The Pirate Queen: And It Isn't, It Isn't A Glorious Thing

Are the reviews really affecting (effecting?) the audience participation? Everyone I've talked to could care less about the reviews.

---

Wow. What a pointlessly vicious and childish review. I didn't care for PQ, but this reviewer just seems to want to prove insulting they can be.

As regards to your question, every theatre has what is known as a "stop clause". That varies from show to show, but essentially, if a show continues to lose money, below some previously agreed-upon number, the theatre can indeed throw out the tenant, regardless of how deep the producers pockets are, and how willing they are to continue to lose money.

This could very well happen to PQ, as there has been talk of Young Frankenstein's interest in the Hilton.

Updated On: 4/29/07 at 08:29 PM

I found that review to be childish. And, I'm sorry, but at least make sure you're spelling everyone's name right (Marcus CHIAT?).

---

"It's okay to kill someone who is trying to stop you from robbing and terrorizing innocent people as long as you're a positive role model for young girls."

I can't figure out what the hell he's talking about here and I've seen the show a few times. Is there any chance this sentence is in reference to Wicked?

This very daring article has certainly broken new ground with its bold, unique view of an otherwise critically lauded show.

---

no matter what this show is done in Nov anyway when the Grinch comes back in. The Grinch is the ONLY show that has made a profit in that theater.
Done and Done.

Actually massofmen, the Grinch did not make it's money back.


Seanmartin, I think Tech was being facetious.

---

My greatest beef with this article is "Why now?" My god, the show opened a month ago and they're puting out a review now?

Plus I don't find the Queen Elizabeth costumes to be gaudy at all. By the looks of them, they are historicaly accurate.

---

I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Dale's review. Had the musical been based on the actual history of Grace O'Malley, it could have had plenty of dramatic intensity. By basing the show on a bodice-ripper, that's all we're left with onstage: a romance novel brought to life.

While I certainly appreciate fans' affection for a panned show (Lord knows I've loved my share of flops), I'm surprised at the venemous reaction to Mr. Dale's review. If you disagree, explain why using logical defenses. Name-calling isn't helpful, and only makes the show's fans (who are perfectly entitled to their opinions) seem unable to defend it maturely. Debate is good. Insults aren't.

---

What's the point? The show has been open for nearly a month and this article comes out now? There are plenty of other similar reviews that theatregoers can read if they are contemplating seeing this show(though it does appear that theatregoers could care less about these reviews).

It's ridiculous to put out a remarkably childish article at a time like this- There is a time to critique a show, but there comes a point when say, after a month, we need to have best wishes for the cast, crew, and creative team who worked so hard to put this show up, and are continuing to work hard with what they have. And if someone can't bring himself to have good wishes, he needs to simply keep his mouth closed.

I do believe the BWW reviews do come a few weeks after the rest of them.

So what's the big deal? Just because he hated the show like so many others his review shouldn't be posted?

As a one-time BWW critic and friend of the "childish" Michael Dale, I'd like to try to clear up a few points:

BroadwayWorld.Com does not get press tickets for the opening nights of Broadway shows. Generally, Mr. Dale gets invited to the second press viewing, not to say the second night of the run. In this case, Mr. Dale was invited to attend the show over a week after the opening. When he arrived at the box office to get his press tickets, he was told that all press seats for the weekend were cancelled due to "cast illness". He found out later that Stephanie Block was not appearing in the show that weekend, and quite understandably, the press agents did not want the show reviewed without the leading lady in it. The seats were re-scheduled for the following week.

In addition to the forgivable delay caused by PQ's press people, Mr. Dale has a very full writing schedule as well as a day job, and I'm sure he got the review in as quickly as he could (he is also likely aware that his sentiments were expressed by earlier critics).

On a side note, I would like to point out that Ms Block is not given Star Billing over the shows' title. I would be baffled by this oversight (I may not have liked the show, but she is unquestionably deserving of top billing), if it were not for the practical fact that the audience does not have to be told that she will not be appearing until AFTER they have claimed their tickets.

I was with Mr. Dale when he finally saw Pirate Queen, and I was almost suprised that his review wasn't MORE vitriolic. It is hard to accuse the review of being childish when it is describing a show which treats its' audiences like idiot children. The lyrics insult our intelligence, the script insults the true story of Grainne O'Malley, and the phoney "girl power" moments are an insult to women everywhere.

I echo Tesse by asking for specifics of the "childishness".

---