The Lightning Thief goes after critics on twitter- Page 3

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 9:07am

@Uncle I should have quote what I was responding to for clarity. I was not reacting to a suggestion of a debate, but to the notions of neutrality and objectivity, on the one hand, and to the idea that critics do not converse with their subjects. (There are examples of this in archives and published letters and the like, should you be interested.) So to that extent, we are on different trains, even if headed to the same stop.

I think there is also the question of intelligence. Lashing out is not a conversation. Attacking the legitimacy  of your critic is just silly, though not at all rare. (Note, however, that when Albee famously said of John Simon "Mr. Simon's disapproval of my play has been a source of comfort to me over the years," he was not attacking Simon's legitimacy (even though I would, but that's another thread)). At the end of the day, it comes down to perspective and taste (unless a critic, as happens, makes a factual mistake). But to tell a critic that they are too _____ to review a show betrays a true misunderstanding of criticism.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 10:18am

This isn't a conversation between a critic and an artist. It's a pithy, generally-aimed tweet, whose writer is remaining anonymous- though writing on the payroll of a critically dismissed and financially troubled production.

It reads, at best, as an attempt to hijack legitimate conversations and concerns about representation in the arts to draw attention to a production that really needs it right now. 

[temms]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:04am

It’s just such a predictably amusing cycle.

PRE-OPENING POSTER - The critics love our show! Look at these rave pull quotes from a different production! That means you need to see it too!

POST-OPENING TWEET - The entire concept of theatrical criticism is WRONG!!!! Make your own decisions and don’t listen to these bitter jealous losers who want everyone else to be as miserable as them! We’ve had standing ovations at EVERY. SINGLE. PERFORMANCE. We didn’t make it for the critics, we made it for the FANS! The world needs to change and critics need to be done away with because they exist solely to suck joy out of the world and give bitter failures at life a venue to snipe at people more successful than them!

POST-OPENING POSTER - (Suspiciously placed ellipses and exclamation points around over-the-top rave quotes from those same terrible reviews we shouldn’t listen to.)

Updated On: 10/21/19 at 11:04 AM

[perfectliar]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 1:53pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Hogan, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. I don’t like the term. There’s really nothing more I can say."

I don't like the word "moist," but that doesn't make it a slur.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 5:22pm

Uncle Charlie wrote:

“In the absence of critics, I would not expect to see Trip Cullman tweeting out about The Rose Tattoo "I tried my best and even bought up every plastic swan in the Tri-state area but gotta admit, this one's a stinker.””

Flamingos.

Actually, the total absence of today's so-called critics would be the greatest imaginable blessing for both the theatre and theatregoers. Just imagine, wretched opuses that should never even be produced would no longer have cheerleaders to hype them into honors and awards, thereby luring luckless theatregoers into evenings of misery.

Imagine a world in which audiences were once again entertained by theatre, and not unremittingly  bored, berated and bludgeoned by unending streams of critics' darlings.

Wishful thinking, I know.

But, as we are told in Up in Central Park, it doesn't cost you anything to dream.

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 5:38pm

A8--You have a remarkable way of putting words together--utter garbage though that may be.The perfect job for you is one that should no longer exist.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 5:38pm

UncleCharlie said: "The whole point of a critic is that they are a neutral party, able to be completely objective in theory at least and able to judge a work's merits without fear or favor. Not really sure every artist can be unbiased and objective about their own work's strengths and weaknesses especially given how close they are to it and how much emotion is involved. And I don't think critics see it as a debate. They see the show, share their opinion and that's the end of it from their perspective.

I feel like there's a division these days between critics and criticism. That is, yeah, for the most part I read what Sara Holdren or Jesse Green or whoever says and then I may or may not let that sway my decision to see a show and that's the end of it. I don't need them to further engage with the creatives or cast unless it's Brantley or the Post saying something wild that they need to apologize for again. But if creatives want to engage with academic criticism that's a different matter. I think there's value in creators engaging with public opinion and the different context that different audience members bring to their work. Unfortunately, talkbacks don't seem like the right space for that.

