|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:48:26 GMT
Did you have anything to do with that bit on Company in the Metro the other day?  Afraid not! Don't be afraid... Be proud! I just wanted to be sure of the company I'm keeping. (And I'd have hated to be the one to pull you up short and put you through hell...! ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 15:15:39 GMT
Reviews can matter, sure there are always exceptions but look at Merrily, massive 5 star hit and still flopped
Shows like Wicked and Les Mis had positive audience word of mouth. Big fish will depend if it can win over audiences to generate word of mouth and get the wider public interested
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 9, 2017 15:21:26 GMT
I do think it's not right to say the critics were wrong just because they weren't so keen on a show which you loved, it's just their opinion.
|
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 15:29:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 15:29:28 GMT
I do think it's not right to say the critics were wrong just because they weren't so keen on a show which you loved, it's just their opinion. But it can be our opinion that their opinion is wrong. Which, in this instance, is true for most of those on here who have seen the show. |
|
184 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Nov 9, 2017 15:33:32 GMT
I thought Mr Grammer was definitely the weakest link in the production and could not quite understand what need there was of importing him to the UK for this... I'd guess that the majority of the tickets sold for this show are down to his appearance in it . . . I must confess I hardly knew who he was prior to seeing him in this, and when I read his bio and saw he had even been nominated for a Tony for a role in a musical I had a proper "seriously?!" moment... I guess audience members are not always attracted just to quality, certain names have been selling forever without maybe deserving it as much as other "lesser" ones  |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Nov 9, 2017 17:44:35 GMT
I do think it's not right to say the critics were wrong just because they weren't so keen on a show which you loved, it's just their opinion. But it can be our opinion that their opinion is wrong. Which, in this instance, is true for most of those on here who have seen the show. I'd put it a little differently. If a critic writes that "Hamilton" stars Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins, that's wrong.* It's factually inaccurate. If they write that "Big Fish" is over-sentimental with a bland score (and I've no idea what I'll make of it, I don't see it until a week on Saturday), that's simply a difference of opinion. Their response to the show is their response to the show; it isn't "wrong" just because it's not the same as yours. We've all seen things we loved that the critics hated, or hated things friends raved about. I liked The Other Palace's "The Wild Party" a hell of a lot more than most of the reviewers, but that doesn't mean any individual reviewer was wrong in their assessment of the show. I loved "Girl from the North Country" at the Old Vic; a friend saw it a couple of days after I did and despised just about everything about it apart from Sheila Atim. Neither response is incorrect. I hated the Royal Exchange's "Sweet Charity" last Christmas with a level of passion some people go their entire lives without ever experiencing (to be fair, what I hated was the book, rather than the score or the production) - but an awful lot of people liked it far more than I did, as did most of the critics. Again, that's a range of responses, and none of them were "wrong". An opinion is an opinion. A review is a single subjective response, that's all. *I would pay a hell of a lot of money to see a production of "Hamilton" starring Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins. |
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 17:48:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 17:48:07 GMT
But it can be our opinion that their opinion is wrong. Which, in this instance, is true for most of those on here who have seen the show. I'd put it a little differently. If a critic writes that "Hamilton" stars Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins, that's wrong.* It's factually inaccurate. If they write that "Big Fish" is over-sentimental with a bland score (and I've no idea what I'll make of it, I don't see it until a week on Saturday), that's simply a difference of opinion. Their response to the show is their response to the show; it isn't "wrong" just because it's not the same as yours. We've all seen things we loved that the critics hated, or hated things friends raved about. I liked The Other Palace's "The Wild Party" a hell of a lot more than most of the reviewers, but that doesn't mean any individual reviewer was wrong in their assessment of the show. I loved "Girl from the North Country" at the Old Vic; a friend saw it a couple of days after I did and despised just about everything about it apart from Sheila Atim. Neither response is incorrect. I hated the Royal Exchange's "Sweet Charity" last Christmas with a level of passion some people go their entire lives without ever experiencing (to be fair, what I hated was the book, rather than the score or the production) - but an awful lot of people liked it a hell of a lot more than I did. An opinion is an opinion. A review is a single subjective response, that's all. *I would pay a hell of a lot of money to see a production of "Hamilton" starring Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins. Fair, I respect that. What would be nice though, I a more varied group of people giving the opinions that some will read. In age, gender and personal taste.  |
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 18:54:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 18:54:03 GMT
