Peter And The Snooze Catcher....

Why do I get the impression you haven't even seen this show you are throwing in the garbage? Does not seeing it make you the expert about it you proclaim to be?

In that case, I hate those shoes you're wearing...

I haven't seen them. But I hate them anyway.

Updated On: 4/19/12 at 08:23 AM

Ms.Bennett, thanks. There Ferregamo.. Anywho, I will try to snag a really cheap ticket for this after I've seen all the other shows I wanna see this season and see for myself but from what I know of this show it sounds awfully tired and boaring.

"Your absolutely correct" not "you're absolutely correct"
"There Ferragamo" not "they're Ferragamo"
"this boards" not "these boards"
"tired and boaring" not "tired and boring"

OK, now I get it. Either you quit school after the fourth grade or English is clearly not your first language which could help explain why you wouldn't enjoy anything that requires an educational leveal above elementary school or a basic grasp of the English language.

Lupone76,

I have seen the show.

Let your sixth sense guide you.

Having read your tirade, I would recommend absolutely that you follow your initial impulse and not see this show. It is indeed a snoozefest and you would no doubt hate it.

You missed two, Patash:

1). "This would possibly peak my interest" should be "pique", and

2). OP is probably trolling.

Stupidest comment I've read on this board since three years ago when April Saul trashed Waiting for Godot after the first preview, calling it stupid. Notice she hasn't been around for a while, thank God.

---

Oh, the internets.

Peter and the Starcatcher is one of the most imaginative theater pieces I've seen in years. It was a delight from beginning to end. I saw it twice downtown and can't wait to go back again once or probably twice.

---

I feel rather the way lupone does, and I did see the play. A remarkably uninteresting batch of Nicholas Nickleby-style theater gimmicks with occasional flashes of life, chiefly from Christian Borle who gets in some great laughs. I'm completely at a loss as to why folks are so blown away by this. There's so much less here than meets the eye.

I just didn't see the point to the play. At all. Why turn Peter Pan into a victimized orphan, when it seems to me that one of the points of the character is his absolute rejection of such victimization -- in Barrie's original, he flees his parents as an infant when he hears them planning out his future, and winds up living with the fairies who take him in. I guess it had to be done to generate sympathy for Peter, but it just felt very forced and phony to me. As did the entire production.

---

"I stopped reading after that comment."

Really? I got all the way through the title is boring, no one should be interested in a prequel to Peter Pan, which he can't stand anyway, because the character is androgenous [sic], but if they are going to do it, it shouldn't be as a straight play but as a lavish musical, except not with Christian Borle, who is extreemly [sic] overrated.

Roscoe, I loved the show; I found it wonderfully imaginative. But I completely agree about the characterization of the boy who would be Pan. Oddly, he was the one disappointing element (though the performance of the role was lovely).

Updated On: 4/19/12 at 01:07 PM

You should only due it in a fit of peek, Tony.