Why did Tuck Everlasting bomb so bad?- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 11:51am

It was the worst kind of bad: boring.

[BalconyClub]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 11:57am

I loved the magnificent tree.

But nothing else.

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 12:01pm

VintageSnarker said: "I just never understand why some shows shutter so quickly and others hang on besides how deep the producers' pockets are."

Well, if you remove the reason, it will be hard to find the answer.

[Cfried]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 12:47pm

Quite honestly, I think it was the worst thing I've ever seen on a Broadway stage...and that's including other travesties like the Gigi and Guys and Dolls revivals. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 1:13pm

Some things surprise you with how long they run, but some other things seem obviously made to flop. Makes one question the judgment of those funding these projects. I mean I don't think there was any interest in Tuck Everlasting. The movie wasn't that big of a hit, and I don't think the book's popularity was big enough to sustain the young female theatre-goer crowd. It just seems like something nobody would have been interested in seeing and I thought that was kind of obvious.

[wonkit]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 3:12pm

I knew the story and I thought everyone was talented and cast well. I liked some of the songs. The final ballet was gorgeous. But it was very, very slow. I think the story may have been slightly oversold, as though the book writer felt he/she had to cram as many of the aspects of the original book into the musical as possible. Enjoyable but also sadly forgettable.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 1:13am

haterobics said: "VintageSnarker said: "I just never understand why some shows shutter so quickly and others hang on besides how deep the producers' pockets are."

Well, if you remove the reason, it will be hard to find the answer."

Ha, you got me. That's what I get for rambling.

I guess I mean why are some producers willing to throw away money that others aren't. Do they just have more money? Do they "believe in the projects" more? Are they doing some kind of weird tax write offs?

I guess it ultimately doesn't matter as a flop is a flop and I really just care that I get to experience the shows I'm interested in for myself. Sometimes I find the flops have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes they are just as bad as everyone says.

Also, this may be an unpopular opinion but I totally think Tuck Everlasting was better than Bright Star. I will never get over that damn suitcase and the completely obvious act 2 reveal.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 1:21am

I grew up reading Tuck Everlasting, and I think it's a great book for young adults, but it's not really a story that requires the musical treatment. It's not a big lavish musical, but also the story isn't quite strong enough to stand on its own without such treatment. Having seen the show, I think they did a great job with it. Money was spent. It looked expensive, but the songs were ho-hum, the story uninteresting, and no real interesting performances. I did think the ballet was gorgeous, as much as I'm not into dance theater. But I thought the last 20mins really pulled at the emotional strings. 

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 11:39am

The biggest critique in all of the reviews was that Casey Nicholaw, over directed the show. There really was no need for the ensemble outside of the ballet at the end. They were mostly shoehorned into production numbers, and simply filled out the sound on the sound on a couple songs. Instead of noticing this Nicholaw had what appeared to be "phantom" dancers throughout several numbers. It should of been directed more in the vein of a She Loves Me or Avenue Q, where its more about the story rather than the production numbers. If he was so keen on the ending Ballet, which I did love, and found an ingenious way to quickly tell the epilogue, would be to cast an older actress who could dance as Winnie, and then double cast mother and nana as the older Winnie's. 

My other big problem with the show was that they didn't solve the pedophilia problem of Jesse Tuck. The song Seventeen, feels like a love song, and the fact that Andrew Kennan Bolger was 31, playing 17 against an actual 11 year old in Sarah Charles Lewis, just felt wrong. Yes Kennan Bolger has a baby face, but when your playing against an actual 11 year old, you show your age. Add to that by pushing the books climax up from breaking Mae out of Jail, to simply the confrontation with The Man in the Yellow Suit, it forced the relationship between Winnie and Jesse to the forefront of the plot instead of it being Winnie seeing the world for what it is instead of her idealized version of it.  

