In your opinion, do broadway-bound (well, they *hope* to be BB) shows receive honest criticism from those who attend previews?

1. Just because YOU didn't feel the same, doesn't mean your opinions are more right than those you are questioning. (And, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.)

2. YES, if they are actually connected to people in the cast, then publicly they are likely being NICE - not because it is Broadway bound.

3. Also: reviews (formal) are often better than what they might be in NY, as professional reviewers often are either less qualified than the major publications and/or are looking at potential.

You're asking an unanswerable question. As others have said -- there is no "right answer" when it comes to judging a work of art. Also, there are a thousand different reasons why someone might post something on social media --- they may work for the show, their friend might work on the show, or they might have auditioned and not gotten a callback!

I can't speak for anyone else, but speaking from my days before moving to NY: I definitely felt a bit of hometown pride when we got a pre-Broadway tryout. I often felt like I was in their "corner" - like I had a slightly biased sense of rooting for the show to make it, even if I didn't think it was all that great. But I was usually pretty honest about when I didn't think a Pre-Broadway show REALLY wasn't good. But I definitely felt like I was more constructive, more hopeful for its potential, more forgiving of their faults even when I recognized them.

That said, if there did happen to be a show I genuinely really liked, I probably wouldn't have appreciated someone making the assumption that I only liked it because of my bias. Nor do I appreciate that with any discussion of art. I'm happy to confess to my own biases, and possibly even guess at others' biases, but I don't believe in using those to undercut or invalidate their opinions.

OP, I don't mean that as an accusation toward you - sounds like you were asking in good faith for opinions and observations of trends. I'm just speaking broadly about how I feel about this topic.

Remember that Beetlejuice got mostly criticism for its lyrics, tone and confrontationally vulgar sensibility in Washington DC, but it made a number of changes to be more polished and family friendly on Broadway. So they took the note of “who is this for anyway” and pivoted to be a naughty PG-13 family show instead of a hard-R raunch fest. (Since the reopening, some of the original dirty jokes have made their way back in.)

To give an example, Dr Zhivago received some very good write-ups in the Sydney Morning Herald during its 'pre-Broadway tryout' that might be encouraging for a Broadway run - but I knew the show was dead on arrival and I think the Broadway run and reviews confirmed that. As Blaxx said, the standards in NYC are much higher than other locations (all locations in my opinions) and there is none of this community spirit for wanting shows to do well just because.

OP here, these are really good insights by you all & I appreciate it.

(on the specific show I saw, the reviews have started to come in since i wrote this and they're harsher than I expected....but I am hopeful that changes can be made, in this specific case, and the play will move on).

There are exceptions but here’s my take (based only on the San Francisco Bay Area):

- Professional reviewers are pretty thoughtful and often seem a little tougher, with more specific criticisms along with praise, on a Broadway-bound show than a purely regional one. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the review but it doesn’t seem like punches are being pulled.

- People connected with the show or the performers are going to praise it in public for obvious reasons. They may genuinely like it but certainly want to be supportive.

- Nonprofessional reviewers on message boards like this one are almost always the toughest of all, sometimes brutally so but often in ways that highlight problems that creatives shouldn’t ignore.