NEW YORK, NEW YORK On Broadway - Reviews Thread- Page 19

[dan94]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 2:58pm

You may not like the book, and that's fine. But to say "they didn't have a writer/didn't pay anyone to write a book" is asinine. David Thompson wrote the book you hated. He did a lot of the Encores book adaptations over the years, and wrote the book to Scottsboro Boys which IMO is a masterful book.

Hate the book all you want. Don't act like the man doesn't exist and don't act like he isn't a writer.

[NotASoundtrack]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 3:29pm

I think there’s a lot of valid criticism here, but some of these reviews are laughably ridiculous and miserable. Just because a show isn’t what you assumed it would be, doesn’t mean you critique the show based on what your assumptions were. When you do that, you end up critiquing a show for trying to be something it was never even trying to be without trying to understand what it IS.

 

There are plenty of shows on Broadway that can check the boxes of what you thought you were going to see. While classical, this show is one of the most unique shows playing right now. I have no idea how anyone could think Colton Ryan is miscast with all he’s doing in the show: playing all those instruments, dancing (and dancing well, not like he learned some choreography and phoned it in), balancing the transatlantic accent, and the superb singing. That’s not a role that can be replaced with just anybody, and not a role that could be easily stunt casted without major tweaks…quite frankly, some of the alternative suggested casting I’ve seen people throw out there wouldn’t work because they’re not capable of the role. Colton Ryan is giving one of the most impressive performances of the season and it kills me that it’s already being under appreciated. He and Anna have great chemistry, which is not easy to see in promotional videos/performances out of context from the show. Anna is equally phenomenal belting for her life most of show. The NY and Kander and Ebb easter eggs throughout the backdrops/scenes (love when Colton plays Maybe This Time as a little warmup on the piano!), the snowball fight in Central Park, the dance sequence in the rain, the tap dancing on the beams. SO much to love in this show!

 

Yes, the show addresses social issues, but it’s not attempting to do it with enormous depth because that not the point of the show. The show is about the diverse backstories of people who come to NY, NY pride, the fact that your waitress could be the next superstar and you don’t even know it, the struggles in all of our backstories, finding community and other likeminded people. It might be cliche but there really is no better way to describe the show than a love letter to NY. 

 

If you want old school/MGM golden age glitz and glam, gorgeous dancing/dance sequences, great singing—go see this wonderful show. If you want a good standard show with in-depth characters and a solid/linear storyline go see another wonderful show playing right now. NYNY is not perfect, but the great outweighs the bad for me on this one. It’s unique to everything else playing right now (yes, even SLIH which people like comparing it to simply because of time period, despite them being vastly different) and I hope people appreciate it while we have it..or at the very least, not tear it down based on assumptions and inaccuracies.

[Leaf Coneybear]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 3:33pm

Were you sitting in Rear Orch right? If not, there was another couple behind me in Row O doing the same thing. And yes, thanks for reminding me: Colton Ryan had that one laugh-out-loud line at the end of Act 1, and Uzele had one funny line about being in the ocean. Thats it. Full stop. And I'm coming down hard here because its so clear to me that this team spent the cash on everything BUT a writer. Insulting is the only word for it. (The digs at NJ made my blood boil in their stupidity and laziness).

I don't have a problem with different random storylines. I can accept that no one wanted to bother having them intersect in any interesting way---but then don't? Instead, they half-ass it. Same goes for addressing "issues"-- I can't decide what is worse, touching on 6 different Issues spread around to 6 different characters/storylines, or loading 6 different Issues onto the same family unit, ala Jagged Little Pill? I guess at least in the latter they sang/emoted/addressed the Issues? I'm still gobsmacked that Skinner never sang about her son, that the violinist was given 30 seconds to address his trauma, that Dacal was given none at all.

With the drubbing Aaron Sorkin took this week, this show screams out in rebuttal "Maybe Camelot missed, but they tried to tell you a story, and paid a guy to write one.""

 

I was in the rear balcony. Sounds like it was an issue for more than just people around me. 

 

For a few glorious minutes I thought they would leave at intermission thinking that the show was over due to the absolutely atrocious way they leave things in Act 1, all wrapped in a tight bow as if it’s a happily ever after giving the audience no reason to return for the main characters. But no, they came a few minutes later with drinks. Which I admit were needed to get through the rest of the show.

