#1
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:34pm
Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:34 PM
If You're So Upset About Reviews, Don't Read Them. Or Complain.
#2
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:35pm
Maybe you should just not read their complaints!
#3
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:37pm
I'm not sopmeone shocked by B&C's reviews, but what an inane post. It's a discussion forum--people have every right to complain about reviews they disagree with. Maybe you should just avoid theatre discussion forums and save your annoyance?
#4
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:41pm
Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:41 PM
#5
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:41pm
I agree. Get over yourself, love.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#6
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:46pm
Sorry, I came off far more rude than I intended to. I just think this kinda "logic" is inane to preach to a discussion forum. If you're a fan of a show of course you want to read what arguably the most influential critic has to say about it--even if you don't usually agree with him.
#7
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:49pm
Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:49 PM
#8
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:54pm
And in theory I completely agree with you. But I get how the reaction can be quite different when you're passionate about a show--and given the good/bad opportunity to endlessly discuss it on these forums. So far it's far less annoying than, to use an obvious example, a poster endlessly making long posts about how the production of a certain Jesus musical they did was far better than the one on Broadway and how they were robbed by an unethical producer, and anyone who disagrees has to show undebatable proof in their reply.
#9
Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:57pm
Updated On: 2/20/18 at 09:57 PM
#10
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:18pm
Just because Brantley or any other hack is paid a lot of money to review theater does not make them right. If someone paid me a ton of money to fly a plane, would that make me a great pilot? Many shows the critics raved about I could not stomach & vice versa.
Many of the greatest operas were panned when they opened.
Many of the greatest operas were panned when they opened.
Poster Emeritus
#11
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:22pm
Hey bobby, quit being such a baby. If you can't stand to hear people's complaints about the reviewers, then don't read their complaints. People have every right to read the reviews, complain about the reviews, debate about the reviews, etc. Who the heck are you to tell others no to do so?
#12
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:24pm
>> "Many of the greatest operas were panned when they opened."
And a lot of people on these boards thought THE PIRATE QUEEN was gonna run for *years*.....
And a lot of people on these boards thought THE PIRATE QUEEN was gonna run for *years*.....
http://docandraider.com
#13
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:25pm
The review process seems so archaic and political. To me these days it just serves to hurt more than it helps. Wish there was some other option. In my opinion, any educated person can go review art. So why don't we all just go do that for ourselves instead of relying on the opinion of some guy we don't know. Just seems hard for new work to catch a break. Its a wonder people even try to do anything new anymore. Thank God Broadway is basically an iron clad fixture. Other wise we'd be complaining about the price of radio city...and wishing Isherwood would leave those poor Rocketts alone.
#14
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:26pm
Wow...opinions are FOR discussion. They are not to be taken as gospel. How will you know if you agree or disagree unless you actually read the review.
As others have said...doctor, heal thyself. If you don't like what's said on a thread: DON'T read it. You DO see the irony here, yes?
These are DISCUSSION boards. Are we suppose to read a review and then change OUR minds?
As others have said...doctor, heal thyself. If you don't like what's said on a thread: DON'T read it. You DO see the irony here, yes?
These are DISCUSSION boards. Are we suppose to read a review and then change OUR minds?
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#15
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:29pm
>> "Are we suppose to read a review and then change OUR minds?"
Around here, it's been known to happen. BWW can indeed be a fickle place.
Around here, it's been known to happen. BWW can indeed be a fickle place.
http://docandraider.com
#16
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:36pm
^ :)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#17
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:38pm
Now I really symphatize with OP. A professioal theater critic is not a random "educated" guy that can give you the same opinion as anybody else.
I keep forgetting how young people who post here are until I read idiotic comments like that.
I keep forgetting how young people who post here are until I read idiotic comments like that.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#18
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:44pm
Actually many critics have nothing more than a bachelors in English. So that means anyone with a bachelors in English is as qualified.
"Judy Garland, Jimmy Dean, You tragedy Queen" ~ Taboo
"Watching a frat boy realize just what he put his d!ck in...ex's getting std's...schadenfruede" ~ Ave Q
"when dangers near, exploit their fear" ~ Reefer Madness the Musical
"Watching a frat boy realize just what he put his d!ck in...ex's getting std's...schadenfruede" ~ Ave Q
"when dangers near, exploit their fear" ~ Reefer Madness the Musical
#19
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:47pm
Exactly Jules
Many years ago, a friend of mind told me a story. He was sitting behind a reviewer on opening night who said to a friend next to him that he was going to kill the show because he did not like the author.
Lest you think this guy was a flake,he was a producer who worked with Jackie Gleason & Ernie Kovacs. He was Worlds fair entushiast & theater historian who had no peer. He was not some Joe Schmoe off the street.
Many years ago, a friend of mind told me a story. He was sitting behind a reviewer on opening night who said to a friend next to him that he was going to kill the show because he did not like the author.
Lest you think this guy was a flake,he was a producer who worked with Jackie Gleason & Ernie Kovacs. He was Worlds fair entushiast & theater historian who had no peer. He was not some Joe Schmoe off the street.
