THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES Previews- Page 7

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 1:45pm

SteveSanders said: "I always wonder after an out-of-town tryout if the creative tam leave with a realistic assessment of a show's strengths and flaws. Any time and resources available to work on improvements before Broadway can't be effectively used if they don't have a sufficient understanding of what needs to get better."

That's the goal after each out of town production, that each member of the creative team will be on exactly the same page with a shared vision for what worked and what didn't.

There's a difference between WISHES vs reality of getting a show to where it needs to be. We know this show did workshops after Boston, but I don't know how much of the show actually changed beyond what the bookwriter described. When you have a show based on a real-life human (and a basic story arc to follow), how much can actually change might be limited.

It's easy for producers get "in too deep" and lose sight of what is fixable and what is not. And theatre folk like a challenge of fixing a show, even if it's just proving something to themselves. But we have to face facts that sometimes no amount of time and money will fix a show. (LEMPICKA, imo.)

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:16pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Some Broadway preview periods are getting shorter now.Q0V has a month between 1st preview and opening night (same with LOST BOYS and ROCKY HORROR and CHESS), but that's kind of a luxury for a musical nowadays. SCHMIGADOON will have 16 days, TWO STRANGERS will have 19 days, CATS will have 20 days. Subtract 3-4 days to freeze the show and have press performances, and you have very few working days. The most significant changes that can happen at that point are minor changes to script and staging, lighting changes, and costume alterations."

The perfect split down the middle here also speaks to the fact that the latter three shows have had previous productions to work from. TWO STRANGERS is already an established property from the West End, so it’s just a matter of Americanizing it a bit (like MINCEMEAT), SCHMIGADOON had the KenCen run, and CATS had a whole smash off Broadway run. Less previews may be fine as opposed to the other three shows opening cold

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:21pm

Yea, STRANGERS gives me no concern. CATS might be a different matter, being that the staging will probably evolve a good deal. And I don’t know how much SCHMIG will change after the KC run (in its staging or in its written material).

[Kad]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:23pm

Interesting that Lempicka is being name checked frequently here, considering it's Seaview's only other attempt at developing a new musical. While Greg Nobile & co are certainly good at getting big names and having it usually translate to box office success for plays, it is looking like they don't have the developmental skill behind them (they also developed the Last 5 Years revival...). 

Updated On: 10/10/25 at 02:23 PM

[Observation]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:33pm

Kad said: "Interesting that Lempicka is being name checked frequently here, considering it's Seaview's only other attempt at developing a new musical. While Greg Nobile & co are certainly good at getting big names and having it usually translate to box office success for plays, it is looking like they don't have the developmental skill behind them (they also developed the Last 5 Years revival...)."

 

From what I remember about discussions about Lempicka, it also sounded like this was a case of TOO MUCH time and changes. Maybe they could have benefited with less time, or fixing the things that are actually working. 

[Cream Puff]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:43pm

Greg Nobile seems quite happy.   He’s always happy, he thinks everything he does is great.  How nice for him. 

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 2:56pm

Cream Puff said: "Greg Nobile seems quite happy. He’s always happy, he thinks everything he does is great. How nice for him."

Well his check has cleared and his celebrity friends are happy, so why wouldn't he be?

[KrupYou]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 4:13pm

Lavish, Soulless, and Empty

The Queen of Versailles wants to be a glittering satire of American greed but ends up as hollow as its subject. Kristin Chenoweth works overtime as Jackie Siegel, yet the character is vapid and emotionless — a wealthy mannequin with no inner life.

The show mistakes mockery for insight, padding nearly three hours with glossy emptiness.

Despite dazzling sets and strong performances, there’s nothing to feel or root for. The daughter’s song “Pretty Wins” briefly hints at heart, only reminding us how little the rest has. Big, expensive, and soulless

[Cream Puff]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 4:57pm

We’ve read your opinion of the show from at least 3 different profiles.  That’ll do Sutton 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 5:52pm

"More development" - even late stage - is often cited as a panacea for all troubled musicals. But how many shows are DOA from inception, because they musicalize a tale lacking a dramatic question in a compelling human being's narrative that no one cares to have answered? The root cause of "root for" in all storytelling, from the Greeks? 

If a concept is flawed thus - impossible to explore and amplify in theatrical terms - it's often traced to this foundational issue of a dramatic question. Why did this person want what she/he wanted, and why did/didn't he/she attain it? We can all point to numerous musicals missing such a basic component in their DNA. A sound example of a show that found "the question" in reality-based source material might be Grey Gardens, a theater piece that carved a haunting first act out of the excavated clues only hinted at in the iconic documentary.  It sounds so simplistic, but "How did Little Edie become Little Edie, and why" is a helluva arc, and it invites emotion-driven songs. 

I would posit that such is the underlying problem here: Jackie's trajectory is untethered to an answerable question that anyone gives a damn about. Is that fixable, ever? I'd opine that it is not. 