 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 3:39pm

i did hate the book, as i've said, but my comment goes further: there is no storyline, there is no plot, there is no dramatic tension that needs resolution. am i disrespecting the writer by pointing this out? Sure, to the extent criticism isnt respectful. I'm not quibbling with his language or an errant plotline. I'm saying that if you tried, you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all. Surely this guy COULD write one if he wanted to. He didn't. 

Now surely some people don't care, and dont need a plot to retain their interest. Stroman is no fool and is clearly banking on that. So own it, but don't get all ruffled when others can't bear to sit through it. 

 

 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 9:34pm

NotASoundtrack said: "Just because a show isn’t what you assumed it would be, doesn’t mean you critique the show based on what your assumptions were. 

 If you want a good standard show with in-depth characters and a solid/linear storyline go see another wonderful show playing right now. NYNY is not perfect, but the great outweighs the bad for me on this one. It’s unique to everything else playing right now (yes, even SLIH which people like comparing it to simply because of time period, despite them being vastly different) and I hope people appreciate it while we have it..or at the very least, not tear it down based on assumptions and inaccuracies."

Just to be very clear here: i didnt assume it would be anything specific going in; I just assumed it would have a plot. And yes, you are right that for people uninterested in a storyline of any sort, or writing that is remotely thoughtful/humorous, this just isnt the show for them. Agreed! But then why the pushback for me pointing this out? If it isnt MEANT to have a storyline or high-school level writing, then own it, we agree, and all those who aren't looking for that, enjoy! 

But you know full well that Stroman and Miranda (who i generally adore) are not advertising this as Dancin', or some obscure plot-less dance ode to NYC. Its being billed as a traditional show with a love story, with immigrant stories, with attempts at emotional moments, etc. And on that score, it fails (it seems you agree...) So why the umbrage when we, the paying theatergoers who went in expecting the story and humor and emotion of The Producers or In the Heights or Cabaret got this instead? 

[dan94]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 10:41pm

We get it. John Kander personally pissed in your cornflakes. Clearly the show is taking up a lot of head space for you considering you came back hours after your last post (that no one responded to) to tear apart the show yet again.

It has a plot. It's impressionistic and is not plot-forward. But there is a plot there. btw no one is getting "ruffled feathers" or "taking umbrage" with you criticizing the show. When you get to specifics it's interesting to read. But you resort to smarmy ad hominem attacks like "Maybe Camelot missed, but they tried to tell you a story, and paid a guy to write one," and seem to insinuate anyone that liked the show is a brain dead idiot who doesn't care for good writing, which is unnecessarily bitchy and distasteful to read.

On your comment of "you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all": a group of young New Yorkers try to find artistic and emotional fulfillment in post war New York. I took the show to be a series of impressionistic sketches around that idea. There are a lot of given circumstances around people that came to New York in that time period, which is why the show seems like it is biting off more than it can chew. I found most of the sketches beautifully rendered and would rather have a show excitingly fail upward than sit at something predictable and focus grouped to death.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 10:57pm

dan94 said: "We get it. John Kander personally pissed in your cornflakes. Clearly the show is taking up a lot of head space for you considering you came back hours after your last post (that no one responded to) to tear apart the show yet again.

It has a plot. It's impressionistic and is not plot-forward. But there is a plot there. btw no one is getting "ruffled feathers" or "taking umbrage" with you criticizing the show. When you get to specifics it's interesting to read. But you resort to smarmy ad hominem attacks like "Maybe Camelot missed, but they tried to tell you a story, and paid a guy to write one," and seem to insinuate anyone that liked the show is a brain dead idiot who doesn't care for good writing, which is unnecessarily bitchy and distasteful to read.

On your comment of "you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all": a group of young New Yorkers try to find artistic and emotional fulfillment in post war New York. I took the show to be a series of impressionistic sketches around that idea. There are a lot of given circumstances around people that came to New York in that time period, which is why the show seems like it is biting off more than it can chew. I found most of the sketches beautifully rendered and would rather have a show excitingly fail upward than sit at something predictable and focus grouped to death."

Ha, ok. I'm mad at Kander, whose score is not at all the problem I had with the show. Since seeing it last night I had the nerve to come here and discuss it (like you are right now). You got me!

