| Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? | |
| Posted by: | Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I mean, word of mouth (esp through social media), star casting and pleasing a target audience means much more now to guaranteeing a show's run, doesn't it? | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? | |
| Posted by: | twocents 10:32 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I think you can say that about movies. That's an even stronger case! | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:55 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| like the answer to most questions of this sort, there are no rules. it matters when it matters and it doesn't matter when it doesn't matter. The absence of a rave closes some shows and has no effect of others etc etc etc | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Huh? What "sort" of question IS this? | |
| Posted by: | Genealley 11:01 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - ryhog 10:55 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Just wondering... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Huh? What "sort" of question IS this? | |
| Posted by: | OnceMoreWithFeeling 11:26 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Huh? What "sort" of question IS this? - Genealley 11:01 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| An extremely open-ended question with infinite answers including subjective, objective, informed, and guesstimate responses. Ask my Grandma who reads the Times religiously and she will say one thing, while I say another. It's a question that has no answer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 08:47 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| there have always been shows that were critic proof and there have always been critical hits that closed quickly. the"anymore" isn't really applicable. a rave - a real one (not just a positive one with nothing slammed) - in the times can make a difference. the positive review that's really just that - a positive review - i don't think makes that much difference. a times review can really make a difference in whether or not something comes in from out of town. i'd love to see data on things that got terrible reviews and came in anyway. my feeling is while there might be exceptions for the most part they (the reviews) were right on the money. the other direction things might not fare as well. i think things can be praised highly out of town and not work as well when they come in. 9 times out of 10 either they waited too long, there was a cast change or, worse, they get stuck with the wrong theater. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | malibu1 09:39 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Anymore? - enoch10 08:47 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| The Times love letter to On The Town helped immensely. I imagine that the audience for On The Town is still avid NYT readers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:49 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Anymore? - malibu1 09:39 am EST 11/19/14 |
|
| |
| It seems the audience for On the Town should be tourists. For all those people who hit the town (ahem!) and want to see one big Broadway musical, I would think this is what they're thinking of. What fun to see a love letter to New York while you're loving your visit in New York. (I give permission to be creatively pull-quoted ;)) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 09:22 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Anymore? - enoch10 08:47 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| In our book, Stage Money (pages 36-37), we reported on a study by economists that found that a positive review in the NY Times, at least in the period studied, had no significant relationship to length of run. The Broadway League conducts a marketing study each season. One of the questions asks what influenced the respondent's ticket purchase. The biggest influence is word of mouth. Advertising was number two. Reviews were number three. The notion that the NY Times review has a great influence on show profitability may be a myth. Perhaps NY Times reviews have some impact on straight plays but not so much on musicals. Of course, sometimes the NY Times reviewer actually reflects the audience appeal of a show so the review might be expected to roughly correlate with success of a show. Note that a number of successful musicals, including Wicked and Phantom, had mixed-to-negative reviews when they opened. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 03:24 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Anymore? - tmdonahue 09:22 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| One thing to remember: the longer a show runs, the less reviews matter because no one even remembers what they were like anymore, except people like us. And the people who come later in a run perhaps tend to be people who pay little attention to the reviews of new shows. Reviews can be very important in a show getting to the point where they don't matter anymore. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Trying Times | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 01:16 am EST 11/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Anymore? - tmdonahue 09:22 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Even New York Times' raves take a musical only so far. And one clear-cut case was the 2009-2010 Broadway season. * Ben Brantley raved about ''Fela!'': ''Bill T. Jones' singular, sensational show. ... There has never been anything on Broadway like this production. ... You feel like you have been dancing with the stars.'' The Times also did followup pieces. * Charles Isherwood raved about ''American Idiot'': ''As invigorating and ultimately as moving as anything I've seen on Broadway this season. Or maybe for a few seasons past.'' * But Isherwood panned ''Memphis'': ''Slick but formulaic. ... Barely generates enough heat to melt a vinyl record.'' (Other critics, though, praised it; AP's Michael Kuchwara: ''The very essence of a Broadway musical.'') Yet ''Memphis'' overcame the Times pan. It won the Best Musical prize from the Outer Critics, Drama Desk and the Tonys, and ran for about 1,200 performances. (''American Idiot'' closed after 11 months; ''Fela!'' ran for about 500 shows.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I didn't think so... nm | |
