GETTIN (G) THE BAND BACK TOGETHER Previews- Page 7

Posted: 7/22/18 at 9:43am

Jordan Catalano said: "Some people here seem to exist solely to be snobs” 

 



 

[ilysespieces]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 9:50am

I posted earlier about winning the lottery to yesterday's matinee and after reading this thread actually waffled over buying the ticket. But I'm glad I did, I don't know if something is just wrong with my brain compared to pretty much everyone here, but I really enjoy the show and I'm glad I went. The crowd around me was loving it beyond belief, though. The guy behind me was super into it, the people on all sides of me could no stop laughing at every joke, and at the end they practically jumped to their feet at the curtain call. I laughed a good amount, not as uproariously as the people seated around me, but I thought it was a lot of fun and something different.

I don't think I'd pay anywhere near full price for the seat I sat in (3rd row center mezz) but I don't think my 45$ went to waste at all.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 9:54am

Jordan Catalano said: "Some people here seem to exist solely to be snobs and the idea that a show could exist to just be fun, without being “high art” Is absolutely offensive to them.

This show fits right in with The Wedding Singer, Rock of Ages and the other stupid yet fun shows that people, myself included, enjoy. I don’t know what some people were expecting when they got tickets for this, nothing advertised sold the show as anything other than what it is. "

 

IMO it’s this kind of thinking that leads to so many mediocre shows getting churned out. Just because something is light and fluffy and fun doesn’t mean it has to be mediocre and poorly written. Shows like Hello Dolly and The Play That Goes Wrong  are recent examples of shows that were pure fun, with no substance, yet still managed to be excellent. 

 

Now, obviously we can disagree about what’s poorly done and what isn’t. You found the show enjoyable enough that the flaws didn’t matter to you, or maybe you didn’t see them as flaws, and thats great (not snark, I really mean it! I always say it’s better to like things). But the whole mentality of “you shouldn’t criticize it because it’s not supposed to be high art” is just a way of excusing lazy writers, and training audiences to lower their standards.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 10:02am

Nope, not what I’m saying at all. I think this show is the best version of what this particular show could be. And that doesn’t mean it’s mediocre and/or poorly written at all. It means it’s a different kind of show and a different kind of fun than Hello Dolly, which this show isn’t trying to be. This isn’t a musical that’s gojng to be discussed in theater classes in 50 years or probably even remembered in 10 years. But damn, I had fun watching it and there’s really nothing wrong with that kind of show.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 10:05am

And no, it’s not “excusing” the writers and by saying that you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. The writers wrote something FUN and silly and it doesn’t have to be high-art to be perfectly enjoyable. I’m not really sure why that’s even debatable.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 10:45am

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely didn’t go into Gettin the Band expecting “high art.” I neither wanted nor expected Follies or Company. What I did want was the Wedding Singer and ROA, and that’s what I feel I didn’t get. (I actually think fairly highly or 75% of the Wedding Singer score and think it was wonderful pastiche of the era.)

I just thought the score, book, physical production and everything else was really lousy. That’s not wanting it to be something it never intended to be. That’s just being disappointed in the show within the confines of the genre it was written.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 10:47am

Jordan Catalano said: "And no, it’s not “excusing” the writers and by saying that you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. The writers wrote something FUN and silly and it doesn’t have to be high-art to be perfectly enjoyable. I’m not really sure why that’s even debatable. "

 

Yes, that’s what I thought you were saying, and i completely agree. You said that people are criticizing it because they can’t stand the idea of something fun that isn’t supposed to be high art. I would argue that shows like Dolly — or maybe Play That Goes Wrong is a better example — are similarly not trying to be high art. And yet many theatre “snobs” like them anyway. And because of shows like that, I disagree with your observation that people simply can’t stand things that are not high art. I believe it is more a matter of quality and personal taste. You may think this is the best version of this show it can be, but I disagree, and many others probably would too. It’s not because it’s fun and silly, it’s simply because I don’t think it is a good show. 

My point about excusing the writers is that if we say “people are only criticizing this show because it’s not meant to be high art,” when in reality they are criticizing specific things about the writing and direction, it fosters a mentality of “well, it doesn’t have to be well-written, it just has to be fun” when I believe it’s possible to be both. 

Defend the merits of the show all you want - I don’t want to inhibit you from doing that. I just don’t agree with your opinion that people are criticizing it simply because it isn’t “high art.” 

