#76
Posted: 4/5/13 at 2:58pm
Ha, ha. Don't feed the trolls.
KINKY BOOTS Reviews — Page 4
#77
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:00pm
It's just my opinion. If peoples opinion bother you this much maybe you shouldn't read the message board.
#78
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:05pm
I don't agree with you so I'm a troll? Well congrats to you because I'm done posting things to this message board. I can't even post my opinion without being criticized. This website is filled with people who think they know everything. I'm 19. I havent seen every single show ever like some of the people on this thread have. I am sorry though because clearly some people on this thread think they are more important then they actually are.
#79
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:20pm
I called you a troll for the simple reason that you stated your opinion as fact. AND I found several things you said particularly offensive. Lots of people here have contrary opinions - pretty obviously. Your post sounds exactly like the kind that you yourself complain about.
Anyone can have an opinion- doesn't mean they can't state it politely.
Anyone can have an opinion- doesn't mean they can't state it politely.
#80
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:22pm
In my humble opinion this show was not horrible but certainly didn't deserve the glowing reviews it recieved. I will probably get flack for this but I can think of two musicals from the last two seasons that were trashed by the critics but I enjoyed far more than I did Kinky. I'm referring to Ghost and Sister Act. In the end, though it really is to each his own and I'm a long time fan of Cyndi as a person and artist so I really am happy that her first Broadway outing was a success. It's also a good thing that this show will enjoy a nice run and will entertain many people along the way.
#81
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:22pm
NY1 is positive: https://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/theater_reviews/179907/ny1-theater-review---kinky-boots-
------
On an entirely unrelated note, nice to see Cyndi's son dressed for the occassion....
I mean, really?
------
On an entirely unrelated note, nice to see Cyndi's son dressed for the occassion....
I mean, really?
Updated On: 4/5/13 at 03:22 PM
#82
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:36pm
PitPro2004, Billie Jo Armstrong has more talent in his black-polished pinky than you do in your whole "old fart" body.
Updated On: 4/5/13 at 03:36 PM
#83
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:39pm
>> "I'm 19."
Then may I earnestly recommend seeing these boards as an exercise in growing up?
I"m not going to rag on you, but let's look at what you wrote, okay> "I have nothing against gays but lets be honest who wants to see a bunch of cross dressers singing?" Okay, dude, welcome to the real world, where entertainers like Dame Edna and Tyler Perry and the entire cast of LA CAGE AUX FOLLES have been making untold millions doing exactly that, and not for a primarily gay audience. Just because "No body I've ever met" isnt interested, then that kinda begs the question: why are you here? This is a theatre board, not a NASCAR forum. Folks here arent necessarily gay, and I doubt you can find many who dont see cross-dressing as an important part of theatre history, all the way back to those pervy Greeks.
So — and again, just a gentle recommendation, nothing more — consider your audience when writing a comment here. Sure, be truthful about how you feel, but dont uncessarily and accidently insult everyone else here and then try to CYA with a lot of bluster. These are actors, and they will see through you faster than a pane of glass.
Just sayin'. Carry on.
Then may I earnestly recommend seeing these boards as an exercise in growing up?
I"m not going to rag on you, but let's look at what you wrote, okay> "I have nothing against gays but lets be honest who wants to see a bunch of cross dressers singing?" Okay, dude, welcome to the real world, where entertainers like Dame Edna and Tyler Perry and the entire cast of LA CAGE AUX FOLLES have been making untold millions doing exactly that, and not for a primarily gay audience. Just because "No body I've ever met" isnt interested, then that kinda begs the question: why are you here? This is a theatre board, not a NASCAR forum. Folks here arent necessarily gay, and I doubt you can find many who dont see cross-dressing as an important part of theatre history, all the way back to those pervy Greeks.
So — and again, just a gentle recommendation, nothing more — consider your audience when writing a comment here. Sure, be truthful about how you feel, but dont uncessarily and accidently insult everyone else here and then try to CYA with a lot of bluster. These are actors, and they will see through you faster than a pane of glass.
Just sayin'. Carry on.
http://docandraider.com
#84
Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:45pm
"Anybody that goes to the theater, I think we’re all misfits, so we ended up on stage or in the audience.” --- Patti LuPone.
