Why Does "9 to 5" Have More Credibility Than "Rock of Ages"? - Page 2

[DrewBill]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:30am

While I absolutely love Dolly, I feel pretty ambivalent about "9 to 5." I appreciated the craft and performances, and it's certainly not a bad night of theater. But it wasn't a show that I gave much thought to after leaving the theater.

On the other hand, I went into "Rock of Ages" with very low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it's completely stupid and is not by any definition great theater -- but I had a blast, and I was singing those songs for days afterwards.

Theater is a live experience -- it's not about pedigree, or reputations, or intentions. I just think that most critics and Tony nominators had a better time at "Rock of Ages." I know I did.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:32am

Why does anyone care? It's not allowed to win, anyway.

[srg129]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:37am

I enjoyed both of them. I saw Rock of Ages off-Broadway. I have yet to see the Broadway production. And I recently saw 9 to 5. They are both shows I'd go back and see again. I thought they were both a lot of fun and they both kept me completely engaged. They each have their merits and I think both of them should have been nominated for Best Musical.

I really enjoyed the performances in 9 to 5 and the score. While Rock of Ages doesn't have an original score, I thought the tounge-in-cheek manner with which the show was constructed around the 80s songs was very irreverent, creative and made for a lot of laughs. In any case, both are certainly better than Shrek by a mile. Not to mention, the score for 9 to 5 is so much better than Billy Elliot. Also, Kathy Fitzgerald runs rings around Carole Shelley and should have received a nod for Supporting actress over her. Stephanie Block's late number is an absolute show stopper and it's embarrassing that she didn't get recognized when there isn't a single solo number in Billy Elliot that even comes close to the vocal thrills she delivers. I'm wondering if either Megan or Stephanie would have received a nom if they would have been eligible in the supporting category.

At the same time, I'm happy to see Constantine nominated because I think he took me totally by surprise and I was really drawn to the quiet charm he brings to his role in Rock of Ages. Like I said, I can see the merits of both. I think they both have a spirit of inspiration that comes through on the stage. I'm just hoping as many shows as possible can steal Tony's from Billy Elliot which I found to be completely watered down, boring, and uninspired--quite the opposite of 9 to 5 and Rock of Ages.

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:38am

I actually thought 9 to 5 was inconsistent and slow in spots, and that the majority of the songs were forgettable. The only two I could even recall were the beginning song that Janney sings and "Get Out and Stay Out." (And the title song, but thats a given.)

I really honestly thought that it was weak in spots- I found the flashbacks to drag and be overly repetitive, and the show just really didn't hold my attention like a musical should.

Granted, it was the third preview, BUT, one might need to consider that 9 to 5 didn't quite deliver on all fronts, and that some of its potential went unfulfilled.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:11am

Popular, sorry, but your opinion counts for nothing on this matter. You have a boner for Mrs. Block and she can do no wrong in your book. Now, she's wonderful in the show, and I think she turns in a marvelous performance, and I think she should have been nominated, but I can over look her performance and see the shows weaknesses. The jokes are so obvious and tired. Yeah, I laughed, but I didn't think "oh what a great joke."

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:20am

Both have their niche.

ROCK OF AGES was rewarded for a creative way to get new butts into seats. Drinky drinky, happy happy, fun fun fun. Great music turned up to 11 where it should be. It doesn't purport to be high art, it doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. Cheap tickets, low overhead. All it wants to do is offer the audience a good time and, unless you're a wannabe theater snob, you end up having said good time.

I can't speak for 9-to-5, not having seen it, but I understand that it wants to be the next "big" musical, and succeeds in every way, shape and form in that respect.

But big and cold wasn't in this year.

I would definitely say that the 4 nominees are some of the most heart-felt musicals to play Broadway in a long time. Even SHREK.

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:28am

9to5 is my mom's idea of funny. ROA is hip and irreverent.

Critics prefer ROA
Tonys prefer ROA
Box Office prefers ROA

I'll hang with THAT crowd over anonymous, out of touch, message board whiners any day.

anybody who knows anything about comedy and lives outside the "musical theater comedy" bubble prefers ROA and those upset by 9to5 getting knocked out by ROA show how tremendously out of touch they are with what the rest of the world. This "I'm right it's the world that's wrong" attitude is boring. Get over yourselves.