In a perfect world they would of cut Seventeen or at least  moved it to the end of Act two. In my opinion it is this song that changes Jesse and Winnie's relationship from Platonic, to on Winnie's end idealized and romantic and on Jesse's end Lustful, which is a problem when you have a 31 year old playing against an 11 year old. Act one should of been lengthened by 15 minutes, and ended with Everything is Golden including the reprise with him owning the land and walking into the wood. Then they start Act Two with You Can't Trust A Man, which has the Constable and Hugo following The Man Dressed in Yellow into the Wood. As they follow him into the woods they witness The Story of the Man in the Yellow Suit, and arrest Mae in the aftermath. Then as the Tucks lament about what they have to do with Mae in Jail, Miles can sing Time, lamenting about the sorrow the Spring brought him. A song is inserted that depicts the Tucks both planning and actually breaking Mae of of Jail.  Then on Tuck's way back to their house Winnie idealizes about possibly drinking from the spring herself, so Angus sings The Wheel to explain why she shouldn't. Then as the Tucks go to flee, Jesse says goodbye by giving her a vile of the water and singing "Seventeen". Then show ends as it currently does, Winnie has the internal struggle over the spring with Everlasting, and then the ballet depicting the rest of her life....

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 12:07pm

I don't recall sensing any of the age difference/pedophilia/stalking themes when I saw the show. That didn't even register with me, and frankly it still doesn't. Given the key plot point -- that a family drank some special water so they never age -- is so far-fetched, I suppose I suspended my disbelief about the rest of the elements. As I've said before, I really enjoyed the production, so that too could have something to do with my not critiquing elements that others do. 

And why is AKB's real age even coming into the discussion? It's not as if he's the first actor to play a character well beyond his actual age. Heck, I'm just jealous of guys like AKB, Telly, and half the cast of Newsies that can pass for characters half their age! LOL 

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 12:44pm

PatrickDC said: "And why is AKB's real age even coming into the discussion?It's not as if he's the first actor to play a character well beyond his actual age. Heck, I'm just jealous of guys like AKB, Telly, and half the cast of Newsies that can pass for characters half their age! LOL"

 It does because he may look younger when playing against people who are around his age, but when you are a 31 year old whose supposed to be "17" playing against an actual 11 year old, he looks his age or at least in his mid to late 20s.

[atuomala]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 4:44pm

The end was the most powerful part of the show. I felt it lacked genuine emotion throughout until the last ten minutes. It was panned by the critics and the New York Times even listed it was one of the best shows of the year. It was bad word of mouth among audiences that closed it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 5:43pm

Does anyone else find the word "bomb" to be triggering?

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 6/26/18 at 8:29pm

It was a beautiful but flawed show that meant well but just missed the mark. First that it watered down an already pretty tame children's book and lead to a very rushed and anti-climatic resolution of the threat. There are some actual stakes in the book at the end and they are nowhere to be seen. There is a real reason why the Tuck's HAVE to go away in the book. In the musical? It's more an "Ahh gee, guess we gotta go cus someone said so. Bye." And the other big sin was the ensemble bits. NOT that they were bad, all were very talented and the dancing and costumes were beautiful, but were constantly shoehorned into numbers they did NOT belong in. The whole every present, almost etherical chorus just stood out like sore thumbs. I forgive the opening number as it's a grand introduction to the show but they just keep popping up where they didn't belong.

 

They wanted a family friendly musical but it was one of those shows that just turned into high priced children's theater. The would have done better to keep the original conflict between the Tucks and the law the book had to add some much-needed tension. Also, they needed to explain who the main the yellow suit was better. If I didn't already know from reading the book, I would have totally missed it. If they were going to change ANYTHING from book to stage, his identity would have been the better changed to someone with a closer connection to the Tucks. And that's the end of me trying to not spoil plot for the book OR the musical.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 6/27/18 at 3:16am

raddersons said: "It was a weak show in a season of pretty good musicals. Bright Star, Waitress, Hamilton, The Color Purple and She Loves Me were all definitely stronger. Some would argue others (American Pyscho, Shuffle Along) were also stronger.

At the end of the day, it's because it didn't sell tickets. People didn't like it."

I saw all those shows and loved each one of them for their own reasons. Interestingly, Bright Star and American Psycho didn't fare much better than Tuck. She Loves Me was a limited run by comparison and was intended as that.  I didn't see Tuck but I saw all the rest mentioned and really liked them.  Even though the runs on a couple of them were pretty short too (AP and BS).