But it can be our opinion that their opinion is wrong. Which, in this instance, is true for most of those on here who have seen the show. I'd put it a little differently. If a critic writes that "Hamilton" stars Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins, that's wrong.* It's factually inaccurate. If they write that "Big Fish" is over-sentimental with a bland score (and I've no idea what I'll make of it, I don't see it until a week on Saturday), that's simply a difference of opinion. Their response to the show is their response to the show; it isn't "wrong" just because it's not the same as yours. We've all seen things we loved that the critics hated, or hated things friends raved about. I liked The Other Palace's "The Wild Party" a hell of a lot more than most of the reviewers, but that doesn't mean any individual reviewer was wrong in their assessment of the show. I loved "Girl from the North Country" at the Old Vic; a friend saw it a couple of days after I did and despised just about everything about it apart from Sheila Atim. Neither response is incorrect. I hated the Royal Exchange's "Sweet Charity" last Christmas with a level of passion some people go their entire lives without ever experiencing (to be fair, what I hated was the book, rather than the score or the production) - but an awful lot of people liked it far more than I did, as did most of the critics. Again, that's a range of responses, and none of them were "wrong". An opinion is an opinion. A review is a single subjective response, that's all. *I would pay a hell of a lot of money to see a production of "Hamilton" starring Elaine Paige and Christopher Biggins. It’s a bit simplistic This view Some people’s opinion counts for more than others A jury is only giving a collection of opinions based on what they think |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 19:13:02 GMT
Nobody’s opinion is of worth to anyone else other than in how it reveals things about the person holding the opinion. A poor review of something I liked (or vice versa) makes me realise how little I have in common with the reviewer, it doesn't change any opinion I hold.
How criticism became a profession is something I cannot umderstand, suggesting that there are others whose opinions are ‘better’ than anyone else’s and that they are worthy of being paid for them.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Nov 9, 2017 19:31:59 GMT
An opinion is an opinion. A review is a single subjective response, that's all. It’s a bit simplistic This view Some people’s opinion counts for more than others Indeed. As far as I'm concerned, mine counts for a great deal more than yours. The point still holds: a review is one person's subjective opinion. It's one person's subjective opinion that happens to be published, but that doesn't automatically make it into some unimpeachable Great Objective Truth - particularly when we're talking about this country's major theatre critics and musical theatre, because when it comes to assessing music some of them are astonishingly stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 19:38:38 GMT
Reviews can matter, sure there are always exceptions but look at Merrily, massive 5 star hit and still flopped Shows like Wicked and Les Mis had positive audience word of mouth. Big fish will depend if it can win over audiences to generate word of mouth and get the wider public interested The Other Palace theatre isnt big enough to generate the type of buzz/word of mouth needed to keep this going. This Big Fish is dead in the water. |
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 20:37:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 20:37:01 GMT
Reviews can matter, sure there are always exceptions but look at Merrily, massive 5 star hit and still flopped Shows like Wicked and Les Mis had positive audience word of mouth. Big fish will depend if it can win over audiences to generate word of mouth and get the wider public interested The Other Palace theatre isnt big enough to generate the type of buzz/word of mouth needed to keep this going. This Big Fish is dead in the water. Well said Awful musical Terrible reviews Non prestigious venue The triad of success |
|
835 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Nov 9, 2017 20:50:48 GMT
The Other Palace theatre isnt big enough to generate the type of buzz/word of mouth needed to keep this going. This Big Fish is dead in the water. Well said Awful musical Terrible reviews Non prestigious venue The triad of success Have you seen it? |
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 20:58:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 20:58:07 GMT
Well said Awful musical Terrible reviews Non prestigious venue The triad of success Have you seen it? Half of it |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 21:01:04 GMT
The Other Palace theatre isnt big enough to generate the type of buzz/word of mouth needed to keep this going. This Big Fish is dead in the water. Well said Awful musical Terrible reviews Non prestigious venue The triad of success What does a prestigious venue have to do with it?? A great musical is a great musical regardless of the venue it's playing. |
|
141 posts
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 21:08:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by blobble84 on Nov 9, 2017 21:08:49 GMT
I saw this today and thought it was very average. The cast give their all, the band sound good, and the design is clever, but it's just not a particularly good show. The worst thing for me in a musical is a 10+ minute wait until the first song and then a very weak one at that.
|
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 21:09:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 21:09:55 GMT
I saw this today and thought it was very average. The cast give their all, the band sound good, and the design is clever, but it's just not a particularly good show. The worst thing for me in a musical is a 10+ minute wait until the first song and then a very weak one at that. Oh but people were crying at the end It’s amazing We are wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 21:29:37 GMT
Whilst I’m on about reviewing, there is also no such thing as an objective review.