[BJR]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 11:19am

WhizzerMarvin said: "Why isn’t Pretty Woman having a second try-out in Boston after swapping out a leading man and several songs. It sounds like the book and score needed some serious work after Chicago, which is fine. Take the time to fix it, have a second try-out and then bring it in.

In the Golden Age, I would say it was the norm to have a multiple city try-out period. I know it’s more expensive to do that now, but get it right on the road before coming to New York."

Simply money. You can argue it will help profit in the long run, but it simply costs too much.

 

[BroadwayGuy12]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 11:59am

Whizzer, I was also relatively fond of the score for THE WEDDING SINGER, and the only reason I was even remotely considering seeing this was because of my hopes that it would be somewhat similar to that show. It sounds like it's not, though, so I'll be content to pass on this one and spend my money elsewhere!

[newintown]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 2:43pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems unlike Jordan to attack those who merely don’t like what he likes, by calling them “snobs.”

I may not have been paying attention, but it seems very out of character for him. I thought he had a good sense of humor about these things.

[WaterPolo10036]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:19pm

I question Jordan Catalano's reasons for defending this bad show, especially when his other recent posts are attacking PRETTY WOMAN, the other new musical about to open, one that has a very similar audience demographic to GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:22pm

Newintown, I didn’t mean to “attack” anyone personally, it just seems like there’s a lot of people (more than lately) with a stick up their butts about shows.

And “WaterPolo”, I’ve been around here for years. You want to “question” my motives for what I enjoy and what I don’t enjoy? Who the hell are you, even?

[WaterPolo10036]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:32pm

You have to admit the script and songs are bad, like really bad. THE WEDDING SINGER was a fun show, filled with great songs, fun choreography, and a coherent book- GETTING THE BAND BACK has none of these things. The only thing it has is a very talented cast, who deserve better material. Hey, maybe this show spoke to you, and if so, great! I am glad you found something that you enjoy. For those considering buying a ticket though, I would urge you to wait until the critics review it, then decide. At least that gives the creators time to try and fix it. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:35pm

I have to question your reasons for your post.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:43pm

WaterPolo10036 said: "Iquestion Jordan Catalano's reasons fordefending this bad show, especially when his other recent posts are attacking PRETTY WOMAN, the other new musical about to open, one that has a very similar audience demographic to GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER."

You don't have to agree with his opinon, but your theory as to why is WAAAY off base.  Jordan will tell us what he thinks, sometimes I'll agree with him. other times, not so much.    

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 4:55pm

I left this at intermission, and even that was not soon enough. This was shockingly awful. Not even in a "so bad it's funny" kind of awful. This was just plain atrocious.

[kevinr]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 5:06pm

I always think when I read these posts "to each his own".  I actually thoroughly enjoyed "Summer: The Donna Summer Musical".  I also saw "Mary Paige Marlowe" and didn't enjoy it so much.  My favourite show ever is "Come From Away" probably because I visited Newfoundland, I was "screeched in", and just really liked the high energy those 12 actors brought to their parts.  Plus, both times I saw it, I was front row centre.  All those factors made it my favourite show!   As long as you enjoy it, it's a worthwhile experience.

[EllieRose2]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 5:17pm

"Defend the merits of the show all you want - I don’t want to inhibit you from doing that. I just don’t agree with your opinion that people are criticizing it simply because it isn’t “high art.”

Exactly. Everyone knows it's not high art going in. The quality of the show is terrible in my view but there are others that really like it and enjoy themselves. To each their own. However, ticket sales are very poor after looking at them this afternoon, so for those who are dying to see this show, hurry up and go!

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 8:16pm

I kind of wish it was as terrible as some are feeling it is. In my opinion this show commits the bigger sin of just being completely generic and derivative, and thus almost completely forgettable.

Ken Davenport mentioned in his pre-show speech how the show was “improvised” into life by a group of people, and it shows. It is filled with those kinds of in-jokes that a group of friends will find hilarious and leave everyone outside of the group scratching their heads or shrugging at. There’s moments to laugh at, sure, but when the biggest laugh of the night was over a flubbed line that indicates to me that the book is not nearly as clever as it thinks it is.

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 8:42pm

BroadwayNoob said: "If someone liked Groundhog Day will they enjoy this?