[EveHarrington]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:29am

"anybody who knows anything about comedy and lives outside the "musical theater comedy" bubble prefers ROA and those upset by 9to5 getting knocked out by ROA show how tremendously out of touch they are with what the rest of the world. "

LOLOL. Oh my god, that's really, really funny. Also, complete bull****. But VERY funny.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 01:29 AM

[provocation]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:57am

That asshole from "Idol" is in Rock of Ages, yeah? I'm pretty sure that's why 9 to 5 deserves the nomination over Rock of Ages.


And before I'm pelted with insults, I love "Idol" and have since Kelly won. But Constantine Mar-nasty was just disgusting to watch.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 01:57 AM

[Popular]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 2:05am

Popular, sorry, but your opinion counts for nothing on this matter.

Wow, RippedMan... insulting, condescending, and defensive all in one post! Why are you so worked up if what I have to say means that little to you?

You have a boner for Mrs. Block and she can do no wrong in your book. Now, she's wonderful in the show, and I think she turns in a marvelous performance, and I think she should have been nominated, but I can over look her performance and see the shows weaknesses.

Please don't put words in my my mouth or tell me that my opinions count any less than anyone else's on this board. YOU are the one that brought Stephanie into the conversation, not I. If you must know, I actually thought some of the funniest moments came from Marc and Kathy. And just because I prefer to stay positive on this board does not mean that I can't be objective or spot weaknesses. And FYI, I am a woman. Thanks.

The jokes are so obvious and tired. Yeah, I laughed, but I didn't think "oh what a great joke."

I get that you didn't think the jokes were great. But yet, you admit laughing...so are you saying that even the "obvious and tired" jokes were good, or do you just find bad jokes that are "obvious and tired" funny? I'm confused.

And just for the record, this is not about comparing shows for me. I don't feel we need to praise one show by putting another down. I'm sure I would have a terrific time at ROA. I have never said one bad word about it or thought that it stole 9 TO 5's spot for best musical. I actually hope the cast, crew, and creatives are basking in what must be a great day for them.

[Amaranth9]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:19am

I really can't speak from personal experience on Rock of Ages because I haven't seen it and I admit that fully upfront. But I think this is a question that can be engaged from different perspectives so:

As a matter of debate I just don't find many of the points in this thread brought against 9 to 5 (and a few for it) to be very relevant or effective.

-There has already been much discussion on this board that theatre is rife with pulling material from other media. I don't think that in and of itself is enough to be a major point against it...

-A lot of the comments from ROA supporters have the tone of having a chip on their shoulders, probably from the ridicule the show faced on the board (both of which are also starting to emerge on 9 to 5 comments). But please don't paint with a broad brush saying "get over yourselves." I would be one to say congrats. Isn't it possible for someone to support a show without being against another? It's not as if every preference for 9 to 5, or any other show for that matter, is an attack. And this board does not contain the whole Broadway-going population so I think some are taking this board way too seriously. This is the same reason why a comment like "this audience is hip" I find rather silly, along with the fact that its always nice to belong to a group that we give values to that we would like to have ourselves.

-The point about the 9 to 5 score being "just normal, standard Broadway Pop songs" is confusing. So then you would not like any other show that's not ROA for the same reason? It seems it is either too Broadway or not enough...

-The 9 to 5 box office has been decent and it has grown. With all the comps or whatever for previews and opening night in particular I think be known better in the coming weeks if it will grow or not. Too early for me, and others know this subject better.

-Throwing out Popular's opinion is silly. It is a valid response to the material. It made no reference to SJB; it was about humor. I suppose we must know how they feel about Patricia Resnick then?

-I think Kad made a good point which is that this comes down to tastes in many cases, making the matter practically impossible to have one answer- if it does. 9 to 5 really is beloved by many, while others love the songs in ROA. In both cases, other people will not feel the same. Big surprise.


Now, my initial response to the actual question was, as someone removed from the scene and looking at the reviews, was that ROA reviews seemed to dismiss credibility off the bat, saying "well, if you think about it this way or put this point aside, etc., then you will like this show." Some reviews seemed condescending in tone that way. I saw little in the way of info on performances besides Constantine, or production value and other aspects.

With 9 to 5, I felt these aspects were approached, obviously with mixed results. I think some of these are attributable to flaws; 9 to 5 is by no means perfect. I also think a large part of the mixed opinions is due to taste. Many people love the very same aspects of the show that were not appealing to others. As a production there were many top-quality things about it. Yet there was a tension between evaluating the show on these grounds, and a bias against the type of show that negatively influenced the perceptions on the former in a way that did not affect ROA. I think that reviewers approached the two shows differently, applying different criteria.

