quote is "...Neither Mr. Grammer nor the show’s leading man, Matthew Morrison, appear wholly invested in their performances. But that’s O.K. Their mere presences do most of the work for them."
I didn't read that as a question of being (professionally) "into" the vigorous demands of performing in a musical play, but rather a comment on the two actors' making nuanced choices about the roles that might excavate darker nooks and crannies, i.e. to find some story-enhancing subtext. When Brantley says that Jordan exuded a "sweetness-thinning anguish," that suggests a very different exploration beyond simply committing to the demands of songs and dances. Anguish is very much in Barrie. Yet other than in "Piazza," I haven't seen the talented Morrison find a range of colors in his work. He is blessed with extraordinary looks and a nice voice; but he's not a male ingenue anymore, and for this role other depths are required. I've heard several people address his inherent blandness. And when Brantley notes the absence of sensuality in "Neverland", it's consistent with my impression: despite his handsomeness, he seldom plays sexuality. "Glee" went through multiple seasons without giving the character many opportunities to exhibit it. TV writers write to the qualities actors bring to the party.
Updated On: 4/16/15 at 02:39 PM
Posted: 4/16/15 at 3:37pm
I know what "critic proof" means, but how does it pertain to this show?
Posted: 4/16/15 at 3:39pm
Posted: 4/16/15 at 3:44pm
Honestly (and I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist) but to me the theatre critics have it out for Weinstein. Sure, I'd be willing to accept that it's not a great show but I think Weinstein's presence and reputation have pushed the reviews into pan (no pun intended) territory.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 3:50pm
Why is my question so hard to understand? Not what critic-proof is but why is THIS show being labled that? And of course, we won't know if it is "critic-proof" for at least 6 months.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 3:53pm
While I'm sure there is no love lost between Weinstein and most of the community, it's ludicrous to suggest that this show got harsh reviews because of the producer. As much as people here complain about the critics, they are professionals and in many cases are educated and intelligent about theatre. This show got poor reviews because the critics didn't like it- Harvey Weinstein being an ass is irrelevant.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 5:16pm
Because despite the poor reviews this got.out of Boston this is selling pretty well. Any comment people are making about it is guessing.
Posted: 4/16/15 at 5:29pm
Loved the film but after watching those musical highlights, nothing appeals to make me want to rush out and buy a ticket though there is an audience for this type of formulated musical.
