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

" (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.

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.

---

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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

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.

---

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.

---