#976
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:13pm
Reading some of these posts is like taking a nap
HONEYMOON IN VEGAS struggling on Broadway — Page 40
#977
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:15pm
how is the show old fashioned in all the wrong ways?
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#978
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:16pm
Sushi, now that you have acknowledged that folks who saw the show and hated it are not mindless, perhaps you'd like to revisit the notion that folks who judge a show without seeing it are mindless. In fact, making judgments is what the human mind is for. There are something like 5000 shows produced in this city every year. I see about 150 on average, which is about 3% of them. How is it possible to decide what to see and what to skip without making judgments? Now perhaps it wuldn't be so bad to say you think people should keep their judgments about unseen shows to themselves, but a lot of times we benefit from hearing the bases of each other's judgments. My hunch is that what you are saying is really a euphemism for your not liking it when others are not interested in what interests you, but that too is the essence of human minds. We have disparate tastes.
#979
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:17pm
The questionable gender politics of the show have been discussed a great deal on this board.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#980
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:21pm
lol that is such bs. Its reality whether you like it or not
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#981
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:23pm
Philly, you of all people on this forum absolutely do not want to go down that road.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#982
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:23pm
what road? I dont even fully understand what you are talking about? Gender politics??
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#983
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:24pm
Hogan - Judging a show without seeing it (in an effort to disuade others from seeing it), to me, is wrong (and, in fact, a mindless and hateful attempt to disuade others from seeing it). I hope that we can, at least, agree on that. People judging shows which they have seen (whether they were comped a ticket or have gainful emplyment to afford them the opportunity to see what they like), is a welcome input to a thread such as this and is a valued contribution to one making their own decision as to whether or not to see the show in question. People who have not seen the show should keep their "insights" to themselves; that is my opinion. I feel this way, because I have often seen a show, expecting not to like it, and been pleasantly surprised. What does someone judging a show that they have not seen, gain from stating their uneducated opinions?
And, by the way, I am not here for an argument (as many seem to be). I can easily agree to disagree on the topic of whether a show is worth seeing or not; I just question the motives.
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 03:24 PM
#984
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:28pm
what road? I dont even fully understand what you are talking about? Gender politics??
Proof positive that the American education system is failing our youth...
Literally. 
#985
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:29pm
"I have likely been seeing shows since you were soiling your diapers."
Yet for some reason, you think you can talk down to us from your high horse when you only joined the forum two months ago.
"And, by the way, I am not here for an argument"
You literally came into this thread for the sole purpose of starting an argument. You called out to the haters to come at you.
Yet for some reason, you think you can talk down to us from your high horse when you only joined the forum two months ago.
"And, by the way, I am not here for an argument"
You literally came into this thread for the sole purpose of starting an argument. You called out to the haters to come at you.
#986
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:31pm
I just dont understand whats his problem with the gender politics in the show
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#987
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:31pm
Neon - that simply is not true. So, feel free to ignore my posts, and I will return the favor.
#988
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:32pm
how does he figure 5000
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#989
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:37pm
Phillypinto---many didn't like the way Betsy was used by her fiance and the Tony Danza character. They felt it was sexist. The idea that a woman could be used as a payment for a gambling debt is pretty crude.
I didn't see it as that harsh as others---it was a screwball (for lack of a better word) comedy that was played for laughs. She did end up being the strongest character and the Tony Danza character was made to look like a fool.
I am a gay man with a 20 year old daughter, so I do take "sexist characters" seriously, but I was not offended by the show.
I certainly see how some others could be offended.
#990
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:46pm
989. 11 to go and then this thread may be sealed into a time capsule.
#992
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:56pm
I only pray that Phillypinto is stuffed in the capsule with this thread. Throw in a real-life bisexual or two while you're at it, actually. Then this bozo will get a real education. I pity the professors who are responsible for his collegiate training. Truly horrifying.
#993
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:59pm
992 !!!!!!!
Just a peace of my mind.
#994
Posted: 4/2/15 at 3:59pm
Sushi,
I think we can agree that actively dissuading someone from seeing a show that you have not seen is wrong, just as actively dissuading someone from seeing a show you HAVE seen is wrong. In the former case, I would think most people could not be dissuaded because a sight unseen comment logically doesn't hold much sway. But I think it is reasonable to describe why you have chosen not to see a show, because that might help guide someone else's analysis of whether they should see it or not. For instance, if I were to say that I did not see Honeymoon (I did see it) because I can't stand Rob McClure (I can), that might help someone else decide whether or not to see it, based on their feelings about Mr. McClure. Although the range of information is narrower, such a comment is no less help, if properly stated, than comments or reviews of the show itself. When you read a review, it should only dissuade you from seeing a show if you know you have the same taste as the writer, or if some information that is conveyed either draws you to the show, or away from it. You can of course disagree, but I think in general more information and analysis is better than less. And I also think that as intelligent human beings, we can process all of it "for what it's worth."
#995
Posted: 4/2/15 at 4:00pm
yeah and there are sexist people out there in the real world. The theatre shows how people are in our society today!!
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#996
Posted: 4/2/15 at 4:02pm
You actually need to stop. Immediately.
#997
Posted: 4/2/15 at 4:03pm
Hogan - I think we have reached agreement based on your posting. I feel that what it all boils down to, is that anyone interested in the theatre, should take comments (as well as reviews) with a grain of salt and decide for themselves, whether or not visiting the show is something which they would like to consider. Just don't try to decide for others. I appreciate your well-written analysis of the subject.
#998
Posted: 4/2/15 at 4:03pm
The point of Honeymoon in Vegas is not to point out sexism. The point of Honeymoon in Vegas is to use a rather sexist story conceit to entertain.
(I was more taken aback by the nymphomaniac Hawaiian tourguide girl- again, a rather sexist stereotype played for laughs).
I'm not discussing this further because discussing anything with you is an exercise in futility.
I mostly want this thread to reach its post count goal.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 4/2/15 at 04:03 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95