Updated On: 10/10/25 at 05:52 PM

[Elibal]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 6:27pm

Well I for one have no idea why Bobby wanted to get married and I still absolutely love Company. I don't love Joseph ATATDC nearly as much, but also have no idea what he wanted.

But, having not seen QoV, I don't think it is that hard to create a relevant point of view or dramatic question:

If the problem everyone has is that she doesn't ever change or learn and since they are already using the original Versailles framework, isn't it as simple as having the aristocrats be like "We never saw the guillotine coming, we had clues but never thought this could ever end". And then in a final parallel you have her carrying on, business as usual, clueless for the umpteenth time, while we wonder "Will they ever be eaten by the forces they are carelessly contributing to unleash". There are historical parallels that could be used, this is not necessarily the most academically rigorous historical take but "Louis-Philippe II, Duke of Orléans aka Philippe Égalité" was a cousin of Louis XVI’s who encouraged and fanned the flames of what eventually became the French Revolution in hopes of political gains and to no one's surprise ended on the guillotine.

Updated On: 10/10/25 at 06:27 PM

[malcs98]

Posted: 10/10/25 at 9:31pm

Just posted my thoughts on the second preview on my IG: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPpkrSADmLN/?igsh=MTBwaWZ5NXU2ZzAwMQ==

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 12:02pm

Observation said: "From what I remember about discussions about Lempicka, it also sounded like this was a case of TOO MUCH time and changes. Maybe they could have benefited with less time, or fixing the things that are actually working."

I don't know if the issue was time or if it was simply a misguided director, authors, and producers who weren't on the same page as one another. Either way, the outcome probably wouldn't have been changed by more or less time.

[Strange Lupone]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 4:33pm

Cream Puff said: "We’ve read your opinion of the show from at least 3 different profiles. That’ll do Sutton"

 

This made me laugh out loud. Because, EXACTLY.

 

Updated On: 10/11/25 at 04:33 PM

[MezzA101]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 5:17pm

Lauren Greenfield on the Sad, Dark Kingdom of the Rich

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/style/lauren-greenfield-queen-of-versailles.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sk8.5lhF.4-85XeOipNAs&smid=nytcore-android-share

[violetsandroses]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 6:48pm

It truly seems like everyone on board agreed to sell out creatively, or perhaps they are just tone deaf and blind to the material in front of them, especially in relation to current socio-political events in this country. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 6:59pm

I’m surprised there really hasn’t been anyone else here who’s seen the show since the first preview. 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 7:22pm

Hopefully stage management and crew have shortened the 45 minute intermissions.  It's clear the director and designer did not plan accordingly .

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 10/11/25 at 9:46pm

That was not typical, obviously, and I'm sure it's less than 3 hours at this point cuz Jesus. 

[jazzicat]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 12:43am

I’ve been wondering this all night!

[bruceway]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 1:32am

Jordan Catalano said: "I’m surprised there really hasn’t been anyone else herewho’s seen the show since the first preview."

Everyone here is saying it's awful. Why would you expect more people to see it?

[spicemonkey]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 1:43am

On show score, there are some “5 star” reviews from some suspiciously new accounts LOL. With all of those, it now scores 54. Earlier it was around 34.

[musicthatmakesmedance]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 2:32am

I wanted so badly to love this, but I left with a sour taste in my mouth. A massive physical production with nothing to say…I can’t help but wonder who they think the audience is for this.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 6:25am

I went into last night’s performance skeptical after reading the Boston reviews and the early Broadway preview reports this week. Maybe that worked in my favor, because I genuinely and unabashedly had a great time at this show.

The presentation and handling of the material are impressively sharp. These people are greedy and clueless, and the show doesn’t shy away from that. Their absurd, over-the-top lives are on full display in all their “glory.” The consequences of Jackie’s choices are explored in Act 2, leading to a chilling ending.

I would have liked a deeper exploration of Jackie’s earlier struggles before meeting David — Act 1 glosses over her challenges as a young woman, which feels like a missed opportunity to add more depth to her character.

The book could definitely use some tightening; there’s a fair amount of fat that could be trimmed. That said, I found the score tuneful — “Caviar Dreams” stood out, and Stephen Schwartz proves once again he knows how to write a great “I Want” song. The juxtaposition of the French Revolution chaos with the Siegels’ downfall is clever and surprisingly effective.

Kristin Chenoweth is giving a *fantastic* performance. Her voice has never sounded better, and she fully embodies Jackie’s manic energy and desperation.

While far from perfect, The Queen of Versailles is a wildly entertaining evening. I may be in the minority on this one, but I thought it was great.

[Sammy232]

Posted: 10/12/25 at 7:46am

spicemonkey said: "On show score, there are some “5 star” reviews from some suspiciously new accounts LOL. With all of those, it now scores 54. Earlierit was around 34."

5 star review PLUS only one review on their account, could they be less obvious?