How smart is the Jersey Boys website?- Page 2

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:30pm

442. You may think this is a personal attack, but it's not.

Your latest post SEEMS to be backpeddling. Here is your original post

"Those songs are extremely obnoxious and the show itself seems pointless and unworthy of being housed in the new August Wilson Theatre. "

Nowhere in that statement is any reference to the website making the show seem pointless and unworthy....

As for not appreciating my tone - there is none. All I am doing is stating my opinion. If you don't care for it, or don't agree with it, you are welcome to not agree or state otherwise.

You haven't proved anything as far as I am concerned other than the fact you dislike jukebox musicals and are not a fan of the four seasons.

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:34pm

To Craig (because I would give away my left testicle before even CARING about ddtruit):

And you haven't proving anything as far as I'm concerned other than the fact that you have far too much time on your hands which you use to try and make me believe I didn't see this show.

Craig. I don't believe your name is "Craig".

Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I'm right, as I'm sure your name is Craig.

As embarassing as it is to admit it, since shows like these are ruining theatre and its reputation, I SAW JERSEY BOYS.

Have a nice night.

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 05:34 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:36pm

What's funny is that no one has threatened you. We've asked you questions which you have either not responded to or don't want to. It's your right.

You seem to have PLENTY of time to argue about the fact it shouldn't be on broadway. Why not take one of those minutes to discuss what you actually didn't like about it.

It's easy to write something off in the way you have. I know I'd personally be very interesting in knowing WHAT didn't work for you. What didn't you like. What about the book had problems. Was it the direction? Did certain performances seem off?

Anybody with a screen name can log on and write "That show sucks and has no business being on Broadway"

Doesn't make their opinion valid. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously (and I'm assuming you did since you bothered to post it here) then there's nothing wrong with people asking you to back up your criticisms.

Misdirecting the conversation won't work though.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:38pm

I love how you can just post "I hated the show" but give no reasons why.

That's what's causing some of us not to believe you've actually seen it.

And if someone hated the four seasons so much, Why they would waste their time with this musical?

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:42pm

Craig, dear, an "in valid opinion" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as someone's opinion being wrong or invalid.

And I never said that someone was threatening me. For ddtruitt to claim "I won't believe you because you REFUSED to answer my question" is a lie, as I never refused to answer it. I just didn't answer it, as it seemed RATHER self explanitory that I HAD seen it.

Lastly, (as I have a life and have proven my point here already)I have given perfectly good reasons why I hated this show. It's bad theatre.

Bad theatre = unoriginal, boring, lack of creativity, and lack of ability to leave the audience with something that provokes emotion or thought.

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:47pm

Did you forget what you wrote?

"Your threats are so frightening! "

You stated that you were threatened.

And since you like semantics and definitions so much, here's the one for valid:

Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.


Using the above definitions, your "opinion" - in MY opinion is invalid, since in my "opinion" I happen to believe you haven't seen the show.

You speak very generically about what you don't like about the show. I asked for specifics. As I said before, anyone can make those blanket statements.

Answer, don't answer - I don't really care anymore. Too much sidestepping on your behalf.

[etoile]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:49pm

I think it's possible that we don't all have to agree on what SHOULD constitute theater, yet alone good theater, or even worthy of a Broadway House theater. Where is it written that it is necessary to be original? Unique? Inspiring? Creative? Moving? Thought provoking? Academic?

And of all those terms, how does this show not fulfill those lofty categories? I feel some may argue it does.

[erikaamato]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:49pm

I'm flying to NY and seeing the show next month, and I cannot wait! =) And I'll be sure to post a substantive report once I have. It won't be simply, "I loved it!!!" or "It sucked!" with no details. 'Cause who would ever give a vehement opinion one way or the other with nothing to support it? That would just be silly.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I saw an interview with Frankie Valli on "The Insider" last night, and they showed some clips of the show, and it looks and sounds great. Plus, they mentioned some key plot points (which I won't mention here, 'cause I don't want to spoil anything for anyone), but one plot point in particular struck me as being the sort of thing certain to "provoke emotion."

[etoile]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:02pm

And I'll never understand how some feel anything is ruining theater or Broadway. Picking a randon season 1949/1950 there were 61 shows that opened on Broadway. 57 shows closed that same season. Probably at best 20 titles are well know. Did the limited runs, early closings, less than stellar hits bring about the downfall of theater? Of course not. Everything goes in cycles. Theater is too communal an experience to ever be destroyed by any one show, season, cycle, or event. [Edit:...or people with agendas on message boards.]

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 06:02 PM

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:24pm

"Your threats are so frightening!"

Can you not sense sarcasm? Could I possibly feel threatened by a lowly response on a Broadway internet messageboard? Puh-lease...

And sure, Erika and Etolia, you have stated your opininons and I accept your position on the subject. I am not going to refute or mock them (as others have done regarding mine...including Mr. Senior Editor himself).