None of this is meant as an attack. I know I singled out ROA points so I apologize but they jumped out to me more. I may very well like ROA if I ever get to see it. I just don't think a lot of the points made here were very useful and don't reflect well on 9 to 5 or ROA. (Long one again, sorry)

[srg129]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:37am

"But big and cold wasn't in this year".

Actually it was. How else do you explain all the excessive nominations for Billy Elliot? It's a producers dream. A spectacle designed to numb the minds of all the nondiscriminating tourists in NYC. An extremely low risk show that the whole family can attend without the unpleasant consequence of having to discuss the experience after the curtain comes down. Busby-Berkely dancing dresses, a curtain call with blue collar men in tutus, a Peter Pan inspired flying number and a summer stock cast of flat one-dimensional performances trying to wrap itself around a stereotypical tepid political message so that the viewers feel they are experiencing something "significant".

Not to mention all the "cute" children in the cast and the score that is so hodge-podge it can't quite figure out what it's supposed to be. Perfectly crafted to sell tickets in a bad economy and for people who take the occasional jaunt to "experience" live theater. The large block of Tony voters who are producers will vote entirely for this tourist trap and it will be the biggest and coldest show to win the Tony for best musical this decade. It's been designed to be a masterpiece in exploiting stereotypes for a laugh so that the general public can feel good about attending theater. If only they would have learned a thing or two from the movie, which had sincere heart.

The Tony nominators have spoken and unfortunately they have been severely biased by the wishes of the many producers who are looking for a profit on the road.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 5:37am

I disagree with a lot of this post about Billy Elliot.

>A spectacle designed to numb the minds of all the nondiscriminating tourists in NYC.<

I wouldn't think of describing Billy Elliot as a spectacle. It very rarely puts on the glitz.

> An extremely low risk show that the whole family can attend without the unpleasant consequence of having to discuss the experience after the curtain comes down.<

It's a very costly show to produce and to run, and with everything that comes from London, there was the risk that American audiences could have rejected it wholesale. Would Americans really sympathize with striking Geordie workers in North England in the 1980s? I also have to imagine that the conflict that arises in Billy's family is fairly universal and that the chance to be who you want to be would be a subject that a family - with Billy-aged children - would be able to discuss at length. I have to wonder too what sort of conversations a family may have about the character of Michael.

>Busby-Berkely dancing dresses, a curtain call with blue collar men in tutus, a Peter Pan inspired flying number and a summer stock cast of flat one-dimensional performances trying to wrap itself around a stereotypical tepid political message so that the viewers feel they are experiencing something "significant".<

To each his own, but I found the dancing dresses a moment where the show goes delightfully insane for a few minutes - and it certainly is keeping to the vision of the world invented by the character of Michael. I accepted the joy of the curtain call and was pretty transported by the flying moment. I don't think the show is striving to be "significant". I think it depicts this moment in England's history with a clear eye. It certainly comes down on the side of the workers, although the crushing of the union strike did end up as a blemish for Margaret Thatcher.

>Not to mention all the "cute" children in the cast and the score that is so hodge-podge it can't quite figure out what it's supposed to be.<

Guys & Dolls producers Ernie Martin and Cy Feuer famously cast their original production looking for "people with bumps". I felt much the same of the Billy Elliot kids. They are an odd assortment of shapes and sizes. "Cute" wasn't a word I would use to describe them. As for the score, it seems to me to be leaps and bounds better than anything else Elton John has written for the theatre.

> The large block of Tony voters who are producers will vote entirely for this tourist trap and it will be the biggest and coldest show to win the Tony for best musical this decade.<

There are far less demanding shows on Broadway competing for the tourist dollar. "Tourist trap" doesn't seem a fair or accurate description for Billy Elliot. as far as biggest, coldest show to win Best Musical this decade, I still think Thoroughly Modern Millie holds that title uncontested.

>If only they would have learned a thing or two from the movie, which had sincere heart.<

Lee Hall and Stephen Daldry wrote and directed both the movie and stage version of Billy Elliot... frankly, I feel they improved on their own movie.

>The Tony nominators have spoken and unfortunately they have been severely biased by the wishes of the many producers who are looking for a profit on the road.<

While there is a faction of road presenters who vote for the Tonys, their power in the Tony race gets over-inflated. Their influence is truly not enough to sway any Best Musical race.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 05:37 AM

[jordangirl]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:00am

Actually the language used by the children in Billy has the potential to make it a hard sell as a "family-friendly show" for a good number of touring venues. My dad has talked directly with someone in charge of booking tours for the venue where he and my mom usher (they always share their observations and experiences with her regarding the shows they see up here) and she said that with the language being used by the children, she didn't see how she could in good faith market it as a family friendly show. And she said that she knew of several other people feeling the same way in various other cities.

