Posted: 8/14/18 at 6:27pm
Miles2Go2 said: "That’s a pretty sexist name for a website."
No, no it's not. Unclutch your pearls.
Posted: 8/14/18 at 6:32pm
Oh my bad. I barely glanced at the site after I clicked the link. I thought this was supposed to be a website where you could see composite reviews for different shows from different reviewers. Pearls unclutched. Why would Brantley need a separate website for his reviews when he has nyt? Is it because this one doesn’t limit your number of free monthly views?
Updated On: 8/14/18 at 06:32 PM
Posted: 8/14/18 at 7:15pm
Your pearls were never clutched, you're fine, Miles.
I don't think he has anything to do with the website. It's Ken Davenport's, and his peeps just gather some of the more known/reputable reviews there. The Times is just "the" review that matters. (well, not nearly as much anymore) That's where the title comes from - at least that's my understanding.
Posted: 8/14/18 at 7:57pm
Miles2Go2 said: "Why would Brantley need a separate website for his reviews when he has nyt?"
He doesn't. Davenport runs it.
They explain it as: "DidHeLikeIt.com is your official guide and translator for all the Broadway theatre reviews by Ben Brantley, the chief theatre critic for the New York Times. At DidHeLikeIt.com you can find out if He liked a show or not with a quick glance of the Ben-o-meter! We also use the Ben-o-meter for all of the other prominent publications such as New York Daily News,Newsday, USA Today, Variety, and more!"
Posted: 8/14/18 at 8:06pm
Thanks for unclutching your pearls Miles, and only Ken Davenport (the smarmiest guy involved in Broadway) would ever write something like:
"1. Everyone wants to know if Ben Brantley and The New York Times liked a Broadway show or not.
2. No one actually wants to read the reviews."
Umm, a lot of people read those reviews and want to read them. They would much rather read the NYT than anything he writes (including that hilarious Tweet from BWW last night)
Updated On: 8/14/18 at 08:06 PM
Posted: 8/14/18 at 8:15pm
Ken Davenport is a joke and an embarrassment to the theatre industry.
Posted: 8/14/18 at 8:44pm
Among my friends, I always say he's "the Gilderoy Lockhart of the theatre industry"
Posted: 8/14/18 at 8:56pm
bwayphreak234 said: "Ken Davenport is a joke and an embarrassment to the theatre industry."
But he’s kinda hot though. ??
Posted: 8/14/18 at 9:01pm
Famebroadway2 said: "bwayphreak234 said: "Ken Davenport is a joke and an embarrassment to the theatre industry."
But he’s kinda hot though. ??"
No. Ken, you’re not. But thanks for making me vomit a little bit.
Posted: 8/14/18 at 9:06pm
Posted: 8/14/18 at 9:14pm
Ok, everyone. It's time to get this thread back on topic. Obviously discussing Ken Davenport's work, tactics, and strategies as a producer and writer are certainly well within the bounds of the discussion, but we've crossed that line a few times in this thread in the last few hours. So, please keep the conversation going about the show and anything professionally tangential to that, but the personal stuff should be saved for PMs or another venue.
Thanks as always, and have a great night!
Posted: 8/14/18 at 10:13pm
Posted: 8/14/18 at 11:24pm
Can anyone explain how this show cost $12 million dollars? What was that money spent on? I didn't really get the cartoon sets since the characters weren't exactly cartoony- a la Hairspray. I don't get where the money was spent?
Posted: 8/14/18 at 11:27pm
RippedMan said: "Can anyone explain how this show cost $12 million dollars? What was that money spent on? I didn't really get the cartoon sets since the characters weren't exactly cartoony- a la Hairspray. I don't get where the money was spent?"
Certainly wasn't the costumes either. They look like they came off the rack at Loehmann's circa 1986.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 12:26am
My God, is that the real number? I would love to know what they spent that money on. It's not sets, not costumes, not any exciting lighting or sound or explosions so.....what the hell?
Posted: 8/15/18 at 7:31am
I think we should each send off an emal to info@didhelikeit.com and ASK where the revews are. But make it sound like we looking forward to reading them. Or not. (Becasue I see the appeal about being smarmy about Davenport, too.)
I'm torn.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 10:11am
Showscore shows the critic score at 53% and the audience score at 76%.
A quick scan of the positive audience reviews are of the "theater is fun!" variety.
https://www.show-score.com/broadway-shows/gettin-the-band-back-together
Posted: 8/15/18 at 10:16am
I can't recall ever seeing any show with an aggregated negative audience response on there. These are probably the same people who leave 5-star reviews for toothpaste on Amazon.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 10:17am
Posted: 8/15/18 at 1:18pm
I'm seriously amazed and really disgusted that Ken doesn't have his own show on DidheLikeit. Its like his site his rules, but he's more than happy to have those offensive thumb down images for other people's shows ....just not his. something about it is so gross....and he does quite a few gross things.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 2:52pm
According to my browser history, it was here:
http://www.didhelikeit.com/shows/gettin-the-band-back-together-broadway.html
Error 404 now.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 5:30pm
The email they sent out this afternoon with a discount code quotes the NYT as calling it "A feel-good genuinely funny musical!" which is a cobbled together quote from the 2013 NYT review written by a stringer... not surprising, but it is very prominent in the ad.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 5:36pm
haterobics said: "The email they sent out this afternoon with a discount code quotes the NYT as calling it "A feel-good genuinely funny musical!" which is a cobbled together quote from the 2013 NYT review written by a stringer... not surprising, but it is very prominent in the ad."
That sounds desperately dishonest.
Posted: 8/15/18 at 5:44pm
I'll condemn Davenport's business practices until the cows come home, but on this particular issue, I don't think he's straying that far from usual marketing protocol. Plenty of flops try to spin pull-quotes out of context, and while I don't know for sure, I'd be very surprised to learn that Davenport was the first person to use a review from out of town. I've even noticed sometimes that poorly-reviewed revivals of classic plays will use pull quotes from reviews of previous productions, but it's fair game because they only choose quotes that are about the play itself - not the specific production. Yeah it's kind of misleading, but so is a LOT of advertising out there.
