KING KONG Reviews- Page 6

[Kad]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 5:20pm

It's amazing how people immediately and without irony took criticism of the way the Times went about doing the review to the place of "OMG YOU CAN'T EVEN HAVE AN OPINION ANYMORE."

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 5:29pm

I was expecting something horrible with the way you guys are going on about Brantley & Green. They aren’t wrong - could they have been nicer about it? Sure...but the show isn’t worth it. Outside of the amazing puppet (which to me, lost the spectacle the more you looked at it), it cannot be disputed that this show is creatively lazy and boderline offensive to full-price ticket buyers.

I would say it should have been an arena tour, but I’m sure it would close up shop early. Not sure where they saw a demand for King Kong on stage now....unless it was a great show, which this is not.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 6:19pm

songanddanceman2 said: "As a playwright myself I look to reviews good and bad for advice and to learn in the future, I would be able to take nothing from this."

I think the lesson you can learn is "Don't put a theme park ride on Broadway and expect it to be taken seriously as musical theatre."

The creatives spent 5+ years and $35 million dollars on this show. They had more than enough time and money to improve upon the book and the score. They didn't. Most musical creators would kill for that kind of prep pre-Broadway. It's not the NY Times critics' responsibility to hold their hand and tell them how to better allocate their attentions now that it's already opened on Broadway.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 6:42pm

This show is clearly a money grab and I agree that it's offensive to full-price ticket buyers how lazy they were on the creative side of this. This show deserves all the negativity it gets. I have no sympathy for greedy producers attempting to make an easy buck. The show isn't good. This is already a prime example of a classic BAD musical.

[thealtoslament]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 10:11pm

I wonder if Eric William Morris is wishing he went back to Be More Chill. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 11:08pm

Kad said: "This one can't simply be laid at the foot of the playwright. This was a producer-driven show from the get-go, and they (eventually) found a writing team who would take money to acquiesce to them."

True. I've been a money-acquiesing writer forever, just in industries where my name never goes on any of the things I write.

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 11/9/18 at 11:40pm

This outrage is ridiculous. It’s not like Brantley and Green are the only ones who have said how horrible it is. Maybe if producers and creatives worked a little harder to rise above mediocrity, they’d have a more favorable review.

[jkl2000]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 1:42am

Got back a little while ago from seeing it tonight.

Kong was pretty cool, the rest of the show was very bad. As a huge fan of the original movie, I just can't accept some of the things they did. Too much to really go into but a few choice ones:

- Eliminating the third main, human character, Jack Driscoll.
- There's no animal or human life on Skull Island aside from Kong and a giant snake? No natives? No dinosaurs? All of that is some of the best stuff in the movie! So little of the show happens on Skull Island, while MOST of the movie happens on Skull Island.
- The musical number from Carl Denham's show - that was one of the worst musical numbers I've ever seen.
- Lumpy. Sorry, Lumpy is a Chinese cook. Instead they made him into a sort of version of Toby from Sweeney Todd. He was an embarrassing character with no reason to be in the show.
- Ann's final song was completely out of place. Kong has just died, she doesn't seem very upset.
- They never show the Empire State building exterior! Just a piece of it from the inside, and the very top (not even the antenna or whatever it is, just the top bit of that).

Well, I could go on. There are so many reasons that a stage version of King Kong could never work, and people are right when they say this was just an excuse for the puppet. Right off the bat only having really two characters who can sing songs is a problem. If they'd kept Jack Driscoll they'd have had at least one more! The feminist angle pretty much ruins the whole plot - the fact that Ann never screamed, only roared, is just wrong. I know, they wanted to avoid or at least comment on the sexism, but it's like making a movie of Robin Hood but not having bows and arrows because they're weapons. There are certain stories with which this kind of revisionism can work, but King Kong isn't one of them.

Having said all that, a lot of people in the audience seemed to love it.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 8:12am

It sounds like it was a mistake to do this (well at all but...) as a quasi musical and instead they should've done it as a Harry Potter type play that has some dance and music incorporated into it.

The fact they changed the characters about is just dumb.

The fact the island has no human inhabitants is dumb. 

The fact they tried to stage a fight between a snake and gorilla is dumb.

