How Critics Hype can ruin a show.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 1:51pm

I just saw  to the Humans. 90% of the critics raved about this play. Some touted it as the best play of the past few years. So I bought a ticket.

I thought it was a decent play but not great  and was terribly disappointed after reading all the "hype." I was more inclined to agree with Terry Teachout from the Wall Street Journal who was of the naysayers about this play. It was decent but far from great or even good in my humble opinion. Very depressing and not all that clever.

Conversely, I felt the same way about Once and Fun Home after that. I just don't get it. Is my opinion so diffrerent thant the critics? I specifically don't trust Charles Isherwoods taste who loved the Humans and Disaster.


I loved Book of Mormon having seen it in previews prior to opening but  a lot of people are disappointed after all the hype. (I don't get that either cause  I think BOM is brilliant)

 

Has anyone else had "hype" ruin  a play or musical for them?

[Drewski Vanderbilt]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 1:56pm

Book of Mormon, I bought my ticket as soon as the tour announced it was coming to my town, and I love this kinda humor, but when I saw it Iwas disappointed   because I thought it was somewhat funny but I didn't laugh out loud like everyone had said I would, I almost fell asleep towards the end of act one and I wonder why some think this is the greatest musical in decades.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:02pm

I wouldn't say the hype ruined BOM for me as I still really enjoy it, but I definitely didn't think it lived up to it. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:05pm

so any time the critical consensus on a show differs from your take it's hype?

BWW: egocentrism run amok.

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:07pm

Brantley of AP - “American Psycho” is a mess. That’s not because of all that sloppy, sloshy blood, but because of its terminally undecided tone. And it’s not the kind of mess you wallow in, hooting at the glorious chaos of it all. Its conflicts of intention cancel one another out, leaving you numb."

I usually pay no attention to critics, and even if I had read this review ahead of time, I probably would have gone to see the show. However, I saw it, and agree with Brantley. For me, its conflicts of intention cancel out any profundity.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:10pm

No offense, but you are not a credible human being for your despise of fun home.

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:15pm

Me? I didn't see Fun Home. I have a ticket, though.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 2:16pm

I also thought The Humans was a perfectly fine and supremely well-acted play, but I left immensely confused by its monstrous critical acclaim. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 6:26pm

Enjoyed The Humans but BOM not so much.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 6:26pm

Jane2 said: "Me? I didn't see Fun Home. I have a ticket, though.

 

"

Sorry, my comment was directed towards the op. Sorry.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 6:31pm

Cannot see any show that would not want critical acclaim for their show.

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 6:43pm

A consistent critic is an asset, whether or not you agree with them. I would religiously read Roger Ebert's reviews for every new movie as they came out, and over time, I could tell when something that made him dislike something wouldn't affect me, or when something he would praise would not land with me and, sometimes, he would have such a violent reaction to a movie, that even if I might agree with him, I wanted to go see what caused it. So, he helped me find what movies I would like, even if I didn't often agree with him, because he was very consistent about his likes/dislikes.

I find it harder to translate that over to theater as easily, because there isn't the same volume. Ebert might review 4-5 movies per week, 52 weeks a year, and it took a while to find that pattern.

That said, hype can't ruin anything, because that is only a word applied AFTER you see something (except for a certain show that is difficult to get a ticket to see), and BECAUSE you disagree with what you read beforehand. If you don't like a show a critic loved, that shouldn't mean you then grow to hate it even more as a result...

But I don't read critics to see if they liked it, I read them to discern whether I will like it. I've loved too much they've hated, and hated too much they've loved, to stay in that doomed cycle.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 6:49pm

Judith Crist was also one of my favorites whether or not I agreed with her 

 

Some of her best :

 

Dr Zhivago - Soap opera in the snow

El Cid - Lone Ranger Liberation Tale

Fall Of The Roman Empire - My Son,The Crazy Emperor

King Of Kings - I Was A Teenage Jesus.

 

 

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 7:06pm

Critics are people who see shows and give their thoughts. They aren't some kind of machine meant to get people to see shows that aren't actually that great. When Jesse Green goes crazy for The Humans, it is because he saw and genuinely loved the show. Should critics never be in agreement on a show?

Theatre is expensive and most people can't see all of it. Critics are there to help you chose what is worth the money. If they lead you astray, that's just a difference of opinions. If you really want to avoid "hype", you might miss something amazing. For example, I usually don't see plays at Rattlestick, but the rave for The Aliens made me chance it, and I was thus introduced to my favorite living playwright.

And The Humans is AMAZING.