| Posted by: | Genealley 11:03 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Anymore? - tmdonahue 09:22 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Anymore? | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 09:36 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Anymore? - tmdonahue 09:22 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| that data makes sense to me even without knowing when the study was done. i suspect it was always like that even when newspapers played a much bigger part in people's lives. i guess the one thing i would question about the data is how much reviews influence world of mouth. i think the difference a review could make- if it can make one at all - is in the rave. a real one and they're really, really rare. i'm not surprised that a favorable review wouldn't make much difference. i don't suppose any data was collected on shows that came in with bad reviews from the times during the out of town run? i realize that's mighty specific. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? | |
| Posted by: | broadwaybacker 04:35 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| There was data published a few years ago (I think by the Drama League, though I'm not certain about that) that indicated that in general, reviews are more significant with respect to plays and word-of-mouth is more significant for musicals. This obviously doesn't relate to NYT reviews specifically, but I'd assume that any effect of a review is magnified when it's the NYT. But a great review is no guarantee of commerical success anymore, that's for sure, and there are shows up right now that prove that point when you look at the grosses. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| A great NY Times review doesn't mean box office either | |
| Posted by: | Greg_M 06:02 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - broadwaybacker 04:35 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| a good review can still leave the public cold, but a bad review can still hurt at the box-office - though not as much as 20 years ago | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| i would say in the short term | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 04:18 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| the boxoffice could see a bump due to a good review. but probably that affect is only for a month or so and then word of mouth has to take over. NYTimes review can't save a show | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? | |
| Posted by: | JohnPopa 03:34 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| It seems to matter more when people agree with the review :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| They do have a deep bench, | |
| Posted by: | Neilfrombrooklyn 03:03 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Does the NY Times review really "matter" anymore? - Genealley 03:00 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| wide circulation and are generally respected. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: They do have a deep bench, | |
| Posted by: | Haberville (Haberville@aol.com) 03:51 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | They do have a deep bench, - Neilfrombrooklyn 03:03 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I would say that the power of the NY Times was being diluted even back during Frank Rich's reign. When he wrote raves (even adding follow-up puff pieces as he did with SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE or his one-man campaigns for shows like Jules Feiffer's GROWN-UPS as just one example) he couldn't really put shows into the money making column. Yes, his pans could close shows that were wholly dependent on favorable Times reviews due to the high level of readers then that were theatre goers... but those days began waning before he left and mean far less now through the eighteen year run of Brantley (alongside help from Isherwood and others). I found it very interesting this morning that there was a SIDE SHOW rave in the Times from Isherwood, when it was Brantley's rave in 1997 that sent me to buy tickets immediately fearing I would be sold out. When I got to the theatre two weeks later, I was stunned to see all the empty seats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 07:10 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: They do have a deep bench, - Haberville 03:51 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Raves from Atkinson did not make hits out of The Grass Harp (the play) or Greenwillow. I suppose that his Greenwillow review could be regarded as favorable rather than a rave, but in the Drama Critics Circle voting in 1960, Atkinson chose it the best musical of the season over Fiorello!, Gypsy, The Sound of Music and Bye Bye Birdie. And, of course, Atkinson panned Bye Bye Birdie, yet it did not suffer too much from his lack of enthusiasm. (Suskin, by the way, lists no favorable reviews for Greenwillow. Valuable as those two books are, the tallies for some shows are not accurate.) Going back to the 1930s, a favorable Times for the first Broadway production of 3-Penny Opera did not make it a hit. More recently (but well before Rich), a very favorable review from Barnes and a rave from Kerr could not help Moonchildren run more than two weeks. It's hard for me to understand why Merrick did not give it at least a couple of more weeks under the circumstances. Conversely, I'd say that Rich's review and followup columns on Sunday in the Park With George had a pretty major effect. If the production still closed at a fairly big loss, it did surprisingly well for a long time given what the reviews were like overall. Although it won the New York Drama Critics Circle award with a majority (10 out of 19 critics) on the first ballot, my memory is that the Times was the only favorable review of the daily papers and the television reviews weren't too favorable overall. Despite its easy win in the Drama Critics Circle, there was never a feeling that the show had gotten mostly favorable reviews. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | toddlin 08:41 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - AlanScott 07:10 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| In an online forum last year I asked Ben Brantley what effect the new media had on newspapers and whether it had diluted the power of old school press. He replied that "everyone's a critic" and pointed out the case of ABIE'S IRISH ROSE, a 1920's musical that received terrible reviews but ran 5 years. I took from that that even he is skeptical about a critic's power . | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 09:45 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - toddlin 08:41 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| "I took from that that even he is skeptical about a critic's power." He should be, since he probably realizes he has very little nowadays. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 09:46 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - sandcastle 09:45 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| who has more? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 09:47 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - enoch10 09:46 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I really can't think of anyone, to be honest with you. Not in this age of "blogs." (And chat rooms.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back | |