Poster Emeritus
#20
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:57pm
Actually many critics have nothing more than a bachelors in English. So that means anyone with a bachelors in English is as qualified.
Ignoring the fact that in a short period of time they will experience more theater than you will in a lifetime. That's what they do for a living, this kind of experience and skill doesn't come for free.
That's like saying anyone capable can do any job (dumb). Having an opinion does not qualify you as a professional writer, where your career and profession is at stake. It takes a long time to develop the skill, craft and knowledge to represent a major publication. If that wasn't the case, I'm sure the NTY knows that picking a random guy from a message board to write their reviews would be a lot cheaper.
Ignoring the fact that in a short period of time they will experience more theater than you will in a lifetime. That's what they do for a living, this kind of experience and skill doesn't come for free.
That's like saying anyone capable can do any job (dumb). Having an opinion does not qualify you as a professional writer, where your career and profession is at stake. It takes a long time to develop the skill, craft and knowledge to represent a major publication. If that wasn't the case, I'm sure the NTY knows that picking a random guy from a message board to write their reviews would be a lot cheaper.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#21
Posted: 12/2/11 at 10:58pm
I think critics have their place but don't forget about infamous examples... Didn't Barnes show up to Follies drunk and fall asleep? (I'm just waiting for AfterEight to come in and make some comment about how anyone smart would sleep through Follies).
Also remember that until the late 70s New York critics, as a rule, left shows before they werre over to rush to meet deadlines. this was taken for granted, and something that shocked me when i first found out about it.
Also remember that until the late 70s New York critics, as a rule, left shows before they werre over to rush to meet deadlines. this was taken for granted, and something that shocked me when i first found out about it.
#22
Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:03pm
Thanks for the personal insult Blaxx and calling me dumb.
I was only pointing out how much educational experience many critics (in general and not only theatre critics) have. For the movies, "this film is not yet rated" pointed out how little experience those people have.
I was only pointing out how much educational experience many critics (in general and not only theatre critics) have. For the movies, "this film is not yet rated" pointed out how little experience those people have.
"Judy Garland, Jimmy Dean, You tragedy Queen" ~ Taboo
"Watching a frat boy realize just what he put his d!ck in...ex's getting std's...schadenfruede" ~ Ave Q
"when dangers near, exploit their fear" ~ Reefer Madness the Musical
"Watching a frat boy realize just what he put his d!ck in...ex's getting std's...schadenfruede" ~ Ave Q
"when dangers near, exploit their fear" ~ Reefer Madness the Musical
#23
Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:06pm
I saw Follies and fell asleep three times during the show....so many boring parts. Whereas, Bonnie & Clyde kept me entertained throughout the entire show. You have to remember that many of these critics are still stuck in the past.
#24
Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:13pm
Well speaking of stuck in the past Follies, and most Sondheim shows, never even seem to get much praise from the major critics until a good 5-10 years after they premier... I don't suspect B&C will prove similar but I suppose stranger things have happened.
#25
Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:21pm
Putting "(Dumb)" behind a sentence doesnt prove your point. How bout some meat to that argument We all know it does not take skill to have a following. Youve all seen the jersey shore. All it takes is a bit of sensationalism. I am by no means taking merit from these people who have worked in this field for years. But anyone who see's art CAN critique it. Some more eloquently than others. Thats what art is...subjective. Doesnt mean any of them are right.
Having watched that much theatre doesn't mean your opinion of it is correct or unbiased. It just means you think it is. How many times have you seen something a reviewer panned and liked it? Or hated something they raved about. Or been indifferent on either account? Had you listened to them, you never would have had that experience. Which was what i was getting at. I just feel like the reviewing process is less about the art and more about the art of ticket sales.
Lets just be honest. People are upset about this whole Bonnie and Clyde thing because the show wasn't bad. It didn't deserve the pan. Continuing in honestly... the water for Wildhorn is poisoned. He couldn't have a hit even if he wrote one. Because reviewers just seem to be in love with sinking their teeth into him. Sucks cause this show did not deserve it.
We all know it does not take skill to have a following. Youve all seen the jersey shore. All it takes is a bit of sensationalism. I am by no means taking merit from these people who have worked in this field for years. But anyone who see's art CAN critique it. Some more eloquently than others. Thats what art is...subjective. Doesnt mean any of them are right. Having watched that much theatre doesn't mean your opinion of it is correct or unbiased. It just means you think it is. How many times have you seen something a reviewer panned and liked it? Or hated something they raved about. Or been indifferent on either account? Had you listened to them, you never would have had that experience. Which was what i was getting at. I just feel like the reviewing process is less about the art and more about the art of ticket sales.
Lets just be honest. People are upset about this whole Bonnie and Clyde thing because the show wasn't bad. It didn't deserve the pan. Continuing in honestly... the water for Wildhorn is poisoned. He couldn't have a hit even if he wrote one. Because reviewers just seem to be in love with sinking their teeth into him. Sucks cause this show did not deserve it.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95