The fact they could never convincing stage most of what happens in the story makes it a stupid decisions from the start.

It could've actually been really cool as a modern dance piece with no dialogue and a really great score and choreography. But I don't think tourists would've flocked to it in the same way, even though they aren't really flocking to it anyways.

I'd have much rather seen Cirque tackle it in a really spectacular and artistic way in a purpose built theatre in Vegas ala KA or O.

Now THAT I'd pay to see!

 

[Born in a Ditch]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 9:25am

How many times do people have to explain that they don't take issue with the review being bad but with the fact it is an empty piece of writing that doesn't actually give any explanation or insight? It's lazy. People expect better from these "top critics", and they should.  

Updated On: 11/10/18 at 09:25 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 10:47am

Thank you Born in a Ditch. It has nothing to do with if the show is good or bad, it's the way they sounded like two faux intellectuals after 6 cocktails and a joint.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 10:53am

Maybe they were pitching their response to match the witlessness of this misguided project.

You can hardly construct a Shakespearean dissertation around pap.

They have plenty to say about the quality of performances, the efficacy of the puppet, the impact of the music and the shortcomings of the text- book and lyrics.

King Kong has tried to set itself as a special event on Broadway.  That two NYT critics attended ought to have been an honour, but when you don't deliver what you promise, you can't blame the critics for calling you out- together.

[Markecib]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 11:11am

Went to the show last night with lowered expectations, but I was entertained mostly. I went for the puppet and it was amazing how the control that literal beast of a puppet. I did find it over choreographed and the book was meh, but watching Kong run and climb and the emation they were able to give him made me enjoy those parts.

As for the NYT review it was like a poor mans Statler and Waldorf routine from the muppets and it was odd they way they presented their opinion.

[BeNice]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 11:13am

songanddanceman2 said: "Thank you Born in a Ditch. It has nothing to do with if the show is good or bad, it's the way they sounded like two faux intellectuals after 6 cocktails and a joint."

LOLOL

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 11:59am

Born in a Ditch said: "How many times do people have to explain that they don't take issue with the review being bad but with the fact it is an empty piece of writing that doesn't actually give any explanation or insight? It's lazy. People expect better from these "top critics", and they should."

How many times do people have to explain that the show is unworthy of wasting time on providing an explanation or insight. Think of it as The Gong Show or whatever that show with the X's is called. When what you present is lazy or a joke, you get summarily and disrespectfully booted. There is nothing more warranted. And here the folks presenting the show include experienced and prestigious producers who should know better and deserve to be publicly humiliated in this fashion. 

FWIW I found this to be several rungs down the ladder from GTBBT which I thought would be the nadir.

Updated On: 11/10/18 at 11:59 AM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 12:57pm

The bigger question is how long does this last? The spectacle will keep it afloat for a short while (a la Spiderman), but does this make it to the summer? The spring?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 1:01pm

I think we need a couple weeks to see. The need to be up in the $1mil+ range over the holidays or they will not (i.e., should not) make it until spring. 

[Daddy Warbucks]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 1:12pm

I finally got a chance to see this show for the first time.  I appreciate everyone lowering my expectations.  There was much more that I liked than I thought I would.  And the spectacle of the puppet was just as amazing as I had hoped.  

I easily enjoyed this show more than Band’s Visit — I know I’m going to get flamed for saying it.  Artistically Kong isn’t in the same ball park as Band’s Visit and Kong is no where near as polished, but it was just a more enjoyable and fun experience for me.  I suspect this will be a draw for tourists looking for a big spectacle.  

I love when Kong comes out to the audience.  I thought they did a great job building up the reveal of Kong and not revealing his full visual potential too early in the show.  

ACL2006 said: "The bigger question is how long does this last? The spectacle will keep it afloat for a short while (a la Spiderman), but does this make it to the summer? The spring?"

Short while?  Spiderman was 1066 performances.  

I think we’ll know more as we watch how this show’s grosses grow or shrink between now and through the holidays.  It needs to hit 100% gross potential by holidays in order to have a chance at running for the length of a Spider-Man—that’s my prediction anyway.  

