How Critics Hype can ruin a show.

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.

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

BWW: egocentrism run amok.

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

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

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



"

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :.

"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?

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.

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