re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 08:00:02 PM
"I've been to the concert, and you have not."
There's plenty of video of these with lots of audience shots. Clay's fans are overwhelmingly older (50-60) white overweight women.
"Most of the fans believe what he says about himself, and also believe in person's right to self-identify."
Not Clay's apparently. You're not willing to accept any answer other than "he's straight."
"You'll believe anything posted on the Internet, won't you? "
I don't, Chexxxy
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 06:47:01 PM
"There are fans of all ages at his concerts, so he has plenty of women to choose from."
Fans of all ages? That's not what the videos taken at these concerts suggest. And isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that every woman that goes to one of those concerts would want to carry a gay guy's baby?
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 06:21:51 PM
"this thread is a great example of why i don't post very often on this site..."
God knows we've all been losing sleep wondering why you don't post here more often.
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 06:18:26 PM
"Go to a Clay Aiken concert some time. That will blow your theory that a 50 year old producer is the only person he could talk into having his child out of the water."
That wasn't my theory at all, Chexxxy. But I don't know why you'd want me to go to a Clay Aiken concert. The only potential baby-mamas there would be older and less attractive than the one he chose.
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 05:53:31 PM
"Your favorite tabloid site said from the beginning that Clay was going to be involved in his child's life, so why is this a surprise? Most children do get their father's last name."
Correction, Chexxxy. Most children born through natural means get the dad's last name. When it's one of those deals where the guy is helping a woman have a baby of her own, it's usually HER last name that's given to the baby.
The fact that this kid is "Foster Aiken" and not "Aiken Foster" blows you
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 05:41:51 PM
"Or maybe the woman did not want the anonymous donor to father her child, and asked a trusted friend with the known health history to help her out."
Well, let's look at the baby's name for clues. "Aiken" is Dad's last name and "Parker" is Dad's mother's last name. Out of the three names this kid has, only one of them corresponds to his birth mother. Also, the baby was born in North Carolina (where dad lives--mom lives in LA) and Dad's mother was the one to break the news to the world.
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 05:11:56 PM
"Look what the toilet flushed out. Where have you been?"
Looking after some nutjob in Niles, Michigan.
"And having a baby via in vitro fertilization does not prove anything about the father, except in your delusional mind. That procedure was developed for straight couples in the first place."
So what? The point still stands: the only reason that a young guy would have a baby out of wedlock with a 50 year old "friend" is that the guy is gay. How much more obvious could
|
re: Congratulations to Clay Aiken!!!
Aug 8
2008, 04:56:43 PM
Cartwheel, you're spinning. Clay's fans had been hoping that the baby rumors weren't true to the point where it wasn't allowed to be mentioned or discussed on many of his fanboards.
The fact that it's turned out to be true confirms what many of them were afraid of: that he's gay. There's really no other reason that a young guy would have a baby with a 50-year-old "friend."
|
Reviews of Clay in Spamalot?
Jan 23
2008, 07:51:14 PM
So far there are not only any REAL reviews of Clay, there are really almost no personal reviews (except from his fans, who are far too biased and crazy to be trusted).
I wonder why there's such a relative absence of reviews?
|
re: Getting out of paying royalties
Jan 21
2008, 09:31:21 PM
They do this sort of thing all the time on MadTV and such... and they are very careful to deviate just enough to keep it legal.
They do. Those are called "soundalikes" and they're legal. Walter Murphy writes tons of them for "Family Guy." Actually, they're getting sued over one right now that may have been a little too close to the original composition.
|
re: Here's How You Deal With Gay Rumors
Jan 18
2008, 07:36:48 AM
Then he realized that giving an honest answer only prompts the gossip mongers to make up more lies, and stopped bothering.
That makes no sense at all.
I think it's much more likely that Clay used to openly lie about his orientation. Once certain proof of his dishonesty came to light, he started refusing to make any comment at all.
|
re: 44 Years Ago Tonight
Jan 18
2008, 07:31:09 AM
Wouldn't Clay Aiken make a fabulous Cornelius?
Not a chance.
|
re: 'Zombie Prom' free on Itunes
Oct 31
2007, 12:29:38 PM
Count me as one of the people who loved the show off-Broadway (I worked on it) and one of the people who was disappointed in the "film version," which I had been dying to see since I read about it a year ago.
Let me count the ways: the actors playing Jonny and Toffee look to be about 30 years old; Rupaul is dreadful as Miss Strict--which would probably explain why they cut all of Strict's songs, including the showstopping "Rules Regulations and Respect;" outside of one very funny moment
|
re: GREAT songs from FLOP musicals?
Oct 31
2007, 12:06:38 PM
My vote is for pretty much anything from Craig Carnelia's score to "Is There Life After High School." Most especially "Fran and Janie."
(Speaking of Rowe and Dempsey, I've always been partial to "Rules Regulations and Respect" from "Zombie Prom," which I was surprised wasn't part of the short film adaptation of the show now available for free download on ITunes. Who films a musical and doesn't include the one big showstopping song from the stage version?)
|
re: Highly acclaimed shows that you just don't like...
Oct 28
2007, 03:23:28 AM
I've always thought "Rent" was incredibly overrated. I saw the original cast just after it opened on Broadway and I couldn't believe how dreadful it was, especially since I had read all of the hype and was certain I was going to love it.
|
re: How Producers Make Money
Oct 26
2007, 02:10:16 AM
This information is also available in any of the books on producing commercial theatre. I'm not sure what your point is exactly.
|
re: Clue: The Play?
Oct 22
2007, 12:06:27 AM
There's an adaptation of the film that some company in SF is doing, but someone else on another board that's looking for a straight play version of "Clue" checked and seemed to feel that the SF version is unauthorized. But I'm putting in the link anyway.
I'm with the other poster, though. I don't think a legal straight play version exists and think you might be better off just choosing something else.
|
re: Why do producers share in profits?
Oct 21
2007, 11:51:34 PM
But - why? Once a show is open, a producer's work is done. It's not their money, so why do they share in profits?
I don't see how you're figuring that it's "not their money." Of COURSE it's their money!
Putting it simply...a producer is the owner of the production, and has the same rights and responsibilities as the owner of any other kind of business. The producer raises the money get the show up and to pay all of the people (authors, actors, director, designers, stage
|
re: Train Wrecks You Wish You Had Seen
Oct 21
2007, 01:36:33 PM
"Kev2222, where did Ellen Greene say that? Is there a book or interview where she discusses Rachael Lily Rosenbloom...?"
People swear I'm crazy when I tell them this story.
When I got out of college I ran a high school theatre department and I'd get frequent mailings--sales brochures about this show or that show being available for production--from licensing houses. One was about "Rachael Lily Rosenbloom," which I had never heard of before that. But it contained the Ellen Green
|
re: Anyone Else Kinda Feeling Their Love Of Musicals Dissipating?
Oct 21
2007, 01:16:51 PM
"I just wish people would try harder when making them. They're just not original anymore."
Oh, sure they are. The problem is that we're not really getting a chance to experience new musicals the way that we used to. For the last 20 years, Broadway has embraced revivals over new work to the point where it's starting to feel like a time warp. The art can't move forward if all we're going to do is rehash successes from yesteryear.
Keep in mind that for every revival and jukebox m
|