#85
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:23pm
Wow, the site is positively aflame with incendiaries today!
Sean-- I paid $90 for my back of the mezz TDF ticket to the first preview last month. Putting aside my less than rave review to the show proper, as a fellow set designer like yourself, I'd give a thumbs down to paying full price to this production-- derivative, schlocky, and an incredibly UNimaginative set by David Rockwell. (Basically a single factory look, with an in-one exterior wall and minimal finale set dropped inside for the Milan Fashion Show.) And this from a huge fan of Rockwell's after seeing his elegant profound environment for last year's The Normal Heart.
BOM-- Speaking as a gay man who really didn't enjoy Kinky Boots, first you've got to realize that most gay guys going to the theater simply want to see GOOD THEATER just like everybody else, not specifically gay theater. I may be in the minority here, but I found Kinky Boots depressing from a gay perspective (Lola never gets a love life of her own-- she's just another magical drag queen/ court jester there to solve the straight guy's troubles). To me, this was a show that catered to a straight audience for drag, not a gay audience. (Guys couldn't really be thought of as sex objects unless in drag.) As for Priscilla, the recent revival of La Cage aux Folles, and other so-called gay shows? I may be a curmudgeon, but I had a similarly sad reaction to those shows too-- drag shows for straights. And I'm writing this as a guy who worked on the original '83 production of La Cage (which I would now consider timid by today's standards but absolutely with its heart in the right place.)
Of course, not every gay will agree with me-- and why should they? Welcome to the real world.
Sean-- I paid $90 for my back of the mezz TDF ticket to the first preview last month. Putting aside my less than rave review to the show proper, as a fellow set designer like yourself, I'd give a thumbs down to paying full price to this production-- derivative, schlocky, and an incredibly UNimaginative set by David Rockwell. (Basically a single factory look, with an in-one exterior wall and minimal finale set dropped inside for the Milan Fashion Show.) And this from a huge fan of Rockwell's after seeing his elegant profound environment for last year's The Normal Heart.
BOM-- Speaking as a gay man who really didn't enjoy Kinky Boots, first you've got to realize that most gay guys going to the theater simply want to see GOOD THEATER just like everybody else, not specifically gay theater. I may be in the minority here, but I found Kinky Boots depressing from a gay perspective (Lola never gets a love life of her own-- she's just another magical drag queen/ court jester there to solve the straight guy's troubles). To me, this was a show that catered to a straight audience for drag, not a gay audience. (Guys couldn't really be thought of as sex objects unless in drag.) As for Priscilla, the recent revival of La Cage aux Folles, and other so-called gay shows? I may be a curmudgeon, but I had a similarly sad reaction to those shows too-- drag shows for straights. And I'm writing this as a guy who worked on the original '83 production of La Cage (which I would now consider timid by today's standards but absolutely with its heart in the right place.)
Of course, not every gay will agree with me-- and why should they? Welcome to the real world.
Updated On: 4/5/13 at 04:23 PM
#86
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:29pm
Someone -- you paid $90 for a TDF ticket?? I've never heard of a TDF ticket being that much - unless you mean TKTS. And even so, KB was on TKTS frequently at 50% off, so I still don't see how you paid $90.00. What's the story on that? Curious.
#87
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:37pm
^ You're right, it was a TKTS ticket. Just pulled out the stub: 3-3-13, Mezz N 22,
Total cost: $101.50!!
I guess the discount was only 30 or 40% that day, not the full 50.
Sucks in retrospect, but at least I get to participate in this discussion :
Total cost: $101.50!!
I guess the discount was only 30 or 40% that day, not the full 50.
Sucks in retrospect, but at least I get to participate in this discussion :
#88
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:43pm
^That kinda sucks - especially if you didn't care for the show. I paid a bit less than that using an offer I got in the mail and got front row center of the Mezz (my preferred location).
#89
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:44pm
My roommate got a friend of hers a ticket from TKTS for $88 dollars the other day - it was front row.
"Anybody that goes to the theater, I think we’re all misfits, so we ended up on stage or in the audience.” --- Patti LuPone.