My definition of theatre is a rather broad and general one. While you may not agree with everything I have stated, I think we can all agree that theatre absolutely must be unique and inspiring. To me, and to many others, shows like Jersey boys and the like do not constitute an evening of "good theatre".

Theatre is not meant to be a form of entertainment junk food, if you will.

And if you disagree with THAT, you are clearly ignorant and naive.

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:40pm

Theater can be a million and one things. It can be thought provoking and/or it can be just a good old entertaining time. That's why theatre is called a form of entertainment. Highly subjective but certainly not one or the other. It's not mutually exclusive.

Message Boards are for discussions. Did I refute your comments - absolutely. Senior Editor or not is irrelevant. Did I mock your comments - not at all.

I would, however, advise against making blanket statements, sarcastic or not about those that don't agree with you being naive or ignorant. That holds true in life, just not on BroadwayWorld.com.

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:49pm

I did not make a blanket statement. Again, your accusastions are unnecessary and you are contradicting yourself.

What I said was, "Theatre is not meant to be a form of entertainment junk food, if you will." I then went on to say that anyone who disagrees with this, that is, thinks it is acceptable to produce 'junky' theatre, is ignorant. It has nothing to do with someone agreeing or not agreeing with me.

Since we love exchanging definitions:
IGNORANT:
1.)Lacking education or knowledge.
2.)Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3.)Unaware or uninformed.

Anyone who doesn't see the importance of artistry and creativity in theatre is undoubtedly ignorant. Try and refute that. (Actually, don't. I certainly have no desire to read your responses anymore)

[Doogie]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 7:00pm

OK, first, to get back to the original topic...YES, very smart website.

Secondly, In my opinion, I.... I enjoyed it very much, especially the performances. I did find it different then all the other Jukebox musicals, in that the songs served to accessorize the story (I think the creators thought "lets use the music to tell our story")

I DOUBT that the creators of Mamma Mia thought.... "wow what a great story... ABBA will accesorize this perfectly" LOL

But Jersey Boys worked on a story level....not just the "lets all have a dance party" feel of mamma mia!

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 7:06pm

My simple reply is this...

Those who read this thread will get a very clear picture of the discussion and those involved in it and make their own judgements about the validity of comments made.

Blanket statements made by anyone, not you specifically 442 about any show playing anywhere aren't productive or help to build credibility to ones criticisms. Substantiating those opinions with coherent feedback do.

Perhaps others are built differently - but I weigh people's opinions more based on how they explain their points rather than simply saying they didn't like it.

Then again, I don't base my decision to see something based on anyone else's opinion to begin with. If I want to see something, I see it and form my own opinion.

It's a very short and unproductive conversation if you talk to someone passionate about the arts (as you seem to be 442) if its reduced to "sucked. hated it. has no business being on broadway".

If you've sensed anything from me, 442 - it's the desire to find out WHY. And not generally.. but what specifically didn't you like. It didn't move you emotionally? Why? Was it the writing? Direction? Performances? Was the story of 4 people growing up and forming a boy band not resonate with you? Was the story bogged down with too many songs? Were scenes that could have been emotional not full developed?

The above is rhetorical... just an illustration of my "point".

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 7:43pm

My simple reply is this...

I never said the show "sucked". The fact that I, along with many others and still more to come, find the show uninspiring. It is a very pointless idea and is another example of how forced a piece can be when music is aimlessly attached to a cliche story.

Take from that what you wish, but I have no need to further support my opinion that the show's concept, development, and even website (oh yeah...what was the title of this thread again??) will continue to turn people away. Look at any jukebox musical, aside from something like Mama Mia which benefits from having "Abba" next to its name, and see how poor its attendence is.

Audiences are tired of adaptations and revivals. The numbers speak for themselves. These tired pieces of 'theatre' don't raise any stakes and are absolutley, dreadfully banal.

Shows that are original and have an unusually artistic side to them (Avenue Q, Spelling Bee, even Rent) attract audiences who have higher standards of entertainment and want to be challenged--not just spoon-fed the same old song and dance (pun intended). Why do you not understand this? Are you saying that creativity and artistry are not important when it comes to theatre? Is it acceptable to produce shows that bring nothing new to the table?

The above is rhetorical...just an illustration of my "point".

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 07:43 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 7:53pm

"Audiences are tired of adaptations and revivals. The numbers speak for themselves. "

Hairspray
The Producers
Wicked
Phantom Of The Opera
Beauty and the Beast
Lion King
Chicago
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Spamalot
Light in the Piazza

All adaptations, all with numbers (and # of performances) you can take to the bank and then some.

Newsflash - if audiences were really tired of them, there wouldn't be so many - and even more on the way.

I don't care where or what the souce material is - and have stated so on many a thread. I just care about the execution of the material.

I never attributed you to saying it sucked. It was directed towards a general comment about making general statements without supporting them.

Now I haven't seen Sweeney Todd yet - but it's amazing source material, it's a revival - and from all reports I've heard, it raises the stakes from previous incarnations. Whether it worked or not, I cannot comment yet. The latest long run of Cabaret was vastly different. Again - it's about the execution, not the "genre" - as far as I'm concerned.