But there's also an extent to which you can't reason your way to an opinion of a piece of art. You can tell me about all your influences and the research you did and how it's based on a true story or whatever and I could still find the show boring and poorly executed. And that's valid. There are also people who love the show who may or may not be critics. Basically, I think it's worthwhile to engage with valid academic criticism (though that mainly seems to happen with revivals of work whose creators are already dead) and leave critics to their opinions... the same way you hopefully wouldn't harass any random audience member who didn't love your show.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 5:38pm

^ A+

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 9:20pm

HogansHero said: "@Uncle I should have quote what I was responding to for clarity. I was not reacting to a suggestion of a debate, but to the notions of neutrality and objectivity, on the one hand, and to the idea that critics do not converse with their subjects. (There are examples of this in archives and published letters and the like, should you be interested.) So to that extent, we are on different trains, even if headed to the same stop.

I think there is also the question of intelligence. Lashing out is not a conversation. Attacking the legitimacy of your critic is just silly, though not at all rare. (Note, however,that when Albee famously said of John Simon "Mr. Simon's disapproval of my play has been a source of comfort to me over the years," he was not attacking Simon's legitimacy (even though I would, but that's another thread)). At the end of the day, it comes down to perspective and taste (unless a critic, as happens, makes a factual mistake). But to tell a critic that they are too _____ to review a show betrays a true misunderstanding of criticism."

I don't think we disagree Hogan. I'm all for intelligent discussion between critics and artists and as I said I wasn't implying it should never exist. When done with the right intentions and objectives in mind, it's informative for both parties and helps further the art. I think you interpreted it as a general statement when it was intended specifically within the scenario the poster I responded to laid out. I also was deliberate in adding "in theory at least" when talking about the critic's role in being objective as it feels like certain critics do sometimes appear to struggle with that and that's not a good thing for anyone.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 10:06pm

@Uncle no, not much disagreement. I do think that the idea of objectivity is out of place in an opinion piece, though. It is really no different than what we post here: I doubt you expect someone here to post something other than what they felt when they saw a show, and I would hope we feel the same about a professional critic. 

Now yes when someone categorically doesn't like something and goes in with a closed mind it is problematic but to me that is an editorial issue, not a call for the critic to like something that they do not like or v/v.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 1:44am

HogansHero said: "@Uncle no, not much disagreement. I do think that the idea of objectivity is out of place in an opinion piece, though. It is really no different than what we post here: I doubt you expect someone here to post something other than what they felt when they saw a show, and I would hope we feel the same about a professional critic.

Now yes when someone categorically doesn't like something and goes in with a closed mind it is problematic but to me that is an editorial issue, not a call for the critic to like something that they do not like or v/v."

Correct. When I say objectivity, I mean going into the show with an open mind and no predetermined bias for or against the show or anyone associated with it based on past experiences and judging it based strictly on what is presented on the stage during that performance. Once they see it, they should share how they felt, good, bad or indifferent as to be expected. They can certainly say they hated something but they should have reached that conclusion in an objective manner, if that makes any sense.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:02am

In general I agree but especially today when many outlets that employ any theatre critics at all, they have one, so if a person hates (to paint with as broad a brush as I can think of) musicals, the alternative to reviewing a show is that it will not be reviewed at all. Now obviously at the Times, there is flexibility and there was, famously, a case not too long before his ultimate demise there where Isherwood went public with his lack of objectivity.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 11:36am

Because of social media, theatre critics (and, I suppose, critics of anything) are losing their power. In an age where everyone can very publicly give their opinion about something, theatre critics' reviews are finally being recognized for what they are: one person's opinion. There is no way for a critic to be "objective" when reviewing a show. They aren't grading a math test. They are judging a piece of art based on their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the craft, previous shows they have seen, and their own personal preferences.

