Fodor's Travel Talk Forums

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)
-   United States (https://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/)
-   -   Best Broadway show (https://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/best-broadway-show-600378/)

jfgm78 Mar 18th, 2006 05:53 PM

Best Broadway show
 
Please advice on best Broadway show at present.

Gekko Mar 18th, 2006 06:04 PM

If you prefer plays, <b>Barefoot in the Park</b> is great. Patrick Wilson has incredible comic timing, and, in her Broadway debut, the lovely Amanda Peet has grown into her role after initially disappointing reviews. Amanda's performance today, for example, was right on (after a quick, bit shill first 5 minutes).

And the play's music is a lot of fun ('60's songs).

Musical -- <b>Dirty Rotten Scoundrels</b>.

starrsville Mar 18th, 2006 06:11 PM

&quot;Best&quot; is so subjective

IMHO - Wicked

Although, attendance stats and grosses tend to support my opinion

What kind of shows do YOU like?

HowardR Mar 18th, 2006 07:54 PM

As starrsville said, &quot;best&quot; is a very subjective term when it comes to the theater. You could get 25-50 responses and they'd probably cover at least 3/4 of the shows on Broadway.
Again, quoting starrsville, what are theatrical tastes like?
If I was to select the best of Broadway, my choice would be Sweeney Todd. But, that's a show that not everyone would like.

jfgm78 Mar 18th, 2006 08:20 PM

Thank you for your responses, I agree &quot;best&quot; is subjective, but it's interesting what is best for each one. I love musicals, I saw Sweeney Todd years ago with Angela Lansbury (I was very young) and I liked it very much. My all time favorite is &quot;Little Night Music&quot;. What I like about musicals are beautiful songs, most musicals have mediocre songs.

Neopolitan Mar 18th, 2006 09:14 PM

I agree it's so subjective. It would be hard to top Doubt as a play in my opinion. Musicals like The Producers, Hairspray, and Wicked are so big and so fun.
As an avid theatre goer, Barefoot in the Park would be one of my last choices, but then I don't go to a Broadway show and pay $100 a ticket to gawk at a pretty actress, nor to listen to recorded music from the 60's or any other time-- I like a lot more than that from my theatre experiences. It got pretty horrible reviews from most critics also.

Intrepid1 Mar 18th, 2006 11:25 PM

Apparently people go to the theatre for different reasons and all of them are valid despite some people's attempt to demonize them.

You might also consider Spamalot.

HowardR Mar 19th, 2006 04:53 AM

Since you apparently are a Stephen Sondheim fan, I reiterate my recommendation of Sweeney Todd. Incidentally, you'll find this version much different--and, I think, even better--than the original with Angela Lansbury.

Neopolitan Mar 19th, 2006 06:05 AM

Intrepid, I take it that comment was aimed at me, and you are right. I apologize. I often forget that people do have a valid reason for going to the theatre just to &quot;see&quot; a famous person or gawk at a pretty actress. I have never understood it, so it is difficult for me to understand, but of course if that's their goal, then good for them. At least it gets them into the theatre.

Gekko Mar 19th, 2006 08:39 AM

In my extensive experience hosting visitors to NYC, the vast majority of tourist theater-goers <i>strongly</i> prefer to see celebrities perform rather than &quot;no name&quot; actors.

Couple Hollywood sizzle with a great Neil Simon play, and you have a winner -- <b>Barefoot in the Park</b>. No wonder yesterday's performance was standing-room only and followed by an exhuberant standing ovation.

And the '60's soundtrack?? Like the ultra-popular Mamma Mia, it had people dancing in their seats!

Nikki Mar 19th, 2006 10:17 AM

I loved Sweeney Todd. I loved the production with Angela Lansbury 25 years ago. I loved this one more. Much more. There are presently discounts on www.playbill.com and on other sites for all performances except Friday and Saturday evenings until April 30.

I'm even thinking of going to see it again.