#90
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:47pm
I see it's not up on TKTS today.
#91
Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:52pm
"Pop music is just that; "popular" music, with no basis in a given known musical root system."
Wha?? Broadway and pop music, if you really wanna get down to it, have the SAME "musical root system" basis.
Wha?? Broadway and pop music, if you really wanna get down to it, have the SAME "musical root system" basis.
#92
Posted: 4/5/13 at 5:59pm
"With Billy Porters raspy voice, they could've hired any change smoker to play his part."
Unless his voice has changed drastically over the past few years, I think comparing Billy Porter's voice to a chain smoker's isn't particularly apt.
jv, in fairness to BOM he did say that they could have hired any change smoker. I'm not sure who is smoking change but that could just be some straight fad I don't get because I'm just some dumb gay guy.
And speaking on behalf of all gays (because apparently we have a collective opinion), I didn't like KINKY BOOTS. The exact reason I didn't like it was because it felt pandering to gays in a way that PRISCILLA and LA CAGE didn't.
BOM, you really need to grow up and get a life. I also find it interesting that you've been reading these boards since you were 13 and yet you still have these convoluted notions about them. Plus I will pounce on you for the bevy of grammatical and spelling errors in your posts because it makes you seem even dumber than you are based on the overall statement.
Unless his voice has changed drastically over the past few years, I think comparing Billy Porter's voice to a chain smoker's isn't particularly apt.
jv, in fairness to BOM he did say that they could have hired any change smoker. I'm not sure who is smoking change but that could just be some straight fad I don't get because I'm just some dumb gay guy.
And speaking on behalf of all gays (because apparently we have a collective opinion), I didn't like KINKY BOOTS. The exact reason I didn't like it was because it felt pandering to gays in a way that PRISCILLA and LA CAGE didn't.
BOM, you really need to grow up and get a life. I also find it interesting that you've been reading these boards since you were 13 and yet you still have these convoluted notions about them. Plus I will pounce on you for the bevy of grammatical and spelling errors in your posts because it makes you seem even dumber than you are based on the overall statement.
"Pardon my prior Mcfee slip. I know how to spell her name. I just don't know how to type it." -Talulah
#93
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:01pm
ClumsyDude, I think this one might be a little more appropriate.
"Pardon my prior Mcfee slip. I know how to spell her name. I just don't know how to type it." -Talulah
#94
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:07pm
Everyone knew that Kinky Boots would be Matilda's sole competition at the Tony Awards, but no one really knew anything about it. Most were hoping for the best since everyone hopes for a race and with Matilda comming in with such buzz it made this season's awards were already written in stone.
Who is this "everyone" and "most" you often reference?
Unless his voice has changed drastically over the past few years, I think comparing Billy Porter's voice to a chain smoker's isn't particularly apt.
It has. It was clear in Chicago his voice was struggling in most of the dialogue. He could push out a song very well, but his voice was quite worn and raspy the rest of the time.
I have nothing against gay but this show is really targeted towards them.
I have nothing against gays but lets be honest who wants to see a bunch of cross dressers singing?
While i seem like the minority, I'm guessing that most of the critics are either gay or are women.
CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GAYS. You just think they have poor taste for praising something you don't like. I didn't care for the show, so I must be a macho hetero male like yourself who is disgusted at the thought of drag queens. Icky poo! La Cage aux Folles must have been a HUGE bomb when it first opened since no heterosexual men would be caught dead watching it. WHO WANTS TO SEE THAT? But we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief that YOU HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GAYS. You just don't want to be subjected to something you feel might appeal to them.
Hey go ahead and argue with me but honestly I dont give a **** about what half of you people think.
Liar. You get all aggressive and then act offended when criticized for posting your opinion. So, either you do care, or you are a troll. Either way, you choose to express yourself as immature and naive.
I am sorry though because clearly some people on this thread think they are more important then they actually are.
That is what is known as a hypocritical statement.
Who is this "everyone" and "most" you often reference?
Unless his voice has changed drastically over the past few years, I think comparing Billy Porter's voice to a chain smoker's isn't particularly apt.
