NEXT TO NORMAL Reviews- Page 3

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:14am

I'm trying to figure out who is more of a NEXT TO NORMAL shill:

jordangirl or Liverpool.

And perhaps shill isn't the right word, because I don't know if either of them is affiliated with the production, but they are the kind of fans that are blind to any flaws, and only see "GREAT GREAT GREAT," even when that isn't the case.

As for your saying this season is weak, Liverpool, the season's three most anticipated new musicals have yet to even begin previews: IN THE HEIGHTS, CRY-BABY, and A CATERED AFFAIR.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:19am

oh can it foster. I'm no shill. I just love the show. I loved it when i saw it 28 months ago and i love it now.

and if you've read ANY OF MY POSTS ABOUT THE SHOW ITSELF you wouldn't be making asinine uninformed comments claiming i'm blind to the flaws.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:33am

Nope ~ not associated. Just affected. just because you're pissed Brantley didn't do your bidding and trash it, don't take it out on us.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:39am

Well he certainly didn't deliver the rave you were hoping for.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:42am

hopes and expectations are very different. Brantley's review is a fair bit better than i expected. N2N doesn't strike me as the type of show he'd go for, so i was pleasently surprised by his review. And in general it's being reviewed better than i expected. It's a weird show that's definitely not mold fitting.

as for you, who designated you the bitch troll of the day?

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:46am

Nobody designated me anything, but I am deeply offended by the very dangerous representations of mental illness and its treatment displayed in NEXT TO NORMAL, so despite what I think is a phenomenal score (lyrics aside) and a breakthrough performance by Aaron Tveit, I cannot root for this show.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:53am

SNL, the reason why it's selling out is because of the subscriber base.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:54am

dangerous representations of mental illness and its treatments???? Please, spare me. Is it an exaggeration, YES, but ALL THEATRE IS. But that doesn't make it false or anywhere near dangerous. I found it honest and compelling, and before you go saying I have no experience with mental illness let me just say that I do, both in my own personal life and int he lives of several people very close to me. Any claims that the show is trying to say that treatment of mental illness is impossible and we should give up are false (ive seen those claims on the other board). Any claims that the treatment of medication as a means of dealing iwth mental illness are unfair are false. This is the story of ONE PERSON (i've seen this claims on the other board as well) and any attempts to make this a story about ALL MENTAL ILLNESS are entirely premeditated and a clear attempt to find fault. The problem is the show foster. The problem is you forcing things on the show that simply aren't so.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 7:57am

Liverpool, I don't post on the "other board," so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I certainly never claimed any of the things you just posted. If you want, you can read my review thread and take up any arguments in there.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 8:03am

And I never said anything about a rave. I simply wished them all a happy opening.

Exactly as liverpool said, I've been pleasantly surprised with them. In general better than I'd expected.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 8:05am

I've read you're review, and you do claim those things. You say its unsafe in its portrayal and I say that's untrue. I think its a pretty accurate and fair protrayal (yes it's sensationalized, but not to a point that it becomes untrue) of mental illness and its affects on people.

hat you claim about the show's assumptions about mental illness are the same assumptions you're making. Mental illness is different for everyone, even people with the same disease do not have the same experience. Whatever your experience with these issues was isn't the same experience others have had but you seem to be assuming they are, and therefore, because it wasn't true for you, it wasn't true for anyone.


frankly, I Miss The Mountains is the EXACT representation of my expeiernce with medication.



ETA

Sorry about the Bitch Troll comment foster. Clearly we've had VERY different experiences with the subject matter. Updated On: 2/14/08 at 08:05 AM

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 8:55am

It sounds like the people who liked this show must have LOVED A Class Act. I learned my lesson the first time and am avoiding it like the plague.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 9:01am

Having read the reviews, it looks like that Broadway transfer isn't going to happen.

Better luck next time to all concerned.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 9:45am

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=af1N1urvHny0&refer=muse


John Simon's review is negative, no surprises there. What I enjoy about it, however, is the fact that, for once, he's not malicious and actually details what and why he didn't like (about) it.

[twinklingstar]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 10:06am

I'm amazed at how many reviews have given away what I consider the key plot twist. Had I known the twist coming in I would not have enjoyed the show as much as I did. The discovery about Gabe completely changed the way I saw the show and even though there were some issues in the way it was revealed (Natalie's unnecessary lines), it was still a wonderful and moving moment.

Also, the reason I see Brantley's review as quite positive is because there are a lot of very positive lines which is rare in a Brantley review and because I completely agreed with everything he said and loved the show.

[joniray]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 10:26am

"It sounds like the people who liked this show must have LOVED A Class Act. I learned my lesson the first time and am avoiding it like the plague. "

I did, in fact, love both A Class Act and Next to Normal. But I don’t get the connection.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 11:14am

Having read the reviews, it looks like that Broadway transfer isn't going to happen.

