If You're So Upset About Reviews, Don't Read Them. Or Complain.- Page 2

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:30pm

Love you Jules...BTW what is that saying from so long ago...those who can do, and those who can't judge?

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:40pm

" (I'm just waiting for AfterEight to come in and make some comment about how anyone smart would sleep through Follies)."

Anyone smart would sleep through Follies.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 11:46pm

"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... "

Not true. Funny Thing, Company, Night Music, Sweeney Todd...

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 12:40am

I never personally insulted you nor called you dumb, umgeoboy. I was talking about the logic and dramatics behind the reaction to reviewers, not about you.

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.

Saying anyone can critique art because it's subjective is an understatement and not precisely profound. A random guy posting an opinion on the internet does not represent a major publication, nor we know his credentials, nor does he do it for a living. Having the capibility to give an opinion does not make as worthy as anyone else. If that was the case, the most popular show would be the best show, wouldn't it? Is that really the case? The most popular has the most quality?

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?

Taste and quality are not necessarily at the same level. I can enjoy a show for specific elements, while agreeing that overall it still doesn't work. It does not mean the critics are gurus, but they have (or should) a much better overview of the show as a whole and in the right context,its artistic merit in the present, historically, etc. The best approach is to find a reviewer whose point of view usually matches yours. That would be a more productive approach than saying all critics are idiots because they didn't see what you saw.

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

Truly, that proves the point. Why do you keep hitting on someone who doesn't like you (if that is really what he thinks)? What is he trying to prove? If the reviews disagree with your point of view, it doesn't disqualify the reviewers credentials. I imagine a sports fan yelling at a TV screen because a player's move didn't justify the penalty. Instead of dismissing all Broadway reviewers in such a dramatic manner, you're better off finding the one you can trust. I'm sure you'll find at least a couple.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 8:23am

Blaxx, Thanks for the meat.

"Saying anyone can critique art because it's subjective is an understatement and not precisely profound... Having the capibility to give an opinion does not make as worthy as anyone else."

You are literally arguing that your opinion holds less weight than a reviewers. I disagree. Lets say you tell me to go see a show that you love, and i hate it. That does not mean that what i feel is less valid. And especially not because you've seen countless more hours of theatre than i have. I spent the money, I had the experience, and I have a brain. Whether or not i write for the ny times is irrelevant. I can still have an educated conversation about it. And so can the majority of people (tourists i just threw you a bone).

"That would be a more productive approach than saying all critics are idiots because they didn't see what you saw."

Pretty sure i didnt say or imply this at all. What i said was that the act of reviewing seems archaic, and biased. You said it yourself.

"Having the capibility to give an opinion does not make as worthy as anyone else. If that was the case, the most popular show would be the best show, wouldn't it? Is that really the case? The most popular has the most quality?"

No its not and that's the point! Thats the way it should be! And it's not, in part because people aren't choosing for themselves. Anyway who's to say what is best? I find that it's best to skip reviews til ive seen something for myself. Then afterwards, i can come here, read them, and B!@#$ accordingly.

I will do my choosing for myself. I'll skip "Finding someone i can trust...", and refer to the only opinion that TRULY matters when dealing with art. My own!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 10:48am

And I get that... but then people are going off about how the critics have it out for the show. Or that the reviews were unfair. Or that they're out of touch and don't know what they're talking about. And all of this stuff...

Then it's like, why even read the review?

How would someone know if they disagree with a review if they don't read it? And saying people should not react to a review makes no sense. It sounds as if you're saying people should only agree with critics or if they don't, they should not let anyone know. In a discussion thread. On a message board.

After reading all the enthusiastic reports of the show during previews and then the critical reviews came out, how did you expect people to react? With silence?

[jpbran]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 11:05am

"For the movies, "this film is not yet rated" pointed out how little experience those people have."

Um, that documentary was about the people who make up the MPAA parent-warning/rating system, not about film critics. VERY different people.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 11:08am

Whoops. Almost forgot this gem!

"Truly, that proves the point. Why do you keep hitting on someone who doesn't like you (if that is really what he thinks)? What is he trying to prove? If the reviews disagree with your point of view, it doesn't disqualify the reviewers credentials. I imagine a sports fan yelling at a TV screen because a player's move didn't justify the penalty. Instead of dismissing all Broadway reviewers in such a dramatic manner, you're better off finding the one you can trust. I'm sure you'll find at least a couple."

I don't think Wildhorn is "Hitting" on reviewers. I think he's trying to make a living. And p.s. why don't they like him? What it sounds like you are saying is...the critics don't like him (before he even puts out a product) so why does he keep trying? That sounds like bias to me. It sounds like you are saying they don't want him to put out more shows. Its not a reviewers job to determine what art is produced! And I sincerely hope that this is NOT the attitude reviewers, are going in with. Because if so, then they all need to be fired.

Btw I don't like that sports team example. See the referee is not going home to write a scathing review telling people not to see a team based on a the penalties he gave out that day. Not equitable.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 11:33am

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

PalJoey's new favorite BroadwayWorld post ever.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 12:53pm

Thanks for the reply, julesboogie.

You are literally arguing that your opinion holds less weight than a reviewers. I disagree. Lets say you tell me to go see a show that you love, and i hate it. That does not mean that what i feel is less valid. And especially not because you've seen countless more hours of theatre than i have. I spent the money, I had the experience, and I have a brain. Whether or not i write for the ny times is irrelevant. I can still have an educated conversation about it. And so can the majority of people (tourists i just threw you a bone).

