NATASHA, PIERRE & THE GREAT COMET OF 1812 Previews- Page 8

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:10pm

Failing to see where the personal attacks are here. You're right that you have your own opinion about a piece that you didn't think much of, but others have their own opinions about a piece that they like/love and want to discuss and defend. That's not being oversensitive, that's discussing theatre.

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:14pm

Alexander Lamar said: "Haven't you heard about the innovative on-stage parking?"

 

 

^^^

Funniest post of the year!

 

 

 

 

[bwaybabe3]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:14pm

true.  

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:16pm

aaaaaa15 said: "Failing to see where the personal attacks are here. You're right that you have your own opinion about a piece that you didn't think much of, but others have their own opinions about a piece that they like/love and want to discuss and defend. That's not being oversensitive, that's discussing theatre."

Also, it's hard to give personal attacks when the person in question only joined yesterday and we don't know anything about you... as... a person.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:18pm

^ LizzieCurry just hit the nail on the head.

[Soozie]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:43pm

bwaybabe3: I didn't read personal attacks. In fact, several posters, including myself, acknowledged your right to have a negative opinion of the show.  I, along with others, enjoyed it a lot and fhought it was well done and lots of talent and good music and so on. It's OK if you didn't like it.  

As far as the light bulb, and again, I only saw it Off Broadway (3 times)......the tent had multiple chandeliers with many lightbulbs and then at the end of the show, the comet shows up as one of the bulbs....and in reality, a comet would be one of many lights in the sky.  It worked for me.  Sorry this was not good in your eyes.  But frankly, it seemed like such a minor point in the scheme of critiquing a show of this magnitude. 

[bwaybabe3]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:50pm

ok ok I take back "personal attacks."    The jokes about the cars seemed to suggest you were saying I was lying about people leaving.   And I took it a little personally that you'd think I'd lie about that.   But it's right, we don't know each other, and for all you know, I might lie about people leaving.  but I wouldn't.  

gonna go have some vodka and a pirogie and shake my tiny little egg-shaped maracca and lighten up now.   

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 6:50pm

There were no personal attacks...people discussed your thoughts....which is how a discussions happens. You seem to think you are the only one to have an opinion....and that people that disagree with you are wrong and need to be enlightened.  That's the tone with which you have written.

 

 

[Soozie]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 7:15pm

Bwaybabe3: I'll admit that I had no clue how you would have seen people who were leaving get into their cars.  I didn't realize that those who are staying at the show can exit outdoors and come back in, for one thing.  But I made an assumption that people would then have to walk to their cars wherever they were parked.  So, it didn't seem realistic to me, but I assumed you were assuming they got into cars.  The main thing is that people left, but honestly, this likely happens at many shows.  Some people don't look much into a show before attending and the style of a show or even the music may not be their taste.  They just knew they wanted to see "a Broadway show," or in this case, "Josh Groban is in it."

[bwaybabe3]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 7:24pm

Regarding these personal attacks, did anyone read aimeric's post to me?  Pasted it below.  It's pretty clearly a personal attack on my assessment of the show.   I never did that to anyone.  I just wrote about the show.  And I don't think I deserved the sarcasm and judgmental assessment of my comments that aimeric directed at me.   

I never told anyone their statements were "bizarre" or "silly."  And I didn't get sarcastic at you with phrases like 'what, pray, does a "musical score" sound like?'  And I wasn't mockingly claiming to "shudder to wonder" what you all would think of other sung-through shows (given your thoughts on this one).   

Then aimeric determined that my opinion was "a metaphor of how much  (I) actually "missed" in the show as a whole."  ----so, I guess not only are my opinions "bizarre" and "silly" now,  but they apparently came from a place of ignorance --since aimeric determined that I "missed so much in the show as a whole."    

Well, If I came off like other peoples' opinions didn't matter to me, I didn't mean to, and I hope you all continue to post them cause I appreciate different perspectives.   But I'm certain I didn't attack anyone's actual opinion the way mine was attacked.  And yeah.  that's IS kind of personal.   but mostly it's just mean.    

aimeric

Understudy
joined:8/7/15

NATASHA, PIERRE & THE GREAT COMET OF 1812 Previews#159
Posted: 10/25/16 at 12:19pm

And I disagree in the strongest terms possible.  You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but some of your points are not opinions, just blatantly false or bizarre statements.  For example.  "The music is NOT melodious, and frankly, didn't sound like a musical score in most parts" and "didn't even remotely sound like it was actually the written notes."  Huh?  Okay.  And what, pray, does a "musical score" sound like, then?  I shudder to wonder how you would describe recitative music in other Broadway shows--Les Miserables comes to mind.  Your description of the comet is untrue and silly: that it's "one lightbulb" and a "random" "contrived" "inconvenient afterthought" intended "just to make sense of the title of the show"...?  You...do know this was based on source material, right...?  Source material that also includes a comet?  A comet that has deeper meaning for both the characters and the overall narrative?  Hmmm.....It sounds like your impression of the comet is a metaphor for how much you missed in the show as a whole: you see only one measly lightbulb, while ignoring the whole tail of glittering bulbs backing it up and bringing out its full beauty.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 7:26pm

Soozie said: "The main thing is that people left, but honestly, this likely happens at many shows.  Some people don't look much into a show before attending and the style of a show or even the music may not be their taste.  They just knew they wanted to see "a Broadway show," or in this case, "Josh Groban is in it."