Better luck next time to all concerned.


I keep trying to remind myself that a transfer IS still very much up in the air, and really at this point only a result of us fans and our high hopes for the show. However, I find it kind of amusing that you guys who have objected to the show from DAY ONE are seeing Brantley's review and going "yup, so long Next To Normal". It's not a sure thing EITHER WAY. So nice try, but you're not fooling anyone trying to make it seem like you know exactly what's going to happen while we don't. You didn't like it. We get that. End of story. When something official is said, we will know more about whether or not the show will transfer. :)

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 11:34am

So nice try, but you're not fooling anyone trying to make it seem like you know exactly what's going to happen while we don't.

I'm not trying to fool anyone into thinking I know what's going to happen. I said that it "looks like" that Broadway transfer isn't going to happen, not that it is an absolute certainty. Who knows? Far worse shows than NEXT TO NORMAL have gotten to Broadway: ALL SHOOK UP, GOOD VIBRATIONS, etc.

[Pippin]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 2:16pm

why does everything need to transfer nowadays? It's as if spelling bee and grey gardens set some sort of precedent and now if shows don't transfer, they are deemed as disappointments on this board.

Look- it doesn't matter if it transfers or not. It doesn't matter where you see the show. just be happy you saw it off-broadway and leave it alone. We all know that MOST things don't succeed after the transfer, and this show definately would not, given the subject matter, so why subject it to a dismal run on broadway? Let it have a (hopefully) successful run off-broadway and be happy about it.

[joniray]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 3:05pm

For me its because I believe a piece deserves to be seen by a wider audience. Personally, I missed Caroline or Change, Avenue Q, Spring Awakening and Passing Strange in their off-Broadway runs, so I am really thankful to have been able to get a chance to see these later in their Broadway incarnations.

And as far as the statement "MOST of these fail..." If that true really? In the last six seasons, musicals to transfer from Off-Broadway to Broadway include (if I miss any, let me know):

Urinetown - Hit
Avenue Q - Hit
Caroline or Change - Flop
Spelling Bee - Hit
Grey Gardens - Flop
Spring Awakening - Hit

So 4 out of 6, roughly around 66%, were financial hits. That's considerably higher than the average Broadway recup rate.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 3:15pm

why does everything need to transfer nowadays? It's as if spelling bee and grey gardens set some sort of precedent and now if shows don't transfer, they are deemed as disappointments on this board.

Look- it doesn't matter if it transfers or not. It doesn't matter where you see the show. just be happy you saw it off-broadway and leave it alone. We all know that MOST things don't succeed after the transfer, and this show definately would not, given the subject matter, so why subject it to a dismal run on broadway? Let it have a (hopefully) successful run off-broadway and be happy about it.


See now, if it weren't playing with a limited RUN on off Broadway, I wouldn't care at all. I mean honestly, I don't give a flip whether a show is technically on or off Broadway. the only reason I care about THIS one is because it IS a limited run, and therefore if it doesn't get a transfer it might just go away and fade into obscurity. And for people who don't have any particular attachment to it, that's probably fine, but.. I'm selfish. And I want it to be around so that I can see it more! Especially because I'm going to college next year 45 minutes away from the city, so I'd REALLY get a chance to see it as much as I'd love to!

So yeah, I suppose in a practical sense it will have had a good off Broadway limited run and that's cool. But on a personal level, that's not enough for me! lol.

And besides, I truly do believe that if it moved to Broadway it would do well. I think it's bogus to write it off simply because of its subject matter. Look at Sweeney Todd! ST is about a barber who slits peoples' throats!! and look at RENT- ESPECIALLY considering RENT came out when it still wasn't so accepted for musicals to be dark and modern. And RENT is about a group of people, half of which are dying of AIDS. Even Spring Awakening. Basically, my point is that the "it's a dark, twisted story" doesn't really work anymore as an exuse for it not to do well on Broadway. The fact is that I think for a LOT of people (not all, but a lot), it is an extremely touching, emotional piece of theater that they will walk away feeling changed from. I've said it in other threads, but the show really is like a really good therapy session :) It may be heavy, but in the end you walk away feeling.. at least slightly healed. Or at least I did.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 4:23pm

You're old enough to be going to college?

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 4:26pm

So, Foster, beside being offended by the approach of the issues in the show, what was your opinion on the acting, directing, book and score?

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 4:30pm

Thank you, Pippin. I feel the same way.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/14/08 at 4:36pm

I thought it was about money. It takes years for a show to recoup off-Broadway. Look at Altar Boyz- they JUST now recouped their initial investment, which couldn't have been that high to begin with. On Broadway you stand a much better chance of recouping your investment in a shorter period of time, despite the increased costs.

Plus, there's always the egos of those involved. We're talking about David Stone here, who has produced the biggest hit of the century thus far. He's got money to play with.