Posted: 10/17/15 at 12:05pm
To the OP, if you liked it, and it was a positive experience, let it ride. That's all that matters.
Others will have their reasons for not liking it, as well. And that's fine too.
Personally I liked it. Not the best I've seen. But I'm glad I saw it.
Posted: 10/17/15 at 10:51pm
gfaustswa said: "I have the best idea in the world. Shut the **** up and enjoy the show. It's wonderful. If you don't see flaws till the second time around great. Spend the money. Most are going once to enjoy the show and have fun. It's a wonderful show. Let loose. Get young. And honest to God, tell all the lame, one time, critics to shut the hell up. The show is great! Get out there and have fun! Because it is fun!!!!
Amen!!!!
i just got back from seeing Fun Home and am disgusted by the fact that it won so many awards and FN got crucified by the critics. When did old fashioned entertainment with hummable songs become criminal.
Re Fun Home, part of the issue was that we missed most of the dialogue because they did not use mics and NOONE appeared to know how to project. FN was also well miked and we never missed a word.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 12:39pm
I had been putting this off, and after hearing and reading all the mixed reviews, I figured I should see what the fuss is about. I finally get it. The cast is excellent across the board and it looks like a real show. I understand why some people love the show and I respect that. It has one scene that is mind-blowing (and those have seen it will likely agree what it is), and if the rest of the show came anywhere close, it would have been phenomenal.
All that said, I personally think the show fails on numerous levels. Just my opinion. (MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)
1. The story - All I knew was that it's about a mother and her boys who inspired J.M. Barrie to write Peter Pan, and for the first 2+ hours, that's ALL it's about. It's the basic problem with prequels - you know exactly what's coming. For example, there's a big tender moment well into the show when Barrie tells the boy Peter that he's naming the central character after him. Of course, we all know this is going to happen from the second we meet Peter in Act I. We're also essentially told very early in the show which central character is going to die - so no suspense there. The show is filled with cute references that obviously inspire Peter Pan (e.g., an exchange of a thimble), but we don't really care - we know where it's all going.
2. The music - with the exception of Jukebox or Bio musicals, I believe that the songs should help drive the story (and they even sometimes do in those cases). The songs in Finding Neverland were incredibly bland and felt meaningless. I think you could remove every song from the show and it would be exactly the same story (but mercifully shorter).
3. Who cares? - As flawed and silly a story as it is, I love Peter Pan. I loved seeing the original musical with Sandy Duncan and with Cathy Rigby, I love the Disneyland ride, I loved Hook, I loved the Mabou Mines production of Peter and Wendy, etc. I should be the perfect audience for this, but I could not have been less interested. The whole idea sounded like a two paragraph Wikipedia entry, and that's how it felt to me.
I kept wishing for it to be better, but not all wishes come true. For those of you who loved it, that's the wonderful thing about theatre - shows touch each personally differently.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 12:46pm
I just got back from seeing Fun Home and am disgusted by the fact that it won so many awards and FN got crucified by the critics. When did old fashioned entertainment with hummable songs become criminal.
Re Fun Home, part of the issue was that we missed most of the dialogue because they did not use mics and NOONE appeared to know how to project. FN was also well miked and we never missed a word."
This argument is wrong in a few ways. First, the show had a bad omen to begin with due to both Weinstein producing and also many were upset that Jeremy Jordan was replaced with a star, Morrison. Both of those were part of the hollywood taking over broadway idea, which no true broadway fan wants/likes. Broadway is Broadway. Aside from that, the show really just isn't sensational. The music is decent, but the lyrics are fluff. The story of Finding Neverland found in the 2004 Depp film is brilliant, and they turned it to mush here. Fun Home is one of the most brilliant pieces of theater out there. Don't blame the musical for the sound problems, which I did not have seeing it.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 1:03pm
I don't hate Finding Neverland. Hate Cancer and guns and abortion. But don't hate a Broadway show.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 1:09pm
Any body who only knows Morrison as a TV star and where angry at his casting due to that obviously never visited Broadway before 2008 and where too lazy to do basic research. He actually had more credits than Jordan did. It's compleatly illogical to use him as an example of " Hollywood taking over Broadway". Dose that mean any actor who has had success in Hollywood are never allow to ever tread the boards even if they have legit stage cred?
Posted: 10/19/15 at 1:13pm
I don't think anyone has been doubting Morrison's extensive previous stage credits. At the end of the day, though, Mr. Morrison is categorically more "Hollywood famous" than Mr. Jordan, and that seems to have certainly played a role in the producers' casting decisions. That's not in any way discredit Morrison's previous work; it's just a simple fact.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 4:53pm
TerrenceIsTheMann said: "I just got back from seeing Fun Home and am disgusted by the fact that it won so many awards and FN got crucified by the critics. When did old fashioned entertainment with hummable songs become criminal.
