[HN Gopher] What's it like to star in a flop?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What's it like to star in a flop?
        
       Author : edward
       Score  : 23 points
       Date   : 2021-12-17 07:01 UTC (15 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
        
       | jerf wrote:
       | Sounds a bit like the work I've done for a startup I eventually
       | knew was dead, followed by the position I was hired into for a
       | contract that never went through... but at least I didn't have an
       | _audience_ for those!
       | 
       | (That dotcom burst thing _suuuuuuucked_.)
        
       | wly_cdgr wrote:
       | As if there's any critic who would work for The Guardian or Times
       | whose opinion matters. It'd be like caring what Kotaku has to say
       | about games
        
       | dhosek wrote:
       | I found it fascinating that the London theatre business is such
       | that a play _must_ continue running for a minimum period
       | (described in the article) even if it 's a failure. That's really
       | bizarre.
       | 
       | In my younger childless life, I used to go to the theatre fairly
       | often and even had a Goodman subscription. I don't think I ever
       | saw anything that would have qualified as a flop or even an
       | artistic failure, but the Chicago theatre scene is pretty
       | vibrant. While we lived in Los Angeles, we went to the theatre
       | less often, but again a pretty vibrant theatre scene although not
       | as risk-taking as Chicago (many smaller venues seemed to be
       | actor-financed productions meant to catch casting directors'
       | eyes, but none of these actor-producers had Ed Wood-like
       | blindness to bad production, at least none that I saw).
       | 
       | My sense is that New York is a lot more risk-averse, especially
       | in the main stages. Perhaps things get more daring in smaller
       | venues in the outer boroughs?
        
       | flooow wrote:
       | I went to see Manor at opening night. I thought it was OK, I was
       | entertained. Was weird to find out (just now!) that it had got an
       | absolute mauling in the press. It makes me wonder if I have
       | terrible taste, and to what extent the 'quality' of a work of art
       | is constructed after the fact by a social in-group (the critics).
       | 
       | Relatedly, I've started watching movies at random, without
       | reading reviews before or after, to try to develop a sense of
       | what _I_ actually enjoy. Whether I have any real critical
       | faculties at all. Perhaps it is all just received opinion. I re-
       | watched League of Extraordinary Gentlemen last night though, and
       | can confirm that it is in fact bad.
        
         | lapetitejort wrote:
         | > I thought it was OK
         | 
         | This may be enough to justify harsh reviews. If people are
         | going to spend several hundred dollars to see a live show, it
         | better be an amazing show, something they'll remember for life.
         | If people want to see something that's just okay they can watch
         | a movie and not regret their loss of time and (nowadays very
         | little, if on a streaming service) money.
        
         | NikolaeVarius wrote:
         | League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a bad movie that is
         | curiously extremely entertaining IMO.
        
           | gilleain wrote:
           | This makes sense if you consider 'quality' and 'enjoyability'
           | on two separate axes:
           | 
           | - High quality and enjoyable? A classic.
           | 
           | - Low quality but enjoyable? A personal favourite.
           | 
           | - High quality but boring? Critics choice that no one
           | watches.
           | 
           | - Low quality but boring? Obvious trash.
        
           | Jenk wrote:
           | For an example of the polar opposite, I thought Drive[0] was
           | exceptionally high quality, yet not even remotely
           | entertaining.
           | 
           | It made for some nice screencap wallpapers, though.
           | 
           | [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/
        
             | celim307 wrote:
             | Drive was made purely for the ambiance and aesthetic.
             | Basically a music video for vaporware soundtrack, or the b
             | roll you see behind the lyrics on a kareoke machine
             | 
             | I enjoyed it
        
           | flooow wrote:
           | Somehow I always remember it as being good escapist fun, but
           | it isn't really. But I'll probably watch it again in a couple
           | of years' time.
        
       | w0mbat wrote:
       | There was a London West End musical life of Leonardo Da Vinci
       | which the critics hated, partly because it featured a fictional
       | female love interest when Leonardo is generally believed to have
       | been gay. It was financed by the island nation of Nauru using
       | proceeds from its guano fertilizer business, prompting every
       | critic to say they had found a way to turn crap into crap.
       | 
       | My Dad told me about another West End disaster called "Fire
       | Angel". Every West End theatre has little signage areas out front
       | where they put press quotes about the show. Even with a terrible
       | show they can always quote critics saying something positive,
       | even if it's only about one song or one actor. However, no review
       | said anything good about the show, so the signs all had snippets
       | like "Fire Angel is a musical" - The Times.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-17 23:00 UTC)