How the heck did GLORY DAYS make it onto Broadway?! — Page 2

And that completes my Friday.

There are some things that this show could do to rework itself and have a successful run, the largest one would be that this show start out off-Broadway and then maybe, maybe, maybe if it does well enough off-Broadway transfer it to a larger theater. But as is, this show is not ready for a Broadway stage.

---

95% of the score does NOT need retooling. There are actually some pretty strong songs throughout. One of the things I liked about the lyrics was the fact that I could actually believe 19-year olds were singing them. If an older person tried to write the lyrics, then they might not be as realistic as a younger writer's lyrics.

I don't think Nick has ever been arrogant, and I doubt that is the reason he hasn' left Cry-Baby. If they had waited to bring the show to Broadway after major rewrites, perhaps the offer would not have been there any longer. These two young writers had a chance to bring their first musical to Broadway, and I can't blame them for jumping at the chance. Other shows have been rewritten after their original version and there is no reason this one can't be changed later.

In terms of people thinking the "reveal" is not shocking....I don't think it is meant to be shocking. But I can say from personal experience, that my best friend had the same reaction as Andy does. The writers are simply trying to depict real human emotion. I found that I could connect to the show on mulitple levels and had 2 hours of conversation about it with my friend after seeing it. I have to give it credit for that.

Updated On: 4/25/08 at 03:40 PM

Well - we don't know that it will get bad reviews. I think people on this board like to be the first to rip a show to shreds so if the show does get bad reviews, then they can feel like they said it first.

You can find faults in ANY show if you really want to. Just because 10 or so people on here have negative opinions of the show, doesn't automatically mean it will get bad reviews.

Updated On: 4/25/08 at 03:52 PM

Fair enough to wait 10 days and see what the critics say.

Well - we don't know that it will get bad reviews. I think people on this board like to be the first to rip a show to shreds so if the show does get bad reviews, then they can feel like they said it first.

I've talked to people who are not a part of this board who hated every minute of it as well. Now I have not seen it, the story does not appeal to me, so I make no judgements about it's quality, but it is not just a few people on this board who did not like the show.

---

LOL.

In addition to Jason, you might want to rely your theory to the adult creators of SPELLING BEE, INTO THE WOODS, WEST SIDE STORY, GYPSY, ANNIE or any of the myriad shows in which adults were somehow able to realistically write for children and teenagers.

News flash--NYC critics ARE the only ones who matter, because NY audiences are the only ones who CARE.

"And that being said, we all have had times when we disagree with critics. I always say, see a show/movie yourself and form your own opinion. You shouldn't need someone else to tell you what to think about art. If you are a true lover of theater, you should be able to find something to appreciate about ANY show you see...I know I can."

AMEN. Well- said, NYC.

If people have negative thoughts about a show, I am all for discussing them here. If people have positive thoughts about a show, I am all for discussing them here. Sometimes, this board creates an amazing dialogue between posters that really A) enhances my understanding of a show, B) enlightens my view of what demographics the show might and might not appeal to, and C) is like having a stimulating conversation with friends.

I am NOT all for people basing whether or not they see a show on SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION, whether it be a critic, a poster on this board, or even a friend. Everyone comes at a piece of art from a different perspective, and you may love something that someone else hated or vice versa... so why base your decision on other people?

I understand that many people don't have time/ money to see every show, and must pick carefully. Well then, pick based on plot synopses, music clips, video previews, interviews, production photos, etc.... I can't help but feel you'll develop your own individual taste and artistic identity this way.

I love reading what people say on this board, and I often enjoy reading professional reviews. TO UNDERSTAND ONE SINGLE OTHER PERSON'S OPINION... not the collective opinion of the world! There are no 'good shows' and 'bad shows'. There may be artistic successes that are financial failures and financial failures that are artistic successes, shows that win no Tony's which are well- known in the musical theatre canon for 100 years and shows that aren't known by anyone now but were considered big hits during their era. No 'good' or 'bad'.

This 'group think' is unnecessary and I don't understand why people buy into it. Because Ben Brantley didn't like something, you won't? This is the kind of attitude which caused Caroline or Change to be a financial failure, closing after a short run, with only a few months worth of theatergoers having the opportunity to see it. (And many theatre scholars and historians think Caroline is a masterpiece, which will emerge as a classic, in time.) I feel that many MANY people I know (not on this board) say that they agree with Brantley- but always AFTER his review comes out. It's hindsight bias. If they were forced to write out their thoughts before his review came out, it would be a completely different story.

Also, I don't get the "well, critics are very avid theatergoers who know the business and have experience blah blah blah". If anything, this should make us question our exact alliance with their opinions even more so!! Even if you're just as discerning, intelligent, and knowledgeable as Brantley, are you seeing as many shows as he does in a week? Are you as saturated with performances and the theatre industry for every moment of your day? No. Critics may see 350 shows a year. They may speak to their colleagues and peers and friends mainly about just theatre. They may have their finger on the theatre pulse 24/7, 365 days a year. Is anyone in this situation going to have the same opinion as the average theatergoer, based on these facts alone? No. Brantley's job is to give you his opinion (and that is affected by all of the above mentioned things), not YOUR opinion.

Brantley is seeing Musical XYZ and it's his 243rd show of 2008, and he's read the script before and met the composer on a few occasions and is familiar with 25 or 30 of the actors, and has been hearing about the out- of- town trouble with two of the supporting characters, and remembers a backer's audition tape for the show from 2001... You're telling me that being "well- informed", he will then have the same opinion as a 25-year- old girl from California who sees 3 or 4 musicals a year and got into them when she used to dance in high school? Or the 50- year old father taking his sons out for what he hopes will be a fun family night on vacation? Or the 75- year- old theatre party ladies who think the leading man is very handsome and the trumpet player is excellent? What about the group of students who want to see a modern show they can relate to? Or the church group who's psyched to travel to New York to see a show? None of these theatergoers are necessarily less intelligent than Brantley, but they are coming at their theatre experiences from different perspectives. Should they not see In The Heights because the New York Times said "the ballads can sound generic" or because its a "soap opera" with "fundamental deficiencies". Would they not have enjoyed The Color Purple because Brantley said "it all passes by in a watercolor blur"? Let's not forget that he also said: "Amid the whirlwind of story lines, LaChanze holds admirably steady in what is a rather thankless part." Did the Tony voters agree with that? Do you?

Do the people lined up around the block to see Jersey Boys every night agree with Brantley that the show has "a storyline poured from a can" and "few illuminating detours"?

If they can have a differing opinion from a critic, might you?

---

Thanks InfiniteTheaterFrenzy - you definitely did a nice job expanding on my point :)

I don't think he/she is saying it would have been a mega-hit. It certainly could have lasted longer if it had found its audience. People who may have gone to see it, however, may have become turned off after reading Brantley's review. I, for one, now wish I had seen COC when I had the chance. I regret now that I did not.

Updated On: 4/25/08 at 05:16 PM

InfiniteTheaterFrenzy...

Your post should be permanently left at the top of this site. Hell, it should be required reading before you can even read one of these boards.

'Well said' doesn't nearly capture my sentiment, but I tip my hat to you nonetheless.

Thank you!

Updated On: 4/25/08 at 07:05 PM

I'm sorry but when and where was this show mistakenly called a "new RENT?" I missed that.

---