 

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 1:45pm

Imagine 2 lonely old queens in a near deserted bar sipping on banana daiquiris screeching hysterically as they tried to write down their thoughts on Kong on a napkin.

Think I would like to be on the bar stool next to them as it was quite amusing, but I'd be drinking a beer, mate!

[GreeneStreet]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 2:24pm

Broadway.4me the instagram page, just posted about how they “destroyed the cast”. Now all the teens are going to think that every show must have a good review! Or it will be not right and an outrage is needed! Give me a break.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 3:44pm

GreeneStreet said: "Broadway.4me the instagram page, just posted about how they “destroyed the cast”. Now all the teens are going to think that every show must have a good review! Or it will be not right and an outrage is needed! Give me a break."

No, they won’t, and no one is saying that. 

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 3:56pm

adamgreer said: "Broadway actors and artists have incredibly thin skin and very fragile egos. Were it up to them, there would be no critics and everyone would just love everything. I'm not surprised that mid-level performers like Margherita and Brightman would feel the need to speak out."

This 100% hits the nail on the head.

If I was a producer/director, I'd stay away from Margherita or Brightman because of those tweets.

Not that Margherita has people knocking down her door to cast her...

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 4:07pm

GreeneStreet said: "Broadway.4me the instagram page, just posted about how they “destroyed the cast”. Now all the teens are going to think that every show must have a good review! Or it will be not right and an outrage is needed! Give me a break."

I refuse to think the cast is daft enough to not know that the material of their show is horrible and they deserve a kick in the pants so they can pick better shows if they are daft enough to not know that the material of their show is awful.  It's not even about picking better shows, really.  It's about being aware if you're in a bad show.  I'd wager that MOST working actors would sign on to material they thought was crap if it meant going to Broadway (and getting Broadway money, even if only for a short period of time).  

I hate how the teens/young 20's now think that shows deserve a good review because the cast is talented.  Of COURSE the cast is talented.  You have to have a certain level of talent to even get the equity card to get into the audition room.  What the kids don't understand is that the value of a show doesn't rest of the cast laurels.  It rests on the book, the music, the staging, the direction, and concept, and choreography, the special effects, the costumes, the scenic elements, the orchestra, AND the cast all creating one coherent/artistically engaging production.   
 

King Kong was given more time/development/MONEY than most other shows on Broadway right now and they still put out an awful production.  Multiple book writers and multiple songwriters were filtered in and out.  And, after all this time/development/money/input... they still couldn't even begin to pull it together.  They deserve everything thrown at them.  

I have a feeling it's about to be a ROUGH year for Eddie Perfect.  

Updated On: 11/10/18 at 04:07 PM

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 4:22pm

And this is the last thing I'll say right now.
Story Time:

I saw my first Broadway show about three hours after being rejected by Julliard.
It was Billy Elliot with the OBC before the show won the Tonys.
Jan 2009.

After the show, about five people were at the stage door and I was one of them.
I chatted with the cast as they came out, in my 18 year old wonder, and it was a perfect first Broadway experience.

Then, Greg Jabara came out.  Greg asked me how I liked the show and I said something to likes of, "I'm so happy this was the first show I saw on Broadway."  He asked me what brought me to NYC and I told him I was auditioning for Julliard but I didn't get in.  

Greg, a Juilliard graduate, put his hands on my shoulders and looked me square in the eye.  
He said, "you've got to have rhino skin if you're going to do this."

And that moment has stuck with me for ten years now.

You've GOT TO have rhino skin.

I find it... like... tacky that members of the community (and I'm not talking about this message board, I'm talking about actors) are attacking critics for not liking a show.
YOU'VE.  GOT.  TO.  HAVE.  RHINO.  SKIN.
If you cannot embark on an artistic project without accepting that you might get critically lampooned, this is not the field for you.
If you cannot stand to see any piece of theatre reviewed badly, this is not the field for you.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/10/18 at 5:08pm

That's a great and charming story. I'll pass along another not-unrelated one I heard a producer say once: "they don't tell you in drama school that if your career choice is show business you've signed up to be a door-to-door salesperson for the rest of your life. You are going to face lots of rejection, no matter the level you achieve."