"I heard it stinks."

here here. amen to that.

amen!

Why would I want to see a show that has everything that I hate in theatre?

Isn't it better to give my seat to someone who may enjoy the elements of the show?

Even in the days of Rodgers and Hammerstein (and well before), theatre fans met and gossiped and talked about the shows they heard were terrible and warned each other to avoid. And back in those days there were a LOT more shows that opened and as a result a lot more to avoid. For every R&H hit back in the 40s there were DOZENS of flops that didn't run a week or closed in New Haven. Gossip columnists from Walter Winchell to Dorothy Killgallen and others spread the word about the latest turkey to limp into town with more venom than Riedel could summon on his best day.

But, the main difference in the 40s and 50s was that Broadway ticket prices were under $5 (with balcony seats available for under $1) so taking a chance on a new show was no big deal -- shows cost the same or less than movies.

Today, for those of us who aren't students, a ticket to a Broadway show is going to cost us at least $50 (through discounts or TKTS). That's several times the cost of a movie and bottom line, not an insignificant amount of money in any context (some people's food budgets for the week are less than that). This has NOTHING to do with "embracing change" and everything to do with the fact that for $50+, in this very tight economy, most people want to be absolutely sure that a show is worth that kind of investment. We rely on word of mouth, reviews (both professional and message boards) and decide whether a show merits the expenditure of time and money.

Can you really blame people for hesitating blowing money on something like "Lennon" given the dozens of awful reviews it has received both on the the boards and in the press? Yes, it has its fans, but again, is it worth $67 (which is what it would cost to a non-student with the current discount plus telecharge fees)?

As long as tickets prices are as ridiculously high as they are, you cannot blame people for not risking their hard earned money on shows with less than stellar reviews. Unless you're independently wealthy (and/or supported by your parents), you have to be careful how you spend your money if you want to keep a roof over your head in this extremely expensive city and throwing it away on junk is not the wisest move.

---

Updated On: 9/14/05 at 11:52 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in the original post. But let me just say, if not for the opinions expressed on this board, I may not have "committed" three hours to Light in the Piazza.

As far as the comment of Rodgers and Hammerstein......to that I say "Thank God!"

---

There's agreat article in this week's Variety that talks about pre-Broadway tryouts and word-of-mouth, and how only the sure-fire hits benefit from out-of-town tryouts.

I think what is being said here is don't say something sucks, if you haven't seen it. He is not saying don't listen to the opinions of othere to decide wheter or not you want to see a show. Take for instance this Michael Crawford thing that was going on a while backago, so many people on a great deal of message boards would go on sayin that Michael Crawford is the best and the only Phantom, but if you were to ask these people if they have ever actualy seen his performance in the show many of them would say no. How can one say he is the best if you haven't actualy seen him do it? How can you say Christina Applegate sucks in Sweet Charity if you live in Fresno and never made it to New York to see her in the show? If you haven't seen it then your opinion really is not woth that much. I love reading reviews, both professional and ameture alike, but these are reviews, meaning they have seen the show. Word of mouth is a good thing. By all means say, "I heard this was really bad." or "I heard this rocked." but don't say "This is bad" without actualy knowing.

jimmy gets what I'm saying.

There are people who run around saying, "PHANTOM SUCKS!" who have never seen it. I just think that, before we form our own opinion, we need to see the show.

If you have no desire to see it then, frankly, you shouldn't bother having an opinion.

---

You know what, it's part of this world.

It's the same as saying, "I heard it's great."

"Word of mouth will always be a big factor in a show's success"

Exactly.

Had there not been this very effective word of mouth back in 1985 the world would have never seen LES MISERABLES at large...

Really.

LES MIS (the english version) had its world premiere at the Barbican Theatre in London, Sep 30 1985. The reviews weren't that great, mostly mixed. According to Cameron MacIntosh himself he was prepared to close the show quite early after the opening night but very soon after the opening night he visited the box office of the Barbican (not a West End theatre in London) and found out that they had sold about 5000 tickets that morning only. So the word of mouth had had a positive effect in a matter of days even though the reviews weren't exactly praising the production. And CM decided to move the show to the West End's Palace Theatre where it had its West End opening Dec 4th 1985, a little over two months after its world premiere in the Barbican.

I don't think saying "It stinks," (having not even seen the show that's in question) and "I heard it stinks," are remotely the same thing.

The first statement would be irresponsible and misleading, if the person is discussing the entire show. But to say, "I heard it stinks," is merely repeating either someone else's opinion or a consensus opinion, and I don't see anything wrong with that, in and of itself... if it's taken exactly for what it is. Just heresay.

---