There's so much crazy jumble in that post that it's not even half worth it to try to find or make reason.
Perhaps, then, quickly - as I feel I'd be expected to respond, though I doubt someone to post something so rash would take much to heart:
There are all different kinds of theatre. And nobody's going to try to pass CCBB off as high art and life-changing theatre, but it's certainly far from being as "destructive" as shows that don't even use original, theatrical scores. I'd say a score that's partially taken from a film has a better place on the Broadway stage than one from the career of a rock artist, that wasn't ever intended to be used to tell a story.
The "why pay $100?!?" argument, and using it to say a show is bad is stupid; there are too many ways around paying that much money, that using the tactic kills the point of what you say.
If a set does its job - which CCBB's set does do, even if it is lavish and often extranneously so, then it doesn't take away from the point of theatre. Isn't the point of set design to take the audience to that place? To create at atmosphere? For a show like CCBB, to do that, they have to be the way they are; it's a fantasy, and the sets go to show such. Yes, they're over the top, but I wouldn't call them useless by any measure. And I think they're quite a feat of design, as well - they're enormous and pretty damned complex.
I'm not going to address the slams you made to British theatrical culture because they're unfounded and bitter; but it is funny that you seem to be a fan of Taboo, and you're slandering Brits. Ironic indeed.
And Raúl Esparza? Perhaps slightly miscast, as he isn't the first person I'd assume to put up to the task, yes. But he could do anything he wanted, and do it beautifully. Over the months so far, he's done nothing but grow into the role and get better and better - the first time I saw the show, I would've agreed that he was eaten alive by the huge sets and large ensemble numbers. And even if this is very, very far from the best thing he's done or the best thing he will do - or from that with the most cultural/political integrity and drive, it would take an actor is his ability to make the part anything more than dull. One of my first comments on his performance was that had the part been given to a mediocre actor, it would have been a trainwreck, and that it says something for the part when an actor like Esparza can work as hard as he does, and only take it so far. But because of what he's able to do with such a thin part, I'd not say he's wasted. And to be completely honest, it's probably a nice and well-deserved break from performances where you deal with death and pain eight times a week. Like it or not, this is the sort of show that's going to bring younger generations into the theatre; and if he can be responsible for that, then he isn't wasting his time.
There's a lot more I could say, but why bother? There's my case, I guess.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 8/15/05 at 04:25 PM
The rest of the cast is great, especially Jan and Marc. Jan is brilliantly hysterical. 
She's a sweetie (if we're talking about the same person). I'm assuming it was just a summer thing, then.