Whoops - also meant to add that cliche seems an odd choice of words. I do understand the whole musical group idea and/or "jukebox" motif has been used before. But the story of The Four Seasons - specific to them, has never been done on Broadway. For me, that makes it unique, not cliche.

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 07:53 PM

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 8:00pm

I couldn't agree with you more. If the stakes of the production are raised, that's fantastic! However, revivals and adaptations that are meer replicas of their predecessors leave much to be desired and, more often than not, fail.

Good Vibrations
All Shook Up
Sweet Charity
La Cage Aux Folles
Fiddler on the Roof

The list goes on and on, from years past, present, and (unfortunatley) years to come.

No avid theatre goer wants to waste their time with a photocopy.

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 8:05pm

442. My list of successes currently on bway was longer :) ANd that was said VERY tongue in cheek.

There's no magic bullet to Broadway. Fact is - FAR more original, unique, daring, etc projects that have hit broadway in the last 100 years have failed than succeeded. Far more than revivals. As for adaptations, I'm unsure exactly what you mean since (and I'm making this figure up) 90 percent of all shows ever to hit the stage have been based on or adapted from something.

And based on the current boards, the avid theatergoers ARE wasting their time (your words) with these photo copies. Fortunate or unfortunate as that is.

As I said in my previous post - if the shows didn't have an audience, they wouldn't be produced.

[442namffug]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 8:16pm

Latinologues has never had an audience.

Yet it continues to be produced.

Explain.

[Craig]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 8:24pm

You're starting to talk in circles. One show doesn't dictate a trend. And Latinologues isn't an adaptation nor a revival. And it did have an audience when it played out of town, which is why, I believe it was moved to Broadway.

[calexan]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 12:48am

Dear 442, Your attitude, however one might describe it, has stimulated a lively exchange, which I enjoy. I find it hard to believe that you paid money and sat through an entire performance of Jersey Boys, since you dislike the very idea of such a musical being staged. You haven't said anything specific about the show. However, let's take your word for it and move on. Maybe you are a professional theater writer forced to sit through things you despise. If so, you have my pity. Anyway, I actually agree with you about the state of Broadway. It's pretty sad. It's getting to be like going to Disney World. I wish big audiences demanded more original, challenging plays. I would never compare Jersey Boys with Hamlet. All I would say is that IMHO it will probably be the best jukebox musical on Broadway once Movin' Out moves out. I realize that's a very low bar. All I'm basically saying is that if a jukebox musical is going to sell out every night, it should be Jersey Boys instead of Mamma Mia, because JB has a much more serious, interesting true story. (Exception: jukebox parents should take young children to Mamma Mia over Jersey Boys.) Broadway is by definition theater that attracts big audiences. Some jukebox musicals may succeed, and many more will fail. We may lament the proliferation of jukeboxes, Disney cartoons, tepid revivals, etc., but they don't stop the creation of original, more worthwhile theater. There is no shortage of outlets for that in New York. If you discover a really great new play Off Broadway, you don't really want to sit next to a bunch of yawning tourists, do you? Let them go to Beauty and the Beast. If an original play is capable of attracting huge audiences, it will move up and add some diversity to Broadway. It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen again in the future. Regards, Charles

[ShineOn]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:18am

Wow, touchy, touchy group we have here!

I would just like to say that I by no means meant to insult anyone and I was clearly jesting in my first post, as I thought I made clear by my second (though tipsy at the time, perhaps I conveyed that incorrectly).

I know Michael is no shill. I just think its cute how he's pimpin' out the website.

Again, I meant no disgrace toward the website, the show (which I have NOT seen and have no opinion on the subject), nor Michael.


The website is great, in any event.


PS: Just a little rant and then I'm done. I also LOVE the assumptions made here. Even if I was one of the teens who post here (and I'm not)... who are you to assume they are just wannabes and will never amount to anything? There could be many undiscovered talents on this board and because their posts may come across as juvenile and obnoxious to you, who are you to place that kind of judgement on them? That seems a little harsh. And if you are older and perhaps, more established in the profession, maybe you could show a little more encouragement to them and guide them along because they'll pass through that phase eventually. I'm sure you had to once, too.

So much hostility on these message boards. It's so silly.

[ken8631]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 7:59am

Actually I liked Jersey Boys, going to see it again!

AS for a website, I think Sweet Charity has them beat. I go there every day, since they give away tickets if you visit it often enough! I already have earned 2 free tickets! Not bad for a website!

[Phantom2]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 8:12am

Jersey Boys is a fun show!

[ShineOn]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 8:36pm

I wasn't pointing fingers, truthfully. In fact I just skimmed through most of the following posts. I was saying the general vibe in the air was that of hostility, not anyone in particular.

In any case, I hope I'll get to see Jersey Boys. It's not at the top of my list, but the buzz has certainly piqued my curiosity.