HowardR Mar 19th, 2006 11:39 AM

For the record:
*Unfortunately, standing ovations have gotten to be the norm at Broadway shows. It's when a performance doesn't get a standing ovation that it's worth noting.
*Saying that the vast majority of theatergers strongly prefer seeing celebrities perform rather than &quot;no names&quot; is only a reflection of Gekko's guests, not the general tourist population. I would contend that it's not necessarily the norm. My contention is certainly verified by the fact that the five longest running shows in Broadway history--Phantom of the Opera, Cats, Les Miserables, A Chorus Line and Oh Calcutta--have hardly featured name performers during their long runs. Further, name a &quot;star&quot; in either of two of Broadway's current long-running smashes--Wicked and Lion King!
Of course, people want to see celebrities, but lets not get carried away!
Case closed!
There are still a lot of tourists out there who want to see the best of Broadway, regardless of who is appearing! And, sorry, but Barefoot in the Park doesn't qualify as the best of Broadway!

rogfam Mar 19th, 2006 12:14 PM

We have enjoyed Spamalot, Sweeney Todd, Jersey Boys, I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change (off Bway), Wicked, Mama Mia, and Hairspray. The best? Jersey Boys (story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons) would get my recent choice. Then again, I'm from the 60's!!

starrsville Mar 19th, 2006 12:21 PM

Idina Menzel. Opened Wicked as Elfaba and Rent as Maureen.

BUT, Howard is right. I have fallen in love with her SINCE discovering the Wicked soundtrack and have been a fan since. The show (as the others he names) is the star.

I have seen so-so shows and the &quot;names&quot; were indeed draws - but both have been disappointing (show and &quot;star's&quot; performances.

Example - I went to see Imaginary Friends to see Swoozie Kurtz - but Cherry Jones blew us away.


samschack Mar 19th, 2006 12:45 PM

As indicated by others &quot;best&quot; is very difficult to agree on. It's all so subjective.
For what it's worth we just returned from a short trip to the city and saw Jersy Boys and absolutely loved it!
Music, production, everything about it was top notch. That said, it would be impossible to say it is the &quot;best&quot; show now playing since we have seen only half a dozen or so productions from what are currently playing and even so, it is another's opinion at that.
Whenever we are planning a trip which includes a show I like to spend some time checking websites of the shows themselves and getting information about the productions. The &quot;Playbill&quot; website is also a useful tool.
Most of the musicals will have samples of the music (on their websites) so you will have an idea of what you are going to hear and decide if it is something that will appeal to you.
Well before recorded music, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, opera companies would hire singers to go into the towns prior to the opening of their productions and sing some of the music to familiarize people it. Today we have the ability of getting the soundtracks or just accessing the show's websites to be able to accomplish much the same thing.
Perhaps I go a bit overboard but when one is paying $100 + for a show it isn't a bad idea to make sure you will be spending your money on something you will actually enjoy seeing.

Neopolitan Mar 19th, 2006 01:28 PM

I'll approach this cautiously in the hopes it isn't misunderstood.

When out of town guests who really know little to nothing about theatre are given a choice of things to see -- and none of the titles are familiar, but some of the names ARE, of course, they will pick seeing the celebrity. If someone said to me, &quot;do you want to see Nicole Kidman in a new play called DUDS IS US or do you want to see a play called RELATIVE KINDNESS, I don't know who's in it?&quot; -- guess which I would pick -- or nearly anyone else for that matter?

It's also true that many people will return from such a show and say &quot;I saw 'so and so' in a play, but I forget the name of it&quot;. So sometimes the star power really is the only thing that interests them or maybe the end result is that the name far overshadowed the quality of the production or the play itself. People who see starless plays like Wicked or Phantom are far less likely to forget the name of the play they saw.


HowardR Mar 19th, 2006 01:31 PM

starrsville, thanks for further proving my point. You mention Idina Menzel, whose long-since departure proves my point! Wicked continues to sell out with unknowns heading the cast!

starrsville Mar 19th, 2006 06:32 PM

I do completely agree with your point, Howard. That was the point of my post. Wicked is not a &quot;star&quot; show - no matter how good the talent. I was also agreeing with and supporting Patrick's stance.

luv2fly Mar 19th, 2006 07:48 PM

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels now has Jonathan Price (from the original Miss Saigon) in the Lithgow part. He received excellent reviews in last week's NY Times.

Great show. Lots of laughs.

cindymal Mar 19th, 2006 10:32 PM

Just saw Hairspray and I loved it.
Wicked was amazing.
Spamalot was great
Loved Doubt but you must love Drama.
The Odd Couple was just ok
Hated Mama Mia.The cast was blah.
Trying to decide which play to take my parents to for their 50th wedding anniversary.Thinking about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels or Chicago?
Any thoughts.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:50 PM.