#51
Posted: 4/22/13 at 2:08am
when did becoming a constantly annoying twat become accepted either?
Giving a Bye to Bad Shows — Page 3
#52
Posted: 4/22/13 at 3:05am
AfterEight -- maybe people just have different opinions from you.
"You mean what was the best picture of the year or what did they pick as the best picture of the year?" - California Suite
Updated On: 4/22/13 at 03:05 AM
#53
Posted: 4/22/13 at 7:28am
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#54
Posted: 4/22/13 at 11:58am
The sexual tension between Jordan and AfterEight is always so palpable in these threads.
i think im a little jealous
i think im a little jealous
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#55
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:05pm
AfterEight -- maybe people just have different opinions from you
I think he knows that, and that's what concerns him.
I think he knows that, and that's what concerns him.
#56
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:19pm
"Star-Spangled Girl" - now THERE'S a great play! Even my dog is still laughing hysterically.
#57
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:24pm
^
Your dog appreciates Neil Simon's humor?
Smart dog!
Smarter than his master, I suspect.
Your dog appreciates Neil Simon's humor?
Smart dog!
Smarter than his master, I suspect.
#58
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:25pm
I love Star-Spangled Girl, especially how Sophie confesses her attraction. She's an eyelash girl. The movie did not do it justice.
#59
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:35pm
I don't have anything against "Star-Spangled Girl" - it's fun - but it wouldn't make my short list of fine plays. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
#60
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:41pm
"I love Star-Spangled Girl,"
That's why I've always thought you a person of taste, despite your gifs and humoring of the grotesque class clown.
"The movie did not do it justice."
Ain't that the truth.
That's why I've always thought you a person of taste, despite your gifs and humoring of the grotesque class clown.
"The movie did not do it justice."
Ain't that the truth.
#61
Posted: 4/22/13 at 12:43pm
Thanks, Tom. I appreciate that.
#62
Posted: 4/22/13 at 1:27pm
Mediocre and bad shows should not get positive reiews.
No, the should not. Mediocre shows, however, should not receive the same pans that greet outright bombs. But reviews can serve to educate audiences as well as authors.
A review should inform a prospective ticket buyer what to expect from a show. What are its strengths, and more importantly the weaknesses. How could this show be better.
Sadly very few of today's reviewers can do any of this./..too interested on creating catty quotes or (in the case of favorable reviews, tag lines that can be quoted - with attribution - in ads)
Critics do get it wrong sometimes lavishing praise on weak shows Sometimes a weak show after a slew of stinkers can seem better than it is. And often critics can't zero in on what is wrong with a show after one viewing and having to write 1,000 words for a deadline 6 hours later. Shows that have a mix of good and bad elements can confound critics an audiences alike. The long running PHANTOM OF THE OPERA certainly is a great example. None of the Broadway critics could articulate what is wrong with the show, and may were blinded by the spectacle and dazzling staging. The reviewers failed to note the empty lyrics and banal music.
No, the should not. Mediocre shows, however, should not receive the same pans that greet outright bombs. But reviews can serve to educate audiences as well as authors.
A review should inform a prospective ticket buyer what to expect from a show. What are its strengths, and more importantly the weaknesses. How could this show be better.
Sadly very few of today's reviewers can do any of this./..too interested on creating catty quotes or (in the case of favorable reviews, tag lines that can be quoted - with attribution - in ads)
Critics do get it wrong sometimes lavishing praise on weak shows Sometimes a weak show after a slew of stinkers can seem better than it is. And often critics can't zero in on what is wrong with a show after one viewing and having to write 1,000 words for a deadline 6 hours later. Shows that have a mix of good and bad elements can confound critics an audiences alike. The long running PHANTOM OF THE OPERA certainly is a great example. None of the Broadway critics could articulate what is wrong with the show, and may were blinded by the spectacle and dazzling staging. The reviewers failed to note the empty lyrics and banal music.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#63
Posted: 4/22/13 at 1:47pm
^
I'm not certain I agree that emphasizing the weaknesses is more important than emphasizing the strengths. If it's an audience-pleasing, feel-good show, such as Mowtown, I think making that point is as important as mentioning that the book is negligible. As you rightly note, it let's the audience know what to expect.
I'm not certain I agree that emphasizing the weaknesses is more important than emphasizing the strengths. If it's an audience-pleasing, feel-good show, such as Mowtown, I think making that point is as important as mentioning that the book is negligible. As you rightly note, it let's the audience know what to expect.
#64
Posted: 4/22/13 at 2:34pm
The difference between a critic and a reviewer: the critic's job is to find fault, point out flaws. A reviewer (at least a good reviewer) shoudl tell you whether a particular show is worth your time and money, and more importantly why they came to that conclusion.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#65
Posted: 4/22/13 at 3:01pm
I believe that "critic" and "reviewer" are synonyms. Over the past however many years, the latter has become preferred because the former came to be considered somewhat pejorative.
#66
Posted: 4/22/13 at 3:31pm
How could this show be better.
I emphatically disagree with this. Critics are not in the business of improving shows, they are in the business of informing the public about the experience of seeing shows. They do not work for the productions, they work for the public.
To me, a review should present an accurate depiction of what it is like to see a show. That is the job of a critic. To me, this is why Roger Ebert (may he rest in peace) was so revered; I never read another film critic who even approached the level of clarity when it came to expressing what his feelings about a movie were. Reading an Ebert review was (and still is) a crystal clear transport directly into his head as he took in the delights (or horrors) of each film.
