Ive never started one of these, so hopefully not stepping on anyones toes! Actually, I was under the (incorrect) impression this didnt open until next week, so was suprised to see their logo this a.m.
Very curious to see how this one fares in print.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
If I recall Boston pretty much got raves, id expect the same here! Lets see how the reviews are, but id be surprised if they aren't positive. Im expecting a lot of $ to be made at the Hirschfeld. Congrats to everyone!
Yes, sorry, I meant professional. Ill fix the title.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Looking forward to reading these. I doubt Brantley will totally reverse his out-of-town rave, considering the show has not substantially changed aside from cutting a number.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Kad said: "Looking forward to reading these. I doubt Brantley will totally reverse his out-of-town rave, considering the show has not substantially changed aside from cutting a number."
I agree totally. There was very little change from Boston, but I did miss the line about "Anatole and Pierre," which I thought was a cool tribute to "The Great Comet."
Kad said: "Typically, the same reviewer will re-review."
Yeah, because God forbid the TIMES admits its reviewers are human and their opinions are at least somewhat subjective.
I've long thought that since the NYT is the only paper that actually affects b.o., they should send three critics to every Broadway show and print their reviews side-by-side. But of course that would interfere with their pose as the Voice of God.
GavestonPS said: "Kad said: "Typically, the same reviewer will re-review."
Yeah, because God forbid the TIMES admits its reviewers are human and their opinions are at least somewhat subjective.
I've long thought that since the NYT is the only paper that actually affects b.o., they should send three critics to every Broadway show and print their reviews side-by-side. But of course that would interfere with their pose as the Voice of God."
The days of Frank Rich is when the NY Times was at its most influential. The Times review is still important but not to the extent it once was.
"I hope your Fanny is bigger than my Peter."
Mary Martin to Ezio Pinza opening night of Fanny.
GavestonPS said: "Kad said: "Typically, the same reviewer will re-review."
Yeah, because God forbid the TIMES admits its reviewers are human and their opinions are at least somewhat subjective.
I've long thought that since the NYT is the only paper that actually affects b.o., they should send three critics to every Broadway show and print their reviews side-by-side. But of course that would interfere with their pose as the Voice of God."
That makes sense. Also, it's 2019 and NYT should at least have a FEMALE as one of its top theater critics. After all, I think more than 50% of the theater audience are female.
I as a man agree with having more females. PS The DIS needs more females period That makes sense. Also, it's 2019 and NYT should at least have a FEMALE as one of its top theater critics. After all, I think more than 50% of the theater audience are female."