Why do all the ROA fans seem to think that reviews make their show 'God' — Page 2

People make fun of me for liking STORY OF MY LIFE all the time...I guess it's just difference of opinion. But no one can say that STORY wasn't at least trying to be classy...

People are going to like ROA regardless of what I think about the show...

as a fan I will say that...

A) I don't think good reviews make the show God. However, I do think they are legitimate ammunition when the fans of the show are called "wastes of humanity."

B) I think most ROA fans and people involved in the show are just thrilled to be nominated (as would any of you if you actually created something more than just bile on a message board). The show was not created to collect Tonys... it was created to simply be a good time. I don't see this as a bad thing.

C) it is soooo boring to listen to criticism of this show from idiots who haven't even seen it. Form your own INFORMED opinion and then express that! we will respect you more. (for those that have seen the show and don't like it, I respect your opinion and RESPECTFULLY disagree)

It is sad that by defending a show (like ROA fans have to do on this message board), somehow it is misconstrued that we think we are better. I for one KNOW that this show is not better than Next To Normal or Billy Elliot for example. But it does create a very enjoyable theatrical experience. One that the Tony people and critics understand and support.

as well as critics pan genius that audiences love. If I'm not mistaken, critics weren't too hot about Wicked

Did you seriously just call Wicked "genius"?

---

Did you seriously just call Wicked "genius"?

I would agree that there is some genius involved in creating a show that has been as overwhelmingly financially successful as Wicked. A genius production is not defined only by its writing or composition. Mamma Mia is another good example of a genius production. Its international popularity was swift and vast.

---

"But no one can say that STORY wasn't at least trying to be classy..."

I didn't see Story of my life, I'm sure it was wonderful, and if you say it was trying to be classy, and succeeded, then bully for them.

But no one accused Rock of Ages of trying to be classy. In fact, they are trying NOT to be classy, and they succeeded in their aim. So why are people complaining when they say that the show isn't as classy as other shows on the great white way?

I would rather watch a show that doesn't have any pretense, and embraces it's unclassiness lovingly than a show trying to be something it's not. That is not a remark about "Story", Trace, that is a blanket statement aimed toward the many broadway and off-broadway shows that ended up being insufferable because they suffered from too much hubris.

---

No, I'm talking about how the ROA cult seems to think that their show is better than everything else because of the freaking reviews. Board members LOVED Irean's vow and it got mixed reviews, so do you see fans of... say .... GOD OF CARNAGE talking about what great reviews the show got such great reviews therefore, it is better than Irena's Vow.

---

Investors, Directors ect... don't do shows to get a pat on the back by critics

---

Just because you don't like a show doesn't mean somebody else can't like it... Just because a show doesn't seem "good" in your opinion, doesn't mean everyone else has to feel the same way.. Really everyone needs to shut up and stop trying to insult shows... really.. you're arguing about musicals. Just mind your own business and stop trying to pick fights.. if you don't like a show, keep your mouth shut and don't go see it.

No, I'm talking about how the ROA cult seems to think that their show is better than everything else because of the freaking reviews.

That is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You complain that they make these hyperbolic baseless generalizations (which are actually your subjective misinterpretations) by using hyperbolic baseless generalizations. If you are referring to the fact that people have stated that Rock of Ages may have gotten a Best Musical nomination instead of 9 to 5 because it received better reviews, it is not a completely absurd argument (the majority of musicals with stronger reviews tend to snag more Tony noms, if you want to look at statistics). But that view is hardly the gross exaggeration you are trying to project onto people who enjoy Rock of Ages, die-hard fans or otherwise (not to mention that many others who are not established "fans" have made the same objective observation).

Investors, Directors ect... don't do shows to get a pat on the back by critics

I never implied they did. It also doesn't mean they ignore reviews or have no response to them or opinions on them. Honestly, the way you misdirect your answers and spin them completely off point, you should either go into politics or the seminary. The next time anyone points out a flaw in your statement, just say they are possessed by the Devil and be done with it.

---

Joe from Kalamazoo isn't going to know who Brantley is though. Odds are he'll say "Brantley? Jeff Brantley the baseball player? Well, if he liked it I'll go!" Perhaps shows should only use positive quotes from reviewers who share a last name with someone famous

---

>>DO NOT even waste your time or money with this show.

I say go.
I never had a better time in the theater- ever.

>>critics have raved about plenty of awful productions
>>haven't we seen critics rave a bout garbage theatre that makes no money and no one else likes,

& this is why ROA is special.

Everyone likes it ( audiences & critics) & it's making money.
( those who have seen it anyway)

---

That was nasty/angry/defensive? But you are right. Not everyone likes the show. But it does sounds like it is getting a lot of positive audience response and the reviews were mostly positive.

---

uh oh...jane2 has the knives out!