This will be the SIXTH Broadway production of this musical -- roughly one a decade since its premiere in 1950.
Its always been for me a somewhat boring, vastly overrated show -- and the announcement of Des McAnuff (whose productions are uniformly polished, slick, and relatively bland) doesn't inspire much excitement for me, either.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
Originally posted by FtWorthGuy: It's a classic that has four distinctively different GREAT roles for actors. I'm not surprised about this revival and looking forward to it.
The last revival was 1992, definitely time for another!!
Originally posted by stevie: Because it's a great show with one of the great Broadway scores of all time. I'll take it over West Side Story any day.
Put down the crackpipe.
Wow, you're an overwhelming ass when it comes to other people's opinions.
And you, apparently, have no sense of humor and need to lighten up.
Wrong.
That only works when you say something funny or clever. It was neither. It was an ad hominem, a way of calling someone an idiot. What am I supposed to find funny in a comment like "Put down the crackpipe"? That's not a joke, that's a blindside.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: stevie,
Originally posted by stevie: Because it's a great show with one of the great Broadway scores of all time. I'll take it over West Side Story any day.
Put down the crackpipe.
Wow, you're an overwhelming ass when it comes to other people's opinions.
And you, apparently, have no sense of humor and need to lighten up.
Wrong.
That only works when you say something funny or clever. It was neither. It was an ad hominem, a way of calling someone an idiot. What am I supposed to find funny in a comment like "Put down the crackpipe"? That's not a joke, that's a blindside.
This really is the last thing I'm going to say on this supremely idiotic topic, but I would think that if you've been haunting these forums since 2002, a place in which disagreement frequently comes in a far more pejorative form than the comment I made, you'd have a slightly thicker skin by now.
You'll take Guys and Dolls, I'll take West Side Story. The end.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
This really is the last thing I'm going to say on this supremely idiotic topic, but I would think that if you've been haunting these forums since 2002, a place in which disagreement frequently comes in a far more pejorative form than the comment I made, you'd have a slightly thicker skin by now.
Huh? And that's what gives you the right to behave like a jerk to me? And entirely without any provocation, for no reason other than you disagree?
And you don't see how narrow-minded that is?
The issue is not whether I should be able to handle nasty posts better than you think I should. The issue is not whether other, stupider people have said more pejorative things than you. The issue is that what you said was nasty and obnoxious and I took offense to it. And the issue is also your inability to see why you may have (perhaps inadvertantly) offended me. I'd have hoped that something you'd write in response would have included the hint of an apology, or at least an acknowledgement that what you said crossed a line - for me, if not for you - and at least a little respect for my position, seeing as how I was on the receiving end of your unwarranted crack.
But since what you did now was find a second way to call me an idiot - and since you didn't answer my question as to why what you said was funny, probably because you couldn't come up with an answer - then it's clear there was nothing inadvertant in what you wrote, and clearly the idea that you went too far never occured to you, and if it does now you're not going to give me the satisfaction of showing it to me.
Jerks unfortunately do lurk all over the world, including message boards. These are people who feel they can say anything they please to anyone, and don't you dare tell them they may have gone over the line. Because then you're stepping on their right to say s hit to you.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: stevie,
This message has been edited. Last edited by: BamaEd,
****************************** LORELAI: You ruined my joke. RORY: Um, no, the punchline ruined your joke. (from Eight O'Clock at the Oasis) ******************************
Posts: 2450 | Location: Baltimore, MD (but originally from Alabama, southern at heart) | Registered: March 19, 2002
The casting of Oliver Platt, whose last Broadway appearance in "Shinging City" was one of the highlight performances of the 06-07 season, is something I'm having real difficulty envisioning, but he's an actor's actor and may surprise.
Lauren Graham does possess a certain kewpie-doll quality that's right for Adelaide. That one feels a bit more right.
But the whole idea of this revival irritates the **** out of me.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
The best reviews are for Kate Jennings and Lauren Graham, but opinions are varying even for them. The biggest criticism for the prodcution is that it's over-produced and awkwardly cheographed. Oliver Platt is getting pummeled. Not that I was expecting any less. Platt is a giddy musical opposite Lauren Graham? It doesn't compute.
Congrats Kristen! All the PD haters can (SPOILER ALERT) Suck it!
