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

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.

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.

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 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

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

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?

The show is popping up on TDF lately.

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 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.

WORD ^

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.

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.

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?