I don't think that it is a matter of it being valid or not. Of course your opinion counts. What I'm trying to point out is the difference between the review from a published critic (whose career and credentials we can confirm) and an anonymous poster on the internet. One has made a living out of it, the other could be an 11 year old who has yet to discover the different layers or aspects of the performing arts or it could be someone who is more prepared than the professional critic - we'll never know.

Yes, your opnions are vaild but most rather trust the ones whose credentials we can verify. If you are an educated theater goer with years of experience, I'm sure your points are valid. But in times of anonimity, I have no problem trusting the published reviews and also take an interest on the general opnion.

And regarding Wildhorn, I really doubt he holds the importance for all reviewers to pick up on him personally. I think that is just a paranoid attitude to prove a group of people wrong. And being that all his Broadway shows have flopped, he is not exactly an audience favorite either.

If in fact all reviewers have it against him and the show is magnificient, I'm sure the powerful word of mouth can make it run for years. Otherwise, maybe the reviews aren't as obsolete after all.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 2:08pm

"One has made a living out of it, the other could be an 11 year old who has yet to discover the different layers or aspects of the performing arts or it could be someone who is more prepared than the professional critic - we'll never know. Yes, your opnions are vaild but most rather trust the ones whose credentials we can verify. If you are an educated theater goer with years of experience, I'm sure your points are valid. But in times of anonimity, I have no problem trusting the published reviews and also take an interest on the general opnion."

Where did the 11 year old come from? Listen it makes no difference whether you make a living at reviewing, have seen a million hours of theatre, blah blah blah. You will never see something the exact way someone else does. And letting them tell you what you'll experience is kind of silly to me (no offense meant). In this day and age of commercials, video sneek peaks, and various other market tools. Do we really need this? I tend to think no.

Just out of curiosity. Did you see this show? What did you think Blaxx? Did you agree with the reviews?

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 2:15pm

The 11 year old was just an example, a lot of posters here are teenagers that have not really experienced much, but would like to think they have. You're not alone at all with your opnion on critics, of course. I really hope no one takes a professional review as permission on what to see or not.

I have not seen the show, no. I already know it most likely has a lot of interesting aspects to it. I'm planning on it, of course.

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 3:02pm

The internet has vastly reduced the importance of critics' opinions for me. Before the internet, people might have seen the performers in another show, or not. They might have seen them on TV, or not. They might have read an article about the show in a newspaper, or not. But when a review came out the morning after the show opened, this was the single most important piece of information a person could use to decide whether to see the show. It's very, very different now.

Using the internet, I have seen clips from the B&C rehearsals, clips from the show, interviews with many on the creative team and in the cast, a video of the photo shoot and another of the making of the TV commercial, followed Twitter and Facebook comments from cast members and listened multiple times to several of the songs from the show. I've also read hundreds of comments on this site and others from "people like me" who have already seen the show. I did all of this research before I bought my ticket - and before the critics' reviews came out.

So yes, I already had a formed (and informed) opinion about the show before Brantley and others had their say. Because of this investment of time, energy and emotion on my part, I also feel strongly about wanting the show to succeed. If the critics panned the show because of a bias against Wildhorn then, well, I don't like that and don't think it's fair. (I can't say for certain that this is the case but many here seem to think so.) Anyway, I'll see the show for the first time this Tuesday and am very, very excited.

[twinbelters]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 3:19pm

I want to start yet another thread about starting threads about complaining about other people's complaints on other threads.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 4:29pm

>> "I think he's trying to make a living. And p.s. why don't they like him? What it sounds like you are saying is...the critics don't like him (before he even puts out a product) so why does he keep trying?"

Okay, here's the thing: if precedent is any example, he's okay, but not great. WONDERLAND, for example, never should have made it out of workshop... but it did, and here's why. Wildhorn doesnt make his money in NY. As I noted earlier, Broadway is, for him anyway, the equivalent of an out of town tryout before his producers take the project to Japan or Europe, which is where the *big* bucks come in.

So why even bring it to Broadway in the first place, you ask? Because having that one little word gives him a big marketing tool : "direct from its smash Broadway engagement!" — even if the smashing involved heads against walls to forget how awful the experience might have been,

Wildhorn's no fool. He's gaming the system, and it's working well for him. Even if B&C closes in January as predicted, he'll still make a fortune off it.

Just not here.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 4:39pm

Company got very mixed reviews--not just the music but a number of the critics were unhappy that it either seemed to hate women or be so sour in general. You got me at Forum and especially Night Music though. Touch

[751guy]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 5:57pm

< 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. >

No one could have said it better, Jules. The NYT review was particularly mean-spirited and venomous, as if it had nothing to do with the actual show. Many of the other reviews seemed to be critiquing Wildhorn and not the show. Sad. I work in the business and I have heard ONLY positive things about the show. Doesn't make sense.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 5:57pm

There are a lot of tl;dr posts here. (I'm sure they're chock-full of vaulable information, though.) Has anyone addressed the paradox in the OP? His logic on complaining is sound, but is he really instructing people to not read the things that they were upset by reading?

Some of his other discarded thread ideas --

If you're going to hate that movie so much, don't watch it.
If you're going to be disappointed with that politician, don't vote for her.
If he's going to break up with you, don't date him.
If you're going to get into that car accident, don't drive.
If that object is going to send you to the hospital, don't put it up your butt.

Who the holy hell knows.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 6:09pm

Or, as the old saying goes, leap before you look.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 7:10am

Wow, what an incredibly complicated way of saying you're butthurt over people not agreeing with you.

At the same time, I can agree that there are sh*t critics out there, although they didn't earn that title because I disagreed with them.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 7:11am

Dbl post. Sry.

Updated On: 12/4/11 at 07:11 AM