Take any review for what it is (someone’s opinion that emerges from their own experience, issues, hangups, desires and needs) but don't invest it with any sort of objective insight.
|
|
677 posts
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 23:49:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by westendcub on Nov 9, 2017 23:49:57 GMT
Saw this last night and agree with the reviews, it’s pretty poor! Lots of sniffling at the end but I’d be willing to bet they were just people who have lost their own fathers as the piece doesn’t earn it Wow really? Maybe you should you appreciate that a show could speak to you & make you remember the people in your life (family/friends) that you have lost?? Shocked by such a bitchy comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 0:05:21 GMT
Saw this last night and agree with the reviews, it’s pretty poor! Lots of sniffling at the end but I’d be willing to bet they were just people who have lost their own fathers as the piece doesn’t earn it Wow really? Maybe you should you appreciate that a show could speak to you & make you remember the people in your life (family/friends) that you have lost?? Shocked by such a bitchy comment. Agreed. I cried alot at this show, and not because I have lost anyone recently. Because it resonated with events in my life that have caused emotions thst this show once again brought out. I personally connected with the show, as many appear to as well. But my Dad didn't need to die the day before the first preview to gain that response from me. The performances, score and staging did all the work itself. |
|
170 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Nov 10, 2017 0:06:44 GMT
Saw this last night and agree with the reviews, it’s pretty poor! Lots of sniffling at the end but I’d be willing to bet they were just people who have lost their own fathers as the piece doesn’t earn it Wow really? Maybe you should you appreciate that a show could speak to you & make you remember the people in your life (family/friends) that you have lost?? Shocked by such a bitchy comment. That’s exactly what I’m saying, I appreciate people are moved because they’re relating to it personally. If the show developed the journey of the characters with depth and not just on the nose sentiment then people who haven’t personally experienced this loss might also be moved because they feel involved in the story and characters. |
|
61 posts
|
Post by junet on Nov 10, 2017 0:35:12 GMT
Just got home after seeing this show. It was certainly different to anything I have seen before but I really enjoyed it. I'm not sure if I will remember any of the songs but they were sung beautifully by a really strong cast. It is obviously a subject that touches everyone at some point in their life and I think most people found it very moving. A full house tonight with a very much deserved standing ovation at the end.
|
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 10, 2017 1:08:34 GMT
Reviewers more often than not review potential advertising revenue than the show, I have seen them give big shows better than expected reviews, in the hope they will take adverts in their paper with their pull quotes on them. Apart from Michael Billington, it is the arts desk editor that allocates the stars, that is why sometimes you read reviews that don't tally with the Stars awarded.
On the opposite side I have seen many worthy fringe productions get an absolute unfair kicking, because they're not expected to take out advertising.
|
|
1,280 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Nov 10, 2017 8:18:36 GMT
Saw this last night and overall and it was enjoyable but nothing to write home about. I was already familiar with the story because of the Tim Burton movie which I really like. Really glad that The Other Palace gives us the chance to see shows like this one, which will never have a run in a West End house.
The main problem with this musical is that the score is totally unmemorable which is a pity since some cast members are really strong singers. The set and costumes are a bit meh, and the choreography just serviceable. The best thing to enjoy this is just to focus on the main story. The leads where all quite good. I thought Kelsey Grammer was excellent as the Old Ed and both Matthew Seadon-Young and Jamie Muscato were also quite good. Claire Burt is also perfectly cast as the mother.
It was a fairly good night out but not something I would see again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Nov 10, 2017 9:32:25 GMT
Saw this last night and overall and it was enjoyable but nothing to write home about. I was already familiar with the story because of the Tim Burton movie which I really like. Really glad that The Other Palace gives us the chance to see shows like this one, which will never have a run in a West End house. The main problem with this musical is that the score is totally unmemorable which is a pity since some cast members are really strong singers. The set and costumes are a bit meh, and the choreography just serviceable. The best thing to enjoy this is just to focus on the main story. The leads where all quite good. I thought Kelsey Grammer was excellent as the Old Ed and both Matthew Seadon-Young and Jamie Muscato were also quite good. Claire Burt is also perfectly cast as the mother. It was a fairly good night out but not something I would see again. You sum up my feelings pretty well. The standout no’s for me were the two which were pastiches, with the 3 ‘Andrews’ sisters harmony and the big production no at the start of act two. But I cant’ offer any objectivity here. I’ve watched Frazier as original broadcasts and as repeats more than any other TV ever. I saw the Film the year my father died and subsequently bought the book. Suffice to say, I’m pleased I saw it and it didn’t let me down in the way it handled material I love. But a really memorable night on its own merits? Not really. This has prompted me to get the DVD out for a Christmas treat. |
|