I'll leave it to someone else to define "ad hominem" for you; I didnt even know the name of the person whose work I was (and still am) criticizing until you mentioned it. And I never insulted anyone for liking a plot-free show so I dont even know what you're talking about. I'd apologize that the comparison to the Sorkin trashing triggered you but, you know, its a good comparison so, nah.

Updated On: 4/16/23 at 10:57 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 1:00am

dan94 said: "We get it. John Kander personally pissed in your cornflakes. Clearly the show is taking up a lot of head space for you considering you came back hours after your last post (that no one responded to) to tear apart the show yet again.

It has a plot. It's impressionistic and is not plot-forward. But there is a plot there. btw no one is getting "ruffled feathers" or "taking umbrage" with you criticizing the show. When you get to specifics it's interesting to read. But you resort to smarmy ad hominem attacks like "Maybe Camelot missed, but they tried to tell you a story, and paid a guy to write one," and seem to insinuate anyone that liked the show is a brain dead idiot who doesn't care for good writing, which is unnecessarily bitchy and distasteful to read.

Goddamnit Dan, I love you. ❤️

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 10:40am

MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo and Leaf Coneybear you are spot on. A couple days removed from this show and I simply cannot stop thinking about just how BAD this was. To the point where I think the Tony nominators should band together and demand that they only need to vote on 4 Best Musical slots this year. There are clearly 4 musicals that are heads and tales above the rest this season and actually deserve a nomination. And then that 5th slot...is going to be THIS??? Just because of the resumes of the creatives? If they decide to go for something else its either Bad Cinderella, A Beautiful Noise, KPOP, Almost Famous...not great options."

During Theater Talk's 2006 Tonys predictions show, the panel discussed how The Threepenny Opera didn't need to be nominated for Best Musical Revival just because it was the only other contender to have opened that season (along with The Pajama Game and Sweeney Todd). Michael Riedel mentioned that the nominators wrote a group letter to the administration committee that they wanted more flexibility in determining when they make the nominations, they'll fill out the last slot or two if they think there are enough worthy candidates. If there aren't, they only want to nominate what they think is good. Yet, it wouldn't work because the producers don't see these awards for the best theatre has to offer, they see them as the marketing tools. The more shows they have nominated, the more producers can advertise them. @10:10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aWYOWNNLZo&t=385s
 

Updated On: 4/17/23 at 10:40 AM

[Alessio2]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 12:22pm

Does anyone know if there is an in person rush for this show, and if so, where are the seats typically located?  TIA

[sparepart973]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 2:29pm

Besides the epilogue change, what are the other changes that have been made during previews? I heard they cut out around 20 minutes. What exactly have they cut/re-write? 

[BIG BALONEY]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 3:35pm

Rushed last Friday at box office at 11:30. Had a few choices on location and chose orchestra  row J far side some partial view at times. Paid $49. The seat for the price satisfied me and my friend The Jersey Devil.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 6:15pm

The show is popping up on TDF lately.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 6:51pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "i did hate the book, as i've said, but my comment goes further: there is no storyline, there is no plot, there is no dramatic tension that needs resolution. am i disrespecting the writer by pointing this out? Sure, to the extent criticism isnt respectful. I'm not quibbling with his language or an errant plotline. I'm saying that if you tried, you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all. Surely this guy COULD write one if he wanted to. He didn't.

Now surely some people don't care, and dont need a plot to retain their interest. Stroman is no fool and is clearly banking on that. So own it, but don't get all ruffled when others can't bear to sit through it.



"

It has a plot. It has a lot of plot.

[thescytheandthesword]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 6:56pm

Alessio2 said: "Does anyone know if there is an in person rush for this show, and if so, where are the seats typically located? TIA"

I rushed the second week of previews and got a first row seat, to the right just off the aisle. I thought they were great seats. The whole first row is considered partial view, but really only the final number is blocked.

[perfectpenguin]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 7:00pm

I don’t have my July show booked yet. I’m debating seeing this again for any changes / if it’s easier to follow after already seeing it or something else. I’m leaning toward something else (either & Juliet, Once Upon A One More Time, or Peter Pan Goes Wrong).