| Posted by: | Ann 11:16 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - sandcastle 09:47 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I don't think there really are any chat rooms anymore, unless there are still some on those sites one would erase from their browser history. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 09:11 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Examples of the limits of the Times's power go way back - toddlin 08:41 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Abie's Irish Rose was a play, not a musical. Did Brantley say it was a musical? In any case, I just looked up the Times review, which I had looked up once in the past. The truth is that while there's a legend that it did not get good reviews, the review in the Times was actually rather favorable, if in a sort of odd way. The anonymous critic mostly describes the play and to some degree seems to just assume it's going to be a hit. He says it has its dullish spots, but that the "highly sophisticated Summer audience" clearly took the play to its heart. And he concludes by predicting a long run, suggesting that an exceptionally long run is quite possible. Rather prescient. If anything, the critic seems to go out of his way to suggest that even though the show might be thought of as a middle-brow and essentially mediocre, hackneyed crowdpleaser, even a sophisticated audience responded to it very positively. The play was perhaps considered already almost critic-proof as it had been successfully produced in Los Angeles and San Francisco. And it had gotten publicity as the playwright, Anne Nichols, put together the New York production on her own, even directing it, despite the fact that a producer had an option on her script. But he kept not producing it in New York, so she went ahead on her own, he tried to stop her, and then they came to a truce. The Times critic discusses this. I think it's in Brantley's own interest for him to suggest that there had always been real limits to the power of the Times. That way it does not so much seem like the power of the Times's lead critic has reached its lowest point while he is in the position. But I do think it's true that there have always been limits to the power of the Times, although it did (and still does, if to a lesser degree) have power. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that | |
| Posted by: | toddlin 09:27 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - AlanScott 09:11 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| No...my bad. Didn't do my research. Anyway...play or musical..he seems to think the reviews were bad...so ask him. As to the point of this whole thread I think it's fairly clear that The NYT review is still the one that counts. How much reviews matter overall is subject to debate. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 10:19 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - toddlin 09:27 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, I agree. The Times still counts the most. It can't necessarily make or break a show on its own, but it never really could. I just remembered another example of the limits of the power of the Times in the past. Kerr was the daily critic when The Homecoming opened in 1967. He didn't like it, but it ran long enough to win the Tony and the Drama Critics awards and those surely helped it to have a good run. Maybe it never sold out, but it paid off. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 09:21 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - AlanScott 09:11 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| >> That way it does not so much seem like the power of the Times's lead critic has reached its lowest point while he is in the position. i'm not sure that's the case. i think when there were more critics the opinion could get diluted. if, for example, the times hated something virtually everybody else loved the voice could get drowned out easier than today when there are far fewer critics with real clout. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 10:02 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: As it turns out, Brantley is wrong about that - enoch10 09:21 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| That's an interesting point. You certainly do see it in shows like some of those I mentioned above. Atkinson was the only major critic to go in big way for Greenwillow, and I think also for The Grass Harp, and his lonely enthusiasm could not counteract the lack of enthusiasm from the other major critics. And his lack of enthusiasm for Birdie did not hurt it much when all the other major reviews were favorable to raves. And Atkinson is often felt to have been the most influential of all the Times critics. On the other hand, in the 1960s and 1970s there were at least two examples of producers pulling the plug immediately — literally immediately, one performance — on two shows that got good reviews from other major sources. Those shows were Johnny No-Trump and Father's Day. Where Richard Barr seems to have felt he did make the right choice with the former (despite a rave from Kerr in the Sunday Times after the closing), Joe Kipness later said that he had probably made a mistake by closing Father's Day immediately, especially since (as the Times pointed out) he was the producer of Applause, still playing to packed houses at the time. So there was such a perception of the power of the Times that producers sometimes just gave up in the face of a negative Times review. I don't think there's any question that if the power of the Times is lower than ever in the past (or at least at any point in the last 80 years or so), it's a reflection of the lessening power of theatre critics generally. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: They do have a deep bench, | |
| Posted by: | dottie20 04:54 pm EST 11/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: They do have a deep bench, - Haberville 03:51 pm EST 11/18/14 |
|
| |
| I saw the original production on a Friday night a couple of weeks after the show officially opened, and, I too, was surprised at how empty the theatre was. I was 5th row center orchestra (TKTS). It felt like they were playing for a private audience. The only other time I had seen an audience that small, was a Wednesday matinee (2/14/79) of Eubie. I was a sophomore in high school, and that image of hardly anyone being there has always stuck with me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.283240 seconds.