rOcKS' Best & Worst of 2009 — Page 2

"someone critiquing a show doesn't leave them open for personal attacks."

That's so wrong to think or say. You open yourself up for personal attacks the minute you choose to post opinions on the internet - for the general public to see.


"(Because what rocks says is pretty much always right)."

hey bwayfan, you've got something brown on your nose... don't even pull sh!t like right vs. wrong when we're strictly discussing OPINIONS.

Although I have to say that I agree with most of your thoughts on this specific thread, RoCks. My only suggestion is that you broaden your horizons and give the older musical classics a better chance - revisit Finians Rainbow. Please!

That is all. Thank you.

---

That is not what Rocks is being challenged on!!! The point we are making is the level of sensitivity to criticism Rocks demonstrates in the face of criticizing others!! Take a break from your knee jerk snobbery and read the full post.

And for the billionth time, I am simply pointing out that you are just as nasty in your critique of the hard work of others in your reviews as other posters are toward the hard work you put into your posted internet opinions! there is no difference. don't dish out what you can't take is all we are saying. I have no opinion about your opinions just the hypocrisy you show in the face of posting them.

Personally, I enjoy reading reviews that rOcKS posts (in addition to Yankeefan)

I usually share the same opinions, and not living close to the city, it's great to hear what they have to say about the numerous productions.

MusicSnob is just a hater, in addition to a snob.

---

"MusicSnob is just a hater"

Idina, Do you even KNOW what you're talking about? Or did you decide to just spew something out of your @ss? Look, it's not my fault that I don't like your idol and goddess and master...Eyedeenuh Minzael.

I have nothing against RoCks and, as I had ALREADY mentioned, I usually do enjoy his (?) posts/threads/etc. I actually agree with most of the opinions that RoCks posted. I was simply adding on and playing Devil's Advocate.

You need to take the stick that's shoved up there and pull it out. How 'bout you read the dialogue that has been taking place in this thread instead of ASSUMING what the situation is? Basic reading comprehensive skills, please. Jesus.

---

As the old saying goes, an opinion is like an @$$hole- everyone has one.
As someone who likes pretty much everything (I don't think I've ever not enjoyed any show), I see nothing wrong with criticizing a show when it's due. The only thing that irks me is when people dismiss a show by denying the amount of heart, soul, passion, effort, work, time, money, etc that goes into it. And noone here is doing that (I think)! It is not enough to simply say "___ sucked" or "I hated ___.". That's just disrespectful. But, if you follow that with well thought-out constructive criticism, I see nothing wrong with it- if anything it makes reading the boards more interesting and inspires stimulating conversation.

Made my account in '06. So please don't assume I'm some retarded Idina fan.

---

Mildred- Shut the eff up. Just because they like Rock of Ages doesn't make them uneducated and not knowing of any show pre-rent. Stop sticking your nose up at people and go live in the 1940's alone.

---

The cast is fun, I guess, but I just couldn't get over how unfunny and absolutely horrendous the book was, how amateur the direction was, and just how low everyone involved with this show had set the bar.

I can understand if it's not the type of show you enjoy, but I'm not sure how they set the bar so low for musical theatre in any significant way. Take away the in-seat drink service and I think it would have been just as successful. Most tourists probably have no idea it even exists before buying tickets to the show. And in terms of Broadway history, it's hardly a major detriment to tarnish the image of Broadway or musical theatre. If the bar had not already been lowered enough for this show to garner favorable reviews, Tony nominations and find an audience, it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

---

I have a very broad knowledge of musical theater history in America and yes, I admit it, I loved ROA. (not sure why this thread became about this one show but oh well... ) In fact, I think it is YOU, Mildred, who is showing your ignorance of Musical Theater history with your posts.

FACT, Musical theater and Broadway started as entertainment for the immigrants... the unwashed masses... the "drunk, off, off broadway crowd." And pre-Showboat, consisted almost entirely of what are now known as Jukebox Musicals- stories put together using popular music of the day. (yes, another FACT)

And as far as the story of ROA, if you really look at the story it is an homage to the structure and storytelling of classic broadway- pre-Rent. It lovingly pokes fun at the cliches of Broadway (and rock)- and it can only do that with a deep knowledge of what it is poking fun at.

Yes, ROA is not going to win a Pulitzer but it has no desire to. It simply wants to be fun and silly... LIKE MANY MUSICALS OFTEN DID WAAAAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS OF BROADWAY. It is classic comedic escapism. Nothing more. Mildred, Broadway was born on lowbrow entertainment. Christ, the very first Broadway star was not a beautiful singer or a classic Shakespearean actor. it was Eugene Sandow. Do you know him, Mildred? He was a bodybuilder who did nothing more than stand and pose half naked and people flocked to see that s**t.

So before you start accusing people of being ignorant of the history of musical theater simply for liking a show, you should brush up on your own knowledge, Mildred. Your snobbery is boring.

rOcKS: how could you forget GUYS AND DOLLS??? That was the worst thing on Broadway this year!! My opinion of course!

Hey Mildred, why don't you remove the gigantic pole from your butt and lighten up. How dare you say people who enjoy a musical like ROA don't know anything about musical theater history. How about, maybe they aren't too stuck up to appreciate that while it is not the most stirring piece of musical theater ever and it certainly won't be in the top 10 of most people's list of greatest musicals ever, there maybe people out there who appreciate it for what it is...a fun night out and nothing more. And if a show like ROA introduces new people to musical theater, then Broadway is better for it because Broadway needs more people to go see it's shows. And ALL kinds of musical theater tastes should be welcomed. It is people like you who don't understand the true nature of what theater is all about. If people like it, fine. If people hate it, fine. But don't knock the intelligence of the audience simply because you are too close minded.

I didn't despise GUYS & DOLLS. I disliked it to be sure and thought it was pretty much totally joyless. But the show itself is so good it's hard to completely screw up. I would probably put it at the trail end of my worst of list I guess.

Good point. G&D is one of the all time greats. It was just such a disappointment to see McAnuff destroy that show. I didn't think anyone could ruin that show, but this revival managed to suck the life out of it.