And...Daniel Davis is working Again! — Page 2

That's interesting...I thought Goulet might draw, since he is a name, so to speak, although an odd choice for the role (and way too old--no offense, anyone!)Maybe they want him as a "name" for the tour, if there is one?

Thanks for answering my question of many posts ago, gymman. I don’t remember hearing anything like that. As I heard it, it was Drescher who didn’t want to do the reunion and she only changed her mind after Lifetime let her direct an episode of Strong Medicine. It seems odd that she would then be critical of Davis if, in fact, he didn’t want to do the reunion.

Anyway, in an attempt to bring this back on topic, I’ll add that I’m glad he’s doing that play and glad that this project will actually be recorded.

I guess she was pissed that Davis was the only one who didn't show...the whole thing was pretty lame. I sure can't figure these folks out.

Oh Lord, Diva, just when I was hanging up my boxing gloves. Don't make me come over there!

I was very disappointed not to see Bob Goulet at the Nanny reunion, but I've put it behind me.

---

TheaterDiva: I am not a press agent for Mr Davis nor do I have anything to gain by sticking up for him...but what you are doing on this board is the same thing that was done in the gossip columns...with NO chance for the man to defend himself.

Maybe he is a tempermental performer...gee, now isn't that unusual in the entertainment industry! As if that alone should get you kicked out of a show. I've worked for directors who were close to Nazi clones in their approach to people skills and have worked with performers who would curl your hair.

You don't have to marry the guy or even have a cup of coffee with him...and just because he is difficult(or isn't difficult, depending on you talk to...because there are plenty of people who say he is just fine to work with)does not make for a 'firing' situation.

For this to happen in any production, movie or TV show, the situation has to be pretty dire...because it's a real PAIN to replace someone in the middle of a run or close to opening.

The original post was to applaud the fact that he is working again in LA. If you dislike him as much as you seem to and you are in New York, YOU TOO should be applauding the fact that he got a job there. Enough already with the veiled accusations and 'I know what I'm talking about' insider spiel. We get it. You don't LIKE DANIEL DAVIS

---

Why on earth would I want to give it up, TheatreDiva? Because YOU told me to? You're not the boss of me!!!!

---

Now that's a story i would actually believe!

---

and a lousy person..but so what? You are right--if he's great on stage, who cares? And he cracks me up in "The Nanny."~so I have no taste...

I'm confused by people saying that there was "no hard evidence" that Daniel Davis was indeed difficult on La Cage. Wasn't the management quite explicit about their reasons for firing him? I don't recall the famous phrase "creative differences" being used in their press release.

By the way, to let Mr. Davis go, after earning excellent reviews, in addition to having to pay the guy off, is unprecedented. It was expensive, and bad for the show, but from I've heard from people in the show, the producers had no choice. There would have been a mutiny if he stayed.

---

I've heard the exact opposite - the cast was not happy that he left. As for the producers being explicit - they weren't. Michael Reidel broke the story and loaded it into his gossip column so the two came out as one news item. Caused a lot of confusion along with the impression that the producers said what they could not actually be quoted as saying. I'm so tired of going here over and over again.

The producers had Goulet ready in the wings and I don't think they expected it to be bad for the show. 20/20 hindsight.

The fact that the management did something lousy is not implicit justfication for doing something lousy. It would work that way for eveybody, then.

---

Does anyone have the exact wording of what the producers gave as their reason for firing Daniel Davis? My point was that they must have had SOME reason for firing at great expense a well reviewed principal.

As regards members of the company being sorry he left...I'm very close to some of the principals involved here, and they all say he HAD to go. There very may well be some people who sorry to see him go, but I havn't met any of them.

---

Okay, I have to admit, the doughnut thing is funny.

---