Indeed. People walking out of a show that prides itself on being unconventional is pretty much a given.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 7:43pm

Does anyone else think bwaybabe3 took English composition at Trump University? (Is this a personal attack?)

[broadwayguy91]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 8:46pm

LizzieCurry said: "Does anyone else think bwaybabe3 took English composition at Trump University? (Is this a personal attack?)

 

"

is this PattiMurin-approved?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 8:56pm

You IDEAS got scrutinized...not you.   

 

Of course you don't think you "deserve" sarcasm, but that's simply the way some people respond -- you are taking things WAY too personally.

[bwaybabe3]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 9:08pm

indeed.  And is this what you guys do in here?  Judge/scrutinize other people's ideas?  I thought people were sharing their thoughts about the play.  I'll stop now.  

but first, oh lord... I do apologize for any suggestion of anything TRUMP.  Just FYI, I was searching Trumpthemusical.com and Trumpmusical.com and trumpbroadway.com the other night cause I figured I'd buy those website names now and park them -- in case Mr. T became a broadway show.  And all those websites were already taken.   Huge.com was taken too.  so....just a warning of what could come.  

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 9:12pm

What's the point of sharing if there is no discussion?  I mean REALLY?   

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 9:29pm

The show didn't work for me, but it was because I was expecting a well-told story given the quality of the material it was adapted from but ended up with an immersive experience that unfortunately required a mood I didn't have that night. That said, no Broadway show should be required to be glitz and glamor. It's not like "Show girls lining time square, the American dream."

[matineeidol2591]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 10:28pm

simply leaving a 'bookmark' comment here so that i can scroll past everyones bull$hit comments when I actually want to read a varying range of opinions about the show. 

I saw it off-broadway and thought it was masterful.  really looking forward to seeing it again. 

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 10:33pm

 Broadwaybabe3, just remember your not allowed to diss a beloved show on here, of course if your a new member your either a shrill or an a hater , Harvey Weinstein is he devil and should never be allowed near a Broadway theatre... Welcome o the boards, please try not to rock the boat! 

[willep]

Posted: 10/25/16 at 10:57pm

You're* you're* and you're*

Updated On: 10/25/16 at 10:57 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/26/16 at 5:03am

And don't forget the spell check, it makes others feel important 

[mullein]

Posted: 10/26/16 at 5:41am

Just saw it for the first time this Sunday and found the spectacle engaging and delightful. The story is very simple, but the ensemble cast is strong (didn't expected much of Groban, but was pleasantly surprised by his thespian skills) and I was quite touched in many parts. My only major gripe with the show is the strobe light scene which as far as I know the customers arent't warned about in advance (posters in the lobby aren't nearly enough) - it goes on for way too long and I was left lightheaded by the end.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/26/16 at 5:56am

This is not a beloved show....it seems split down the middle.   No one rise felt they were picked on...or whatever, except for this pompous poster.

 

You reap what you sow.

[PepperedShepherd]

Posted: 10/26/16 at 8:35am

Saw this last night, after having looked forward to it for months. 

I was pretty excited when it began, but after about 20 minutes, I began to feel bored. (By the end, I was ossified.)   All I got was a fairly simple tale [girl falls in love with another while fiancé is away at war; others don't approve] full of paper-thin characters, who ceaselessly scurry up & down stairs, singing pointless songs, while lights flash, and Josh Groban sits in a pit, drinking. There's a duel (which proves meaningless), a mad relative (ditto), a "comical" troika driver, and an ensemble that runs around looking like refugees from some mad mash-up of Moulin Rouge and the Kit-Kat Club.

I thought Grobin was very good, in a rather small part, and I have been a fan of Denée Benton since seeing her as Nabulungi in Mormon.  But for the rest of it: Just nyet!

I don't know. Maybe seeing Sunday in the Park the night before ruined Natasha & Pierre for me, because there wasn't anything in the latter that comes within spitting distance of the magnificence of the former. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/26/16 at 2:49pm

I only like about 50% of Sunday in the Park, so for me, that's probably well within spitting distance.  I think.  Is there a special tape measure for establishing the spitting range of one musical to another?  Are only certain elements spit-worthy or is it based solely on the degree of magnificence, and if the latter, how is that measured?  Farenheit, Centigrade, Kelvin?  Or is it more geometric in nature?  Is the act of spitting competition-based or more cause-and-effect?