Re Fun Home, part of the issue was that we missed most of the dialogue because they did not use mics and NOONE appeared to know how to project. FN was also well miked and we never missed a word."
This argument is wrong in a few ways. First, the show had a bad omen to begin with due to both Weinstein producing and also many were upset that Jeremy Jordan was replaced with a star, Morrison. Both of those were part of the hollywood taking over broadway idea, which no true broadway fan wants/likes. Broadway is Broadway. Aside from that, the show really just isn't sensational. The music is decent, but the lyrics are fluff. The story of Finding Neverland found in the 2004 Depp film is brilliant, and they turned it to mush here. Fun Home is one of the most brilliant pieces of theater out there. Don't blame the musical for the sound problems, which I did not have seeing it.
So, what you are saying is that they should hate is at the gate because Weinstein is from Hollywood? That I don't get.
A reality is that there will always be folks who love or hate a show. In 1971, just as many people disliked Follies as thought it was a revolutionary masterpiece, even if flawed in the book department. You hate FN and love Fun Home. I hated every minute of Fun Home and loved FN. I just want the reason to be more than Hollywood and some weak lyrics (a point with which I agree). Re Fun Home, I like the CD, just didn't like the show. I did not think Cerveris was anything special, disliked Emily Skeggs performance strongly, and can't comment on the script because I heard so little of it. I was NOT amazed by the direction...saw nothing special at all. Despite wide dismissal, I think the entire scene leading up to Sylvia's death is one of the most perfect 10 minutes I have ever seen in a musical.
I do not consider myself unsophisticated even though I loved FN. My favorite musicals include original Follies production, original ALNM, Nine, She Loves Me, 1973 Candide, Sweeney Todd, Gypsy, and (the much maligned these days) The Producers. I Hated CATS, hated Fun Home (am not a homophobe), hated Merrily We Role Along, hated Whorehouse, did not like Raisin, enjoyed but did not love BOM,.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 5:07pm
Re: animosity because of cynical "Hollywood" producing. I think there's general amnesia that Harvey wasted years of a hugely talented musical theatre writing team's time and threw out their entire score because he wanted generic pop music, totally unrelated to the content. He certainly got that.
Posted: 10/19/15 at 5:13pm
"My favorite musicals include original Follies production, original ALNM, Nine, She Loves Me, 1973 Candide, Sweeney Todd, Gypsy, and (the much maligned these days) The Producers. I Hated CATS, hated Fun Home (am not a homophobe), hated Merrily We Role Along, hated Whorehouse, did not like Raisin, enjoyed but did not love BOM"
Outside of Fun Home, I pretty much have the same thoughts on the shows you listed.
"
Posted: 10/19/15 at 5:23pm
I don't think I makes one bit of difference what he threw out...it's what he kept. The show needs to be judged on that. I personally think the score he ended up with is terrific and fits the story, although I acknowledge that some of the lyrics do not rhyme when they should, with the most egregious case being a non-rhyming lyric that refers to the fact that something doesn't rhyme. I love both the OBC and the concept album.
Updated On: 10/19/15 at 05:23 PM
Posted: 10/19/15 at 7:00pm
I liked this show when I saw the first preview in Cambridge. It was a last minute decision to go because it did not appeal to my wife when Morrison was originally announced as the lead months before. When some friends invited us and reminded us that Morrison was no longer in the show, we decided to go. Perhaps it was the low expectations that contributed to our enjoying the show as much as we did, but we did like it. Since then, I've wondered why the opinions on the show were so extreme. It just did not seem like the kind of show that would generate that level of emotion either way.
I don't think there is any single reason why so many people "hate" the show. I do think that Weinstein alienated so many people along the way, by treating so many artists as disposable commodities, that the collective fan bases of all those who had been cast aside ended being a pretty significant negative force. When you factor in the heavy handed way he shoe horned a preview performance on the Tony Awards (that did not even feature his Broadway star leading man, but a pop star instead), it just seems like everything he did before this show opened was calculated to alienate as many people in the Broadway community as possible (including daring Brantley to give the show a bad review in one interview). As more details emerged regarding Jordan's departure from the show, it became more and more clear that Weinstein engaged in some level of deception in order to get Jordan to commit to doing the pre-Broadway run. Jordan now has a TV gig, so he's doing just fine, but it was just more negative mojo for the show. Morrison certainly has some Broadway credits, but he didn't get the job because of his Broadway credits. He got the job because he was a famous TV star. Weinstein got two TV stars, the choreographer from a reality TV show and the composers from a British boy band. In the end, he had assembled a collection pop culture icons to create a show, and regardless of how good the show was, that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
Some critics may have been sharpening their knives for Weinstein, but I do not think FN was intentionally "snubbed" by the Tonys. As someone who liked the show in Cambridge, I would have had a hard time justifying a nomination in almost any category, simply because the competition was too stiff. Under the best of circumstances, it was not going to get a nomination for book, score, costumes, set, choreography, or any of the performance categories. FN is a financial success because Weinstein is giving his target audience what they want, not because he is giving them great art. Perhaps that is what angers people most about the show. It seems that Weinstein chose pop culture over quality at almost every turn, because he knew he could make more money that way, and it is particularly galling to Broadway purists that he ended up being right.
