So just how was "13"? — Page 2

I actually really enjoyed the show...it definitely had its flaws and it's certainly not JRB's best work but it was a lot of fun and I thought the cast was great and energetic. The show improved a lot from early previews to opening, mostly because of the removal of the intermission. They also eliminated a lot of the jokes that people were finding offensive. I'm clearly in the minority here, but I really didn't think it was that bad.

Well, I liked 13. I thought the score was significantly better than some that were Tony nominated that year. Ir seems to me that the people who hated this show would have hated any show designed for a teenage audience. I am far from in my teens, but I wish there were more shows like this around on Bdwy that a teen audience could claim. The teens I know that were, I presume, considered the target audience, in the main liked the show a lot. Terrific performers, great kids, clever, quality music and lyrics. Well, I thought so anyway. Thank you, Jason Robert Brown, for trying something a little different for a younger crowd. Maybe it was the fact it found a Bdwy home rather than playing off-Bdwy that turned many against it.

TESTIFY, Scott!!!

I had the same exact experience and agree. This show was an absolute embarrassment. Jason Robert Brown should be ashamed of his "score"

The kids weren't even trying when I saw it. This mess will never see the light of day again, thankfully. xoxo

---

Scott, that sounds dirty!! xoxo

Now if only we could get on the same page about "Memphis"... LOL

---

I'm also one of the few who enjoyed it. But I actually saw it twice and enjoyed it more before they trimmed it. A lot was removed, but nothing was added in its place, and the air seemed to have been let out of it.

I'm not saying it was a great show. Not even close. The book was mildly amusing but structurally disastrous before AND after changes (possibly moreso after). But I found it totally enjoyable. It had heart, the music was largely charming, and as others have mentioned Allie Trimm gave a fantastic performance. I was so excited that she was cast in another Broadway show so soon after it closed. And then Bye, Bye Birdie happened.

I was surprised by how much people hated the show. I've seen much, much worse

As probably the only thirteen-year-old poster at least in this thread, I must say that this show is not at all what actual thirteen-year-olds act like. The first thing is that city kids and country kids have biases against each other saying people from cities are stuck up jerks and people from rural areas are slow and stupid. Also, everybody is nastier than they are in this show. At least where I live, there would be so many jokes about Evan being Jewish. Plus, nobody really gets into relationships. People who are "going out" don't actually go on dates, nor are they really honestly interested in each other--they just think they are. It seems like there is no reason Beatrice wouldn't be liked because she's not ugly or stupid. Perhaps the most unrealistic thing in the show is when Evan's mom calls him saying they're suddenly moving immediately without him knowing about it to some place he's never heard of. Parents don't just buy houses while an expensive bar mitzfah is planned. There are so many more inaccuracies in this show.

AwesomeDanny: Your comments are very interesting and I appreciate them. When discussing 13, it has been hard for me to not be ageist. Reading your words remind me of how important it is to remain openminded to all people regardless of age.

I thought your comments intelligent and articulate. Again, thank you.

No. I'm as obnoxious as ever (go read my recent post on the Memphis is Amazing thread). I just thought AwesomeDanny's comment were intelligent and I wanted to support his post. It is articulate and thoughtful.

I still think 13 sucked. I am just a very reflective person (at least I want to believe this about myself) and I was experiencing a bit of ageism and I am glad that AwesomeDanny reminded me that everyone - even 13 year olds - can offer an intelligent perspective.

I still stand by my belief that the score is catchy (a masterpiece? Hell to the no) but now I'm convinced that the book is awful!

---

Scott Briefer wrote:

It was apparent to me that 13 existed only for the subsequent royalties they hoped to ensure because of it's "Broadway" status and its cast of teenagers.

This sentence baffles me. If the show is to earn heaps and heaps of money in royalties, it typically has to be a reasonably good show. Indeed, were they not also motivated to use their not insignificant talents to arrive at the best possible show, they would then be working counter to their own best financial interests.

What's more, do you really think the producers would risk upwards of $6 million (the show's rumored cost) solely on the hopes of making it all back from subsidiary rights? After all, they typically only share in a percentage of the Authors monies from subsidiary rights so it would take a heckuva lot of royalties for them to ever recoup their investment, let alone make a meaningful profit. Once again, seems counterintuitive to suggest that the producers and creative team were solely motivated by dollar signs and didn't care to create a truly good piece of theatre that would run on Broadway (and eventually on tour) for a long time (which is where the producers could make a lot more money, and a lot faster).

On a related note, MusicSnob1 writes:

The kids weren't even trying when I saw it. This mess will never see the light of day again, thankfully. xoxo

I have no problem with anyone hating this show. You can even say that the show seemed to lack or be devoid of energy. But to state as fact the level of effort by the performers is just demeaning and cruel. Maybe they were unsuccessful but I highly doubt that these kids, many of whom were making their Broadway debut and were over-the-moon to have that chance, weren't trying. Then again, anyone who signs even the snarkiest posts with "xoxo" clearly isn't concerned with being thought of as a jerk.

---

Scott,

Understood and thanks for the clarification.

Harkening back to a show like "BIG" in the mid-90's which has similar issues (in addition being overproduced), I guess I chalk up the show's failure -- both in creation and in performance -- to a combination of an "off-day" for most of the folks involved and the reality that adult writers trying to create an original musical showcasing pre- or mid-pubescent modern day kids in a quasi-"realistic" fashion (not stylized and/or fictional reality like "Annie" or the like) just is doomed to fail. At least until someone figures out how to do it right. :)

---

Scott Briefer, thank you for your positive comments on my post. It is nice to be respected despite my age. While there are some things that I think capture how people my age feel (the title song), most of it just looks like what the kids want their parents to think is the worst of them. That would make sense regarding whoever said the cast had a lot of input on the book. There are a few catchy songs, but that's the best of it. Having probably more experience with people of this age than others on this board, I feel qualified to say this musical is unrealistic. Plus, I hated the bad acting of whoever played the blond "popular" boy. I can, however, see this as a musical middle schools will do. Any middle school drama teacher would say "Oh, this seems like a fun show for the kids to do and a good show for their classmates to see" unless it is the other middle school in my district which, for some reason, performed Cats four years ago. Regarding seventh graders having sex, I have heard of a rare middle school pregnancy, and twelve-year-olds aren't as innocent as one might expect. When I was in sixth grade, two students were suspended for bringing alcohol to school at the end of the year. One went to a new school the next year.

Scott, I was definitely insulted by the show, so don't feel bad.

In terms of the royalty argument, let me clarify a bit. (There was actually an article a few months back, I think in Variety, discussing this. If I can find a link I'll post it). At a cost of $6 million or more, a Broadway show is no small investment. However, even with a financial failure, certain shows can recoup over time, sometimes even decades, with help from school/amateur/regional productions.

A show like THE WEDDING SINGER lost money on Broadway, however it is a recognizable title, particularly with younger people, and can be done cheaply if necessary. It also probably made back enough of the initial investment not to qualify as an outright flop. While payments to the investors and creative team may not add up overnight, it is steady income and can be a nice bump to supplement what they're making elsewhere. WEDDING SINGER is in an ideal place to make good money even though its Broadway run has ended, and I believe there have been many requests for it. At this point, anything extra is icing on the cake.

The same scenario could apply to 13. Also, keep in mind that it had a young, relatively small cast and was developed in the wake of the HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL phenomenon, a licensing juggernaut if ever there was one. I'm not suggesting the show was anything but a passion project for all involved (I don't personally know either way), but it's not out of line to suggest that part of the incentive to producers was the potential for a long term pay-off, regardless of whether it broke even on Broadway.