But that aside...

I wonder if the nominating committee didn't want to have THREE movie-based musicals in the category. They do already have two. Not that a jukebox musical is that much better...

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 06:00 AM

[Kaykohl]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:45am

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:51am

I'm just not going to say anything. ROA fans are brainwashed.

[nmartin]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:55am

The only way I would see Rock of Ages is if someone got me drunk at 9 to 5 and told me I was going to Desire Under the Elms.

[tazber]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 7:36am

It's "any more" not "anymore".

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:25am

"I wonder if the nominating committee didn't want to have THREE movie-based musicals in the category. They do already have two. Not that a jukebox musical is that much better..."

If they only wanted two then why did they nominate Shrek?!

[nmartin]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:30am

For Tazber:
Any more/anymore

These spellings are both acceptable, although anymore is more frequent: We don?t go there anymore. Anymore [any more] poses no usage issues except when it occurs in non-negative contexts: All he does anymore is complain. Such uses are dialectal in origin but are now found at Conversational levels nearly everywhere. Edited English usually won?t tolerate them, however, still preferring lately, of late, now, nowadays, or the like and reserving any more for use in such sentences as Do you want any more to eat?, in which any is an adjective modifying the noun more.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:53am

"half-assed pop songs" (which, by the way, makes ROCK OF AGES' "score" what?)

Um. Rock songs.

I'm just not going to say anything. ROA fans are brainwashed

Both sides of this debate are. I've seen neither, but I wish [tos] had been nominated just so everyone would shut up about it. You all make their batsh*t crazy fans look tolerable in comparison. At least then there wouldn't be this ridiculous back and forth over which songs of the 80s are more beloved.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 08:53 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:58am

In cases where the "any" is not necessary, it becomes a modifier for "more" and as such should be separated.

"Why Does '9 TO 5' Have More Credibility Than 'Rock of Ages'?"

In cases where it is intrinsic to the meaning of the sentence, it is one word.

"I won't say that 9-5 was snubbed more" is incorrect. Here it is has to be one word. "I won't say that 9-5 was snubbed anymore."

[nmartin]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:25am

Taz, you're wrong. End of post.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:47am

This thread is hilarious. One show has an original book, the other has an original score. One is conventional, the other is unconventional. If both shows were able to get produced on Broadway, then they have the same credibility. They accomplished the same goal. That's not subjective. It is a fact. Not liking a show does not diminish its credibility in any way. Ain't Misbehavin' has no book and no original score and it is quite possibly the most celebrated revue ever produced. So, the argument that original books and scores has long since been irrelevant in terms of credibility.

So what's more admirable- aiming low and hitting or aiming high and missing?

If you're only judging someone's aim, then I suppose it would be high? But how often do you hear the compliment "Nice aim" when the target is missed? Many shows aimed high for Broadway that bombed spectacularly. It doesn't make them more admirable than a successful jukebox show or a revue. Personally, I find it more admirable to know your target and to hit it dead center. If a show does not please the BWW musical theatre elite, it does not make it a "bad show". It just makes it a show some people don't like. In other words, it is just like any other show. Rock of Ages is something new and different for Broadway, which does make it more original that 9 to 5. I do find it peculiar how so many bitch and bitch and bitch about the trend of transferring recent films to the Broadway stage and the lack of originality and here we find all these arguments defending the adaptation of yet another recent film as something more original than a show with a totally new concept for Broadway audiences simply because they disapprove of the style or genre.

I'm sorry people don't like Rock of Ages. They don't have to. But to pretend it is a "bad show" simply because it doesn't meet their expectations in musical theatre is nothing more than ostentatious blather. The category of Best Musical should be about the sum, rather than the parts, otherwise the other categories would be erroneous. So far, Rock of Ages has proven itself to have the greater sum than 9 to 5. It's ok to have a preference. I hated Spring Awakening, but I have never pretended that it is a bad show simply because I didn't like it. I just failed to see what others admired so greatly about it and it wasn't the sort of show I enjoy. So I move on and go see something else.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 09:47 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:50am

Actually, though, the grammar lesson without citation isn't talking about the way "anymore" is being used in the title. Taz is right. It's wrong.

THREAD CONTINUED!

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 09:50 AM