I'm glad this is the case. If all the major critics generally reach a consensus for a play (or movie, or whatever), I think that is worth taking into consideration, but to decide what shows to see based simply on what, say, Ben Brantley or Jesse Green tell you is just silly.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 4:17pm

In the roughly four decades I have been paying attention to theatre reviews, I don't think there was ever a time when it was not recognized that critics were just giving one person's opinion, and I can't imagine how anyone would ever have been confused about that. Likewise, it has always been the case that what one looked for was a critical consensus, filtered by one's observed correlation (or not) with the opinions of specific critics. 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 8:41pm

Hogan’s Hero, it was only maybe ten years ago that The New York Times started losing its power to (frequently) make or break a show. Frank Rich especially had tremendous say in the fate of Broadway shows. In Chicago, the Chris Jones review in The Tribune is still extremely influential.

Yes, we all know that it’s one person’s opinion, but for some reason, because of the paper that person works for, the public puts certain critics up on a pedastal like their opinion is worth more than the average person’s, when it’s not. Due to social media, that is starting to lessen. That’s all I was saying.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 11:06pm

Sorry to break the news to you, but Frank stopped being the Butcher of Broadway over a quarter century ago and even before then, famously, his ability to bludgeon was not without notable exceptions. A think influence has diluted, which is not a bad thing, but when you say that "the public" (that great imaginary monolith) puts someone on a pedestal, it simply means that a lot of people find that (to use my terms) they have a correlation with that person. What the Times has, and has had for over a half century, is the attention of more people than any other outlet. I think all of this falls neatly in the category of my perennial reminder that there are no rules.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 8:35am

Was this always scheduled to close on January 5th or is this a new development?

[msmp]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 2:54pm

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "Was this always scheduled to close on January 5th or is this a new development?"

Always scheduled. It's been billed as a limited, 16-week engagement since it was announced, and can't extend (not that it could on these grosses) because Diana is moving into the Longacre right after it closes.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 10/27/19 at 6:09pm

I scrolled more through TLT's Twitter account, and I honestly believe they hired a 14 year old girl to be their Social Media Manager. They're tweeting at Chance the Rapper, trying to get him to come to the show, they're constantly dragging the movies, appropriating dead memes, it's one of the worst social media accounts for a professional entity I've ever seen.

[Newsiesgirl67]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 5:05pm

Looks like they been checking this thread

https://twitter.com/ltmusical/status/1188816771878391814?s=21

I don’t think I ever been more turn off by a show then this one because of how annoying their twitter page has gotten..

[Andres_123]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 5:17pm

This makes the be more chill tony drama and all the other social media drama on that show look normal. They need to replace whoever is running the twitter, it looks so unprofessional and almost seems like I'm reading something a fan would post.if teen girls (and non-binary folks) were in charge of the world, 90% of our problems would be organized and solved within a month. This quote also had nothing to do with anything and that statement is also false in so many ways. 

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 5:59pm

Newsiesgirl67 said: "Looks like they been checking this thread

https://twitter.com/ltmusical/status/1188816771878391814?s=21

I don’t think I ever been more turn off by a show then this one because of how annoying their twitter page has gotten.."

Ooh, I'm earning the ire of a Broadway show's Twitter account. Y'all must be so proud of me.

If I'm getting their attention, I must be doing a little more than "trying" to drag them, right?

[Fetus]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 6:39pm

Newsiesgirl67 said: "Looks like they been checking this thread

https://twitter.com/ltmusical/status/1188816771878391814?s=21

I don’t think I ever been more turn off by a show then this one because of how annoying their twitter page has gotten.."

There are so many people in the theatre marketing industry who put countless hours of thought into marketing productions but some a*****e(s) is out here collecting a paycheck for acting like a genuine child. Yikes.

I had talked with some friends about seeing this in November because its cheap and looks campy, but the lack of professionalism they're displaying completely turned me off from supporting it in any way.

Updated On: 10/28/19 at 06:39 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 6:43pm

Two things can be true:

* Teenage girls' interests and behaviors are disproportionally mocked and demeaned

* TLT twitter account is making occasional good points but wrapping them in such an unprofessional shell that it's astounding

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/28/19 at 7:28pm

LizzieCurry said: "Two things can be true:

* Teenage girls' interests and behaviors are disproportionally mocked and demeaned

* TLT twitter account is making occasional good points but wrapping them in such an unprofessional shell that it's astounding"

Don't forget a third:

*TLT doesn't care how their Twitter account responds to random nobodys on a theater message board.