JoeKv99 said: "I wonder if they'd remove a hot dog cart to be sensitive to vegans?"
Not really, they have had vegan hot dogs for quite some time now.
Also, vegans are a minority, so it is a slightly backward correlation to this situation. In this case, it is the majority not wanting to see a minority experience represented onstage.
Also: this is a community theatre. IF- big IF- anyone was getting paid, it was paltry. If your producers have a moral stance you object to and they aren't paying your bills, reclaim your damn time.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
TOM5 SAID: John August was the sole author of the screenplay in addition to being the book writer for the musical. I think his opinion - artistically - would be the only one that mattered.
According to Wikipedia, John August is openly gay, and lives in Los Angeles with his husband, Michael August, and their daughter.
"The addition of this moment was not in the script, it was not necessary to the story."
Thank you, I totally agree. If they want to do a sad musical that closed within 4 months on Broadway, then do it. I mean, fu*k, they are talking about the goddamn musical that made NORBERT LEO BUTZ LEAVE BROADWAY FOR FIVE YEARS! I am so glad to have him back!
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
I don't particularly care what you think, but he left Broadway and then did two television series, after being consistently in the theater scene for 13 years. And yes, the second to last performance of Big Fish in December, he told the person next to me outside that he was "taking a long break after this one". Just like Andy Karl told his followers on social media after Groundhog Day. There are only so many flops one can be in before they try a different path.
If you don't care what people think, why are you on a public discussion board? Oh, right, because you think we need to hear what you think.
Maybe he should make better choices. People need breaks from ALL sorts of jobs -- the show didn't make him leave bway. He chose to do so -- to work that is a lot less demanding of your energy and time while at the same time making more money. It's hard on a soul being part of flops -- on B'way or tv or film. Sadly, NLB hasn't been in a success for a long time (not including the current MFL).
To blame the show is ridiculous.That also has no bearing on any other group mounting a production - as if they deserve to fail just for picking a show you have a personal (ridiculous) grudge against.
Good to those standing by their personal convictions. I think the producers are incredibly in the wrong, but within their jurisdiction to make that choice. It's on them if the theater has to close over the financial loss.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Frankly, I'd have hoped for something more strongly worded from two married gay men, one of whom has a child, but I'm also glad that they've weighed in at all. It would be truly wonderful if they made good on their pledge to help the show be produced with the same cast and creatives elsewhere.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
This was an interesting thread to follow (Kad, you post about being offended that it was Big Fish make my morning). At first it seemed like a minor kerfuffle between a director and a producer but then as I kept reading it seemed there was a lot more to the story. Could the director have realized that this group was a bunch of nuts and decided he/she (not sure of the director's gender) wanted out? Could be. Regardless of the reasons, the director had their artistic view of the show and the producers had theirs. The director thought that it was important enough to quit over (as did other cast members) and the producers could have replaced the director but chose not to, again, THEIR choice. Don't blame the director for the producers closing down the production. People make choices and there are consequences. They hired the director for his/her vision, if you don't like what they're doing then replace them. It's one of the reasons theatre's have contracts. Both parties spell out the must haves and if you breach the contract, either way, there are penalties. To me it sounds like this company wanted this director and told them that they could include a gay couple however he got too uppity by choosing to highlight the couple downstage which was too much for the producers to handle (so it's ok to include them but they need to sit in the back of the bus?) Bravo to the director for standing up for their vision.
EllieRose2 said: "he left Broadway and then did two television series, after being consistently in the theater scene for 13 years."
Is not doing a Broadway show because you were booking TV work considered leaving Broadway? I mean, if he stopped acting entirely after Big Fish, then that would be easier to read into, but he never stopped working as an actor, just stopped showing up in one medium? Eh...
"nowhere in the script does it say that any character is gay or lesbian or trans. But nor does it say they aren't. A director's decision to signal that two silent characters are same-sex parents isn't changing the text. It's providing context and framing. It's directing."
==> this board is a nest of vipers <==
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene" - Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage
I really don't have the time to read through 5 pages but just wonder how these 2 men would have been dressed, how were they walking, were they holding hands? What actually made them stand out as 2 gay men and a baby--wasn't that actually a title '2 men and a baby?'. It could actually have been a straight father and his best mate trying to get the child to sleep whilst the mother had hers--who knows.
The directors intent was deliberate to make the characters gay, so I would be more interested in knowing how he depicted 2 obviously homosexual fathers in a 30sec crossover in a crowd to create such a storm.
In the owners announcement page on the FBI's link, they reveal a lot of their side of it. And they are getting trounced. Playing the victim to the hilt.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.