It has. It was clear in Chicago his voice was struggling in most of the dialogue. He could push out a song very well, but his voice was quite worn and raspy the rest of the time.
I have nothing against gay but this show is really targeted towards them.
I have nothing against gays but lets be honest who wants to see a bunch of cross dressers singing?
While i seem like the minority, I'm guessing that most of the critics are either gay or are women.
CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GAYS. You just think they have poor taste for praising something you don't like. I didn't care for the show, so I must be a macho hetero male like yourself who is disgusted at the thought of drag queens. Icky poo! La Cage aux Folles must have been a HUGE bomb when it first opened since no heterosexual men would be caught dead watching it. WHO WANTS TO SEE THAT? But we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief that YOU HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GAYS. You just don't want to be subjected to something you feel might appeal to them.
Hey go ahead and argue with me but honestly I dont give a **** about what half of you people think.
Liar. You get all aggressive and then act offended when criticized for posting your opinion. So, either you do care, or you are a troll. Either way, you choose to express yourself as immature and naive.
I am sorry though because clearly some people on this thread think they are more important then they actually are.
That is what is known as a hypocritical statement.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#95
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:39pm
bjh2114 - People always "trash" Brantley because he is usually negative. He writes something positive about new show and you say he was "bought" - lol. It is fine if you disagree with him but I don't think saying he was "bought" was necessary.
#96
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:44pm
ClydeBarrow - Accurate, very accurate.
"Anybody that goes to the theater, I think we’re all misfits, so we ended up on stage or in the audience.” --- Patti LuPone.
#97
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:51pm
You know, Tree, your comment about Lola not having a love interest of his/her own being depressing probably has something to do with the creative team's clash on Lola's sexuality, with Fierstein seeing Lola as a heterosexual transvestite (trolls on the board take note: they DO exist), but Porter seeing Lola as a flamboyantly gay drag queen-meets-transperson.
Perhaps the compromise was that the issue of sexuality is not brought up whatsoever, to focus instead on the more ambivalent "queerness" paradigm of deviation from the heteronormative-patriarchal norm.
Perhaps the compromise was that the issue of sexuality is not brought up whatsoever, to focus instead on the more ambivalent "queerness" paradigm of deviation from the heteronormative-patriarchal norm.
#98
Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:54pm
Also, regarding whether Lauper is theatrical in a way Elton John isn't:
John's early albums up until his mid-career shift to "major pop songwriter" was EXTREMELY theatrical and experimental, blending the musical genres of country, blues, cabaret and chanson with conventional rock- sometimes more rocky than other times.
His theatrical scores, especially "Billy Elliot," "Lestat" and "Aida" can be seen as strongly harkening back to the pre-"Philadelphia Freedom" style John would fill his albums with.
John's early albums up until his mid-career shift to "major pop songwriter" was EXTREMELY theatrical and experimental, blending the musical genres of country, blues, cabaret and chanson with conventional rock- sometimes more rocky than other times.
His theatrical scores, especially "Billy Elliot," "Lestat" and "Aida" can be seen as strongly harkening back to the pre-"Philadelphia Freedom" style John would fill his albums with.
#99
Posted: 4/5/13 at 7:32pm
"PitPro2004, Billie Jo Armstrong has more talent in his black-polished pinky than you do in your whole "old fart" body."
oh ABSOLUTELY honey! That must be why he felt the need to tell everyone he's been around since 19effing88.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5OwalcmGg
BTW...I've been around much longer. And I haven't been in rehab or felt the need to b*tch in front of an audience with my overdeveloped undeserved sense of accomplishment with his gone in five minutes pop tunes. *two snaps*
oh ABSOLUTELY honey! That must be why he felt the need to tell everyone he's been around since 19effing88.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5OwalcmGg
BTW...I've been around much longer. And I haven't been in rehab or felt the need to b*tch in front of an audience with my overdeveloped undeserved sense of accomplishment with his gone in five minutes pop tunes. *two snaps*
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium!"
#100
Posted: 4/5/13 at 8:10pm
"Pop music is just that; "popular" music, with no basis in a given known musical root system."
Wha?? Broadway and pop music, if you really wanna get down to it, have the SAME "musical root system" basis."