A stage review is no different. If critics would like to armchair direct, it better read (to me) as the wanderings of a mind that couldn't help pondering different choices during a problematic show. Most of the time, it does. It can be a tool to better elaborate on the experience, describing what sitting in the show was like. But it should not be part of the job description.
There is nothing easier than writing an effusive praise or an all-consuming pan. Writing reviews in the middle is where the cream rises to the crop. If After Eight were to make a point I'd agree with, it's that more shows should not be exempted from this middle-ground because the nuanced review is too difficult to summarize. (Thumbs up! Thumbs down! Thumbs... sideways? Three-quarters up? Eh... screw it. Thumbs up!) It's just that that wasn't his point; his point was that mediocre is no better than terrible. And that is terribly misguided.
I emphatically disagree with this. Critics are not in the business of improving shows, they are in the business of informing the public about the experience of seeing shows. They do not work for the productions, they work for the public.
To me, a review should present an accurate depiction of what it is like to see a show. That is the job of a critic. To me, this is why Roger Ebert (may he rest in peace) was so revered; I never read another film critic who even approached the level of clarity when it came to expressing what his feelings about a movie were. Reading an Ebert review was (and still is) a crystal clear transport directly into his head as he took in the delights (or horrors) of each film.
A stage review is no different. If critics would like to armchair direct, it better read (to me) as the wanderings of a mind that couldn't help pondering different choices during a problematic show. Most of the time, it does. It can be a tool to better elaborate on the experience, describing what sitting in the show was like. But it should not be part of the job description.
There is nothing easier than writing an effusive praise or an all-consuming pan. Writing reviews in the middle is where the cream rises to the crop. If After Eight were to make a point I'd agree with, it's that more shows should not be exempted from this middle-ground because the nuanced review is too difficult to summarize. (Thumbs up! Thumbs down! Thumbs... sideways? Three-quarters up? Eh... screw it. Thumbs up!) It's just that that wasn't his point; his point was that mediocre is no better than terrible. And that is terribly misguided.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
#67
Posted: 4/22/13 at 4:07pm
There are so many ways I can respond to this thread. But it's no use to argue or respond or anything...except for this fact: AfterDeath just likes to instigate arguments that he HAS to win in his own decrepit mind. This thread is one of many.
#68
Posted: 4/22/13 at 4:19pm
"The difference between a critic and a reviewer: the critic's job is to find fault, point out flaws. A reviewer (at least a good reviewer) shoudl tell you whether a particular show is worth your time and money, and more importantly why they came to that conclusion."
Not at all; the critic's job is to analyze, with intelligence, deep knowledge, and experience (I think Feingold is the only theatre writer who currently qualifies); the reviewer provides a superficial and utterly subjective response, usually tagged on to the end of a long synopsis.
Not at all; the critic's job is to analyze, with intelligence, deep knowledge, and experience (I think Feingold is the only theatre writer who currently qualifies); the reviewer provides a superficial and utterly subjective response, usually tagged on to the end of a long synopsis.
#69
Posted: 4/22/13 at 4:58pm
"his point was that mediocre is no better than terrible. "
That was not my point at all.
Does it have to be spelled out for you yet again?
Here's my point:
Mediocrities should be assessed as such in reviews, and not receive positive reviews.
Bad shows should receive bad reviews, not positive reviews.
That was not my point at all.
Does it have to be spelled out for you yet again?
Here's my point:
Mediocrities should be assessed as such in reviews, and not receive positive reviews.
Bad shows should receive bad reviews, not positive reviews.
#70
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:00pm
And by "bad shows" you mean everything produced after 1966.
#71
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:05pm
"There are so many ways I can respond to this thread. But it's no use to argue or respond or anything"
Then why'd you show up at all?
Take it from me. You haven't been missed.
But thanks for not arguing, or responding, or anything. You have everyone's gratitude for sparing us your gibberish.
Then why'd you show up at all?
Take it from me. You haven't been missed.
But thanks for not arguing, or responding, or anything. You have everyone's gratitude for sparing us your gibberish.
#72
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:06pm
You forgot I add "NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
#73
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:26pm
Ah, apologies, After Eight. I conflated your point with the examples you gave to bolster your point. We appear to agree that mediocre plays deserve mediocre reviews. We just appear to differ to the extent that the plays you mentioned got mediocre reviews. MATILDA and VANYA, there is no question to me, got raves. KINKY got qualified raves, to my eyes (did anyone who reviewed it not single out the awful book?), and LUCKY GUY, THE NANCE and ASSEMBLED PARTIES all seemed to me to be nuanced reviews as well, with generally positive encouragements but not breathless full-on endorsements (and certainly not unanimity.) Of course, then there's the subjective matter of our own opinions the shows (I found MATILDA and VANYA to be very good but not great, ASSEMBLED PARTIES to be a bore with a few bright spots, and have yet to see the other three, for the record.)
But to the extent that you've corrected me, you're right. I apologize for mischaracterizing your point. I do, however, believe you are also mischaracterizing the nuance in many of the reviews you're pillorying.
But to the extent that you've corrected me, you're right. I apologize for mischaracterizing your point. I do, however, believe you are also mischaracterizing the nuance in many of the reviews you're pillorying.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
#74
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:29pm
Jnb,
That's ok. You're a good soul, in the end.
That's ok. You're a good soul, in the end.
#75
Posted: 4/22/13 at 5:54pm
After Eight, I would have preferred to pm you, but you don't accept pms. Just wanted to tell you , that you have pretty much maintained a pretty good disposition, especially with the insults being hurled at you. If it was me, I would have reacted and responded a lot differently. I must say, you are a better person than me. Just sayin.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95