[perfectpenguin]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 7:01pm

perfectpenguin said: "I don’t have my July show booked yet. I’m debating seeing this again for any changes / if it’s easier to follow after already seeing it or something else. I’m leaning toward something else (either & Juliet, Once Upon A One More Time, or Peter Pan Goes Wrong)."

Quoting myself. Actually, you SHOULDNT have to see a show multiple times for it to be easier to follow. It should be easy to follow from the start. Some of the storylines weren’t fully fleshed out and were sloppy which is why it might have been hard to follow the first time. 

[NotASoundtrack]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 8:00pm

perfectpenguin said: "perfectpenguin said: "I don’t have my July show booked yet. I’m debating seeing this again for any changes / if it’s easier to follow after already seeing it or something else. I’m leaning toward something else (either & Juliet, Once Upon A One More Time, or Peter Pan Goes Wrong)."

Quoting myself. Actually, you SHOULDNT have to see a show multiple times for it to be easier to follow. It should be easy to follow from the start. Some of the storylines weren’t fully fleshed out and were sloppy which is why it might have been hard to follow the first time."

The show is in PREVIEWS. It’s not unusual for someone to want to see a show again after it’s frozen.

Y’all are being absolutely ridiculous. It’s hilarious how many of you allegedly walked away furious after seeing a generally joyous show.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 8:09pm

WORD ^

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 8:39pm

Matt Rogers said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "i did hate the book, as i've said, but my comment goes further: there is no storyline, there is no plot, there is no dramatic tension that needs resolution. am i disrespecting the writer by pointing this out? Sure, to the extent criticism isnt respectful. I'm not quibbling with his language or an errant plotline. I'm saying that if you tried, you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all. Surely this guy COULD write one if he wanted to. He didn't.

Now surely some people don't care, and dont need a plot to retain their interest. Stroman is no fool and is clearly banking on that. So own it, but don't get all ruffled when others can't bear to sit through it.



"

It has a plot. It has a lot of plot."

OK, so I couldn't discern one. Or maybe we don't agree on what constitutes a "plot" for the purposes of acting as an engine for a show.  So I didnt like it. Is that OK? Is that not allowed? Where do I get permission to have not liked the lack of dramatic elements in this? Is there a permit or something I can get?

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 8:49pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "Matt Rogers said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "i did hate the book, as i've said, but my comment goes further: there is no storyline, there is no plot, there is no dramatic tension that needs resolution. am i disrespecting the writer by pointing this out? Sure, to the extent criticism isnt respectful. I'm not quibbling with his language or an errant plotline. I'm saying that if you tried, you couldn't articulate an actual STORY here at all. Surely this guy COULD write one if he wanted to. He didn't.

Now surely some people don't care, and dont need a plot to retain their interest. Stroman is no fool and is clearly banking on that. So own it, but don't get all ruffled when others can't bear to sit through it.



"

It has a plot. It has a lot of plot."

OK, so I couldn't discern one. Or maybe we don't agree on what constitutes a "plot" for the purposes of acting as an engine for a show. So I didnt like it. Is that OK? Is that not allowed? Where do I get permission to have not liked the lack of dramatic elements in this? Is there a permit or something I can get?

"

Why are you having a freak out? No one disparaged you or your opinion. It is simply a fact that New York, New York has a plot - a bunch of plots actually. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 9:00pm

No one is freaking out about this show being bad. No one left angry or hostile because they didnt like it. We just didnt like it and explained why. 

 

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 9:14pm

People are going out of their way to be rude because someone dislikes this show, but that's to be expected from a bunch of theatre queens.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 10:42pm

Certainly everyone has a right to pipe up with their feelings about a show good or bad to their heart’s content on BWW. I didn’t love Camelot and posted so in my 1 post there.  But Piping Hot Piccolo has posted 7 posts in this thread by my count since just yesterday expounding at length on his utter dislike of this show. Ok we get it. I loved it; you loathed it. Can’t we just move on now? (And please believe me, there’s really no need to respond.)

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 10:53pm

im always going to respond, as i see fit, to anything that addresses me, or even anything that just grabs my interest. the curse of having these phones on us at all times. again, id say sorry, but i'm not, so

though I certainly encourage you, or anyone else, to mute me to avoid my, uhm, discussing, this show on the, you know, discussion thread, about... this show. feels like that would solve all your problems, no?