I think I'll just wait on a lottery win for this one but for whatever reason, despite the negativity, it's still kind of drawing me in"

I loved Groundhog (mostly because I found Minchin's lyrics mostly clever, and only occasionally awful). I found this to be pretty bad. I agree with Whizzer.

I know the critics are going to savage this. I *think* the audiences will stay away (but sometimes I'm wrong). It feels like a show they want to run for a few months on Broadway, then tour with the "straight from Broadway" label. Cheap sets (something GHD could have learned from $17mm Ugh), cheap props, stock characters, generic story and music.  If you really want to see this, wait a year or two--your local community theater or high school might put it on (especially if they are in Jersey)

 

As my dad used to say, ....

(that's an inside joke for those of you who haven't seen it)

Updated On: 7/22/18 at 08:42 PM

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 9:29pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "I just thought the score, book, physical production and everything else was really lousy. That’s not wanting it to be something it never intended to be. That’s just being disappointed in the show within the confines of the genre it was written."

I had a different take on why the sets looked so cheap. The tone stuck me as very influenced by 1980s Saturday morning cartoons and broad comedies from that era, like how's there's an over the top villain who's both cartoonishly evil and not particularly threatening. I thought they were deliberately going for that South Park or Family Guy aesthetic of looking like a crudely drawn cartoon. 

I don't have a similar defense for the music. I think Bob's Confession was the only song I really enjoyed and even that thematically if not musically, reminded me of Scotty Doesn't Know from the movie Eurotrip.   

Updated On: 7/22/18 at 09:29 PM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 9:46pm

The sets were too inconsistent (for me) to be able to draw any conclusions about any concept the designer had.

Most of the sets at the beginning were of a Charlie Brown/Spider-Man handdrawn, 2D quality, but the bar set was a standard set, as was the jail, the Jersey Shore flashback, the wedding and the Battle of the Bands. In fact, the entire second act, except for when they returned to Marilu’s house, was not in the cartoon style. Did they run out of money or something? I didn’t get it.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/22/18 at 11:24pm

I was there tonight, and kind of enjoyed myself? I mean, it has flaws for days, but I was laughing and entertained. They should have hired an actual book writer. It's cool it was improvised - for whatever reason - but they should have had someone come in and actually flesh out the book a bit more. There were a lot of jokes that just didn't land, but they were funny, just not delivered properly. The two main characters are just so damn dull. The other characters are all quirky and interesting and then you have these 2 boring ass white people. Why not give them some quirk? They dated back in high school. Give me a funny song about their first awkward moments of romance or something. 

The music was pretty bland. There were moments of an interesting melody, but mostly it was boring. I thought the opening "Jersey" would be this fun riff on Jersey, but instead, it was very earnest. I wanted them to poke fun at how terrible Jersey is, but it was just kind of there. And the choreography was pretty terrible. They need to up the bass. At a rock musical I want the ground to be thumping, and it all felt very thin. 

To speak to sets, I think, Whizzer, you're miss remembering. The other sets were still kept within that hand-drawn look - the jail cell that flies in and the wedding are very much the cartoon look. But, I agree with you, that it didn't work. The costumes weren't over the top, and for the most part the show is pretty earnest, so the cartoon look just didn't work. It's not Hairspray. 

I don't know what Ken Davenport did, but the audience was going crazies. Families were leaving smiling, people were whooing and genuinely laughing throughout. 

Overall, I think it's worth a rush seat. I think the show is really funny, but for some reason the comedy just didn't quite click. I don't know if that's direction or lack of an actual book, but the pacing felt all over. I thought the show really clicked in the diner scene - I thought the diner guy's song was just brilliant and hilarious and shows what the show could be - whereas I thought the "audition" montage was just weird and could have been really hilarious, but for some reason wasn't - again, terrible choreography. I liked the bad guy a lot, but again, wanted the side-kick to be a little more of a character. Good idea, but needs some fine-tuning. 

They should have snatched up that slot at Papermill when Unmasked was cancelled. I think this belongs at New World Stages, but then, who would go see it? 

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/23/18 at 4:22am

RippedMan wrote:

"I think the show is really funny, but for some reason the comedy just didn't quite click."

Could that be because the show isn't really funny, or even funny at all?

 

[mamaleh]

Posted: 7/23/18 at 8:29am

For anyone else who saw the show at George Street:  I saw it there and was singularly unimpressed.  Has it improved substantially from that production?