Delighted that my earlier comments were clearly taken out of context.
Let's see if we can approach this from another direction.
When is the last time you heard a tune from Anything Goes on top forty radio? When is the last time you heard a song from Wicked on Kasey Kasems' countdown? When was the last time that you saw Adam Guettel on Letterman? How many times in the past on the Grammy's have a production number been featured, or at the very least, the cast album award given out live. Not too many and certainly not year after year. Today's popular music is topped off by rap and loud obnoxious rock and roll. Legitimate music in the form of opera, jazz and classical are now not only taking a back seat in the pop music mainstream, but are also being eliminated completely. (Fortunately, Les Mis got some Oscar attention, but I don't expect that to last long).
Yes, back in the day, Broadway WAS the pop song. We didn't have the dissemination of so many styles back then because we simply didn't have that many. Period. Nelson Riddle, Buddy Rich, Big Band, Jazz, Broadway. Andrews Sisters whatever have you. They were pop. I won't argue that.
However...
Today there are plenty of new musical styles born of the past 50 years which don't need to see the light of day on a stage because they already have their own forum. They already have their own stage, i.e. the Billboard charts, the mosh pits, MTV videos and every other way that I have to suffer what people call "legit", music today. I find most of it to be either nonsensical bubble gum meant to be just harmless fun, or annoying loud noise meant to make a buck. The worse part is that they are all temporary, here today, gone in five minute songs. And yes, I know that some of you are probably thinking the same could be said for certain Broadway tunes just now and I am sure you are right.
Perhaps my point is this; do these people really need to come to Broadway when they have enough of a platform of their own? If they have new music, why not just take it on tour? Record a new album and release it and let the entire fanbase be your critic. Besides making a buck, which I have no qualm with, ask yourselves what is the fundamental reason why these shows/ pop tune slingers are coming to the stage. And if you can't figure out the answer, I suggest you listen to the Forbidden Broadway spoof of the Weislers (sp?) who charm you with the idea of ......coming to Broadway...Ooooohhhh!!... You'll be on ....BROADWAY....ooohhh!!!
Wha?? Broadway and pop music, if you really wanna get down to it, have the SAME "musical root system" basis."
Delighted that my earlier comments were clearly taken out of context.
Let's see if we can approach this from another direction.
When is the last time you heard a tune from Anything Goes on top forty radio? When is the last time you heard a song from Wicked on Kasey Kasems' countdown? When was the last time that you saw Adam Guettel on Letterman? How many times in the past on the Grammy's have a production number been featured, or at the very least, the cast album award given out live. Not too many and certainly not year after year. Today's popular music is topped off by rap and loud obnoxious rock and roll. Legitimate music in the form of opera, jazz and classical are now not only taking a back seat in the pop music mainstream, but are also being eliminated completely. (Fortunately, Les Mis got some Oscar attention, but I don't expect that to last long).
Yes, back in the day, Broadway WAS the pop song. We didn't have the dissemination of so many styles back then because we simply didn't have that many. Period. Nelson Riddle, Buddy Rich, Big Band, Jazz, Broadway. Andrews Sisters whatever have you. They were pop. I won't argue that.
However...
Today there are plenty of new musical styles born of the past 50 years which don't need to see the light of day on a stage because they already have their own forum. They already have their own stage, i.e. the Billboard charts, the mosh pits, MTV videos and every other way that I have to suffer what people call "legit", music today. I find most of it to be either nonsensical bubble gum meant to be just harmless fun, or annoying loud noise meant to make a buck. The worse part is that they are all temporary, here today, gone in five minute songs. And yes, I know that some of you are probably thinking the same could be said for certain Broadway tunes just now and I am sure you are right.
Perhaps my point is this; do these people really need to come to Broadway when they have enough of a platform of their own? If they have new music, why not just take it on tour? Record a new album and release it and let the entire fanbase be your critic. Besides making a buck, which I have no qualm with, ask yourselves what is the fundamental reason why these shows/ pop tune slingers are coming to the stage. And if you can't figure out the answer, I suggest you listen to the Forbidden Broadway spoof of the Weislers (sp?) who charm you with the idea of ...
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium!"
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95