4,159 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Nov 9, 2017 10:11:38 GMT
WOS 3 stars Times 3 stars Metro 3 stars ES 3 stars The stage 3 stars London theatre 3 stars Guardian 2 stars Telegraph 2 stars I doubt it will be transferring anywhere And it will be papering to fill what’s left no doubt A show which was never a critical hit on Broadway Has also been received unfavourably here despite being reworked Enjoy it while you can It’s also way way below WE standards in terms of staging and budget Are there any show you actually so like or think are good? Other than the ones you have invested in and so have to say is good when actually everyone else thinks is crap and does close?
|
|
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 11:32:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 11:32:04 GMT
WOS 3 stars Times 3 stars Metro 3 stars ES 3 stars The stage 3 stars London theatre 3 stars Guardian 2 stars Telegraph 2 stars I doubt it will be transferring anywhere And it will be papering to fill what’s left no doubt A show which was never a critical hit on Broadway Has also been received unfavourably here despite being reworked Enjoy it while you can It’s also way way below WE standards in terms of staging and budget Are there any show you actually so like or think are good? Other than the ones you have invested in and so have to say is good when actually everyone else thinks is crap and does close? 😂
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 11:35:42 GMT
Being a critical hit or not on Broadway means nothing here. Look at Legally Blonde. That wasn't a critical hit there, but it got great reviews here, won a handful of Olivier ran over three years and is now on its second UK Tour!
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Nov 9, 2017 13:03:38 GMT
I haven't seen the show yet, but Michael Billington's review seems like a combination of his not really liking musicals that much and really just wanting to see a lot of Kelsey Grammer on stage. Hopefully Susannah Clapp will be going too so we can get something a little less leaning-towards-failure-from-the-off from her. Which - by the way - would be terribly wrong, since Mr Grammer is a subpar singer and at times looks (pardon the pun) a fish out of water when sharing a number with his younger counterpart, so aptly played (and beautifully sung) by Jamie Muscato. 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...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 13:19:56 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 . . .
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 13:28:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by wickedgrin on Nov 9, 2017 13:28:35 GMT
I felt he was very average and an extremely lucky actor
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 13:39:22 GMT
Being a critical hit or not on Broadway means nothing here. Look at Legally Blonde. That wasn't a critical hit there, but it got great reviews here, won a handful of Olivier ran over three years and is now on its second UK Tour! Legally Blonde got much better reviews than Big Fish has garnered At least some 4 and many 3 stars
|
|
4,967 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Nov 9, 2017 13:40:03 GMT
Two (French) words regarding reviews and future success - Les Miserables.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 13:44:56 GMT
And Wicked! That didn't get the best reviews when it opened in New York... and here we are.
|
|
16 posts
|
Post by adambloodworth on Nov 9, 2017 14:18:12 GMT
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Nov 9, 2017 14:23:20 GMT
No one cares about reviews in the UK. It's not a deal breaker.
|
|
168 posts
|
Big Fish
Nov 9, 2017 14:26:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by paplazaroo on Nov 9, 2017 14:26:16 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
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:26:22 GMT
Did you have anything to do with that bit on Company in the Metro the other day?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:29:50 GMT
No one cares about reviews in the UK. It's not a deal breaker. Yes I am sure they are really happy with the reviews
|
|
16 posts
|
Post by adambloodworth on Nov 9, 2017 14:46:22 GMT
Did you have anything to do with that bit on Company in the Metro the other day? Afraid not!
|
|
|
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
|
|
6,334 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.
|
|
165 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
|
|
1,909 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
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli 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.
|
|
1,909 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
|
|
793 posts
|
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.
|
|