#26
Posted: 7/28/14 at 9:32am
His point was to create a thread in which negative things would accumulate against a single performer.
James Monroe genie hype? — Page 2
#27
Posted: 7/28/14 at 9:45am
@ Gomez3 - You don't have to defend yourself- You have a right to your opinion and the right to express it.
Darreyl with an L!
Updated On: 7/28/14 at 09:45 AM
#28
Posted: 7/28/14 at 11:28am
His point was to create a thread in which negative things would accumulate against a single performer.
I'm not a frequenter here, is he for real?
I'm not a frequenter here, is he for real?
#29
Posted: 7/28/14 at 12:51pm
"I'm not a frequenter here, is he for real?"
Yes.
Yes.
#30
Posted: 7/28/14 at 2:25pm
Gomez, if you're going to quote people, make sure you actually put quotations around the statement you are quoting....
#31
Posted: 8/2/14 at 4:00am
Lucky for me I was able to see him before the hype (i.e., the first preview) and thought his Tony was well-deserved (in fact, I posted that he would win it on BWW that night). His performance of Friend Like Me truly "stopped the show" in a way I have rarely seen before.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#32
Posted: 8/2/14 at 9:52am
"If you didn't like it, though, why create a negative thread about him? Can't you just not like it and just go on with your life? There are many things I don't like, but I can't give you links to all of the threads I then started about them... "
Perhaps because there's nothing wrong with having an unfavorable review of something, especially when one expresses it as measuredly as Gomez3 has. I see responses like the above on bww all the time as if there's something inherently objectionable about objectivity and dissent when discussing theater. Don't get it. It's as if people are threatened by "negativity" even when it's presented not as an ad hominem attack but as an honest assessment.
I don't understand how starting rave threads can be good and starting critical threads bad.
Perhaps because there's nothing wrong with having an unfavorable review of something, especially when one expresses it as measuredly as Gomez3 has. I see responses like the above on bww all the time as if there's something inherently objectionable about objectivity and dissent when discussing theater. Don't get it. It's as if people are threatened by "negativity" even when it's presented not as an ad hominem attack but as an honest assessment.
I don't understand how starting rave threads can be good and starting critical threads bad.
Updated On: 8/2/14 at 09:52 AM
#35
Posted: 8/2/14 at 10:05am
Saw a naughty version of the show and I am scratching my head why the show was nominated for Best Musical over Bridges or other shows. It is an extended theme park show.
Having said that, Monroe is the best part of it and he keeps you watching when he is on. He also has the best number in the show. He richly deserved the Tony.
Having said that, Monroe is the best part of it and he keeps you watching when he is on. He also has the best number in the show. He richly deserved the Tony.
Poster Emeritus
Updated On: 8/2/14 at 10:05 AM
#36
Posted: 8/2/14 at 11:18am