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 7:06pm

Critics are people who see shows and give their thoughts. They aren't some kind of machine meant to get people to see shows that aren't actually that great. When Jesse Green goes crazy for The Humans, it is because he saw and genuinely loved the show. Should critics never be in agreement on a show?

Theatre is expensive and most people can't see all of it. Critics are there to help you chose what is worth the money. If they lead you astray, that's just a difference of opinions. If you really want to avoid "hype", you might miss something amazing. For example, I usually don't see plays at Rattlestick, but the rave for The Aliens made me chance it, and I was thus introduced to my favorite living playwright.

And The Humans is AMAZING.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 7:25pm

haterobics said: "A consistent critic is an asset, whether or not you agree with them. I would religiously read Roger Ebert's reviews for every new movie as they came out, and over time, I could tell when something that made him dislike something wouldn't affect me, or when something he would praise would not land with me and, sometimes, he would have such a violent reaction to a movie, that even if I might agree with him, I wanted to go see what caused it. So, he helped me find what movies I would like, even if I didn't often agree with him, because he was very consistent about his likes/dislikes.

I find it harder to translate that over to theater as easily, because there isn't the same volume. Ebert might review 4-5 movies per week, 52 weeks a year, and it took a while to find that pattern.

That said, hype can't ruin anything, because that is only a word applied AFTER you see something (except for a certain show that is difficult to get a ticket to see), and BECAUSE you disagree with what you read beforehand. If you don't like a show a critic loved, that shouldn't mean you then grow to hate it even more as a result...

But I don't read critics to see if they liked it, I read them to discern whether I will like it. I've loved too much they've hated, and hated too much they've loved, to stay in that doomed cycle.

 

"

This 100%. Critics aren't hype,  they are opinions.

[carnzee]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 7:45pm

I'm surprised you have favorite critics, Mr. Roxy. I've only ever seen you say negative things about them, i.e. "Why would you listen to a stranger".

Those Crist reviews sound funny!

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 7:57pm

It's much more common that I'm fooled by the hype from the posters here on BWW than by any of the critics. 

Recent case in point: the near unanimity over the merits of AMERICAN PSYCHO. Putting aside its fine staging and design, I found very little to like in that show.

THE HUMANS was similarly raved about on BWW. We went with high expectations, were impressed with the first hour or so, then were so flummoxed by the last 20 minutes that we wondered if we had seen the same play as the posters here.

Screw the critics-- I listen for the feedback from a select posse of you discerning folks on BWW. If you steer me wrong, then I'm lost :.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 8:20pm

To Carnzee

 

I do not take them seriously and read many for comic relief.In addition, a movie has already been preserved on film.In theater , they can close a show. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 9:28pm

"Critics are people who see shows and give their thoughts. They aren't some kind of machine meant to get people to see shows that aren't actually that great."

 

Why do critics write articles on who/what should win Tonys prior to the Tony Awards?

 

 

 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 9:35pm

To Someone In A Tree

 

Do not put all your eggs in one basket and depend on people here. They are , like the media, people who have different likes and dislikes and can (and have) got it wrong many times. If you like an actor, composer, playwright etc make up your own mind. Only you know what you like. Do not leave your decision making to a complete stranger. It is your money you are spending . I suggest you go with your gut instinct regarding what to see or what to avoid. It has always worked for me

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 9:55pm

After Eight said: ""Critics are people who see shows and give their thoughts. They aren't some kind of machine meant to get people to see shows that aren't actually that great."

 

Why do critics write articles on who/what should win Tonys prior to the Tony Awards?
"
 

Isn't that just their opinion of what they would vote for if they were part of the Tony committee? Critics are also, for the most part, writers for a for-profit newspaper or magazine. Their job is to keep readers entertained. It's fun sometimes to see what they would pick in each category (not for everyone, but then again you don't have to read everything), much like it is fun to fill out your own Tony ballot before the ceremony.
 

 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 6/5/16 at 10:13pm

"Go with your gut instinct regarding what to see or what to avoid. It has always worked for me"

No argument from me, Roxy. I always do. The fact is there are a lot of really smart discerning folks on here whom I greatly respect in the abstract. A show like AMERICAN PSYCHO or THE HUMANS is not my go to for a night at the theater, but some times a rave on BWW gets me in to a show I loved that I wouldn't have thought to see. (THE COLOR PURPLE is the latest fantastic example.) 

[pg1287]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 7:30am

Matilda. I definitely did not hate it, but am perplexed by the extreme critical acclaim it has received.

[mailhandler777]

Posted: 6/6/16 at 7:49am

I might be in the minority that don't read reviews(critics or anyone) at all before seeing a show. If it looks interesting to me I will see it. If I know of someone in the show I will see it. If it looks stupid to me I won't see it.