Updated On: 10/19/15 at 07:00 PM
Posted: 10/19/15 at 7:24pm
FN is a financial success because Weinstein is giving his target audience what they want, not because he is giving them great art. Perhaps that is what angers people most about the show. It seems that Weinstein chose pop culture over quality at almost every turn, because he knew he could make more money that way, and it is particularly galling to Broadway purists that he ended up being right.
You hit the nail on the head as to why I dislike this show. He went out of his way to put the most sanitized and toothless musical together and let what is expected from a typical hit dictate the direction of the show.
Funnily enough, I actually think that a very good musical could be made from the film Finding Neverland. This is not that musical.
"
Updated On: 10/19/15 at 07:24 PM
Posted: 10/19/15 at 9:59pm
I don't know Harvey W, but I think he has produced a lot of very good movies and I don't think everyone of them was done purely to make the most money. FN is one of my favorite Weinstein movies and I think the show is a good musicalization of the film.
Clearly, Weinstein didn't set out to lose money. I assume he tried to produce a hit; I certainly have the impression that he spent a lot of personal time on the show. I tend not to be a cynic, so the naive part of me has to ask...do you really think he did not care about quality OR that he felt he delivered a quality product (and others did not)?
Posted: 10/19/15 at 10:20pm
He has produced good movies and FN is one of them. I do not think that the show is a good musicalization of that film. The film is a quiet and thoughtful film with understated performances and nuance. The show makes everything into a spectacle and is frequently over the top. I believe something matching the tone of the film could be very moving and understated. That is not what Weinstein was going for as he just needed to infuse the palatable story with catchy pop songs. I don't believe that he set out to ignore quality but just that he was too focused on making everything accessible for a mass audience.
Posted: 10/26/15 at 7:32pm
I saw it last Saturday night, went in with low expectations. Only went because a friend I was with had expressed interest in it. We all enjoyed it, although certainly didn't "love" it. It was a fun night at the theater, despite Matthew Morrison's Scottish accent which wax and waned throughout the night. The "Stonger" 1st act number was the best, unfortunately, the production couldn't recover after that.
Still, the place was packed, lots of sniffling at the end (not me, I used up all my tears at "Allegiance" that afternoon), and of course, a big standing ovation.
Posted: 10/26/15 at 8:02pm
Do people think this is a financial success? If you consider an American in Paris and fun home which are both supposedly the most artistic from last year. I'm pretty sure those two shows are doing extremely better than finding neverland.
Posted: 10/26/15 at 8:14pm
It doesn't have to compete with them financially. If any show is paying the bills, and edging towards fixing the financial backers back their investment, then good for them.
Posted: 10/27/15 at 1:33am
Weinstein told Reidel a few weeks ago that the that the show had a 6 million dollar advance, should recoup its 15 million dollar investment in about 52 weeks and should run for at least three years so they must be financially healthy.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/finding-neverland-is-a-sinking-ship/
Also compared to It shoulda been you, Gigi, The Visit and On the town which also opened in the same season it's doing great.
Updated On: 10/27/15 at 01:33 AM
Posted: 10/27/15 at 7:18am
While that is corect, who knows if what Harvey is saying is true. He was really trying to make some bold statements in that article by saying he's getting this one and that one to lead the show, and that Kelsey Grammer would be returning 4 months from the article's writing and all that stuff to draw some attention. I do not at all hate this show and haven't seen it yet. I will most likely see it in a few months when Grammer returns. The soundtrack sounded really good and I quite enjoy the score (I know I'm in the minority). By the way, do you think he meant that the show would recoup 52 weeks from the time of the article or 52 weeks from when the show started?
Posted: 10/27/15 at 8:53am
The sheer force of aggressive promotion and deceptive marketing guaranteed great grosses for a while, but I do think its actual quality will catch up to it over the harder weeks in winter. A fifth of the seats are empty now, and I don't see that getting better outside of the holidays.
Updated On: 10/27/15 at 08:53 AM
Posted: 10/27/15 at 8:59am
I saw the show over the summer and had a fun time. Im sure Jeremy Jordan was amazing in it, but i thought Matthew Morrison did a great job. Laura Michelle Kelly is amazing.
Posted: 10/27/15 at 9:23am
I agree with Reidel that a lot depends on the recasting in February. Assuming that the 6 million advance cited is front loaded then I think that they will maintain the 700 - 900k per week that they have so far since early September until then.
Posted: 10/27/15 at 9:26am
What major celebrity would want to go into this show, though? Particularly after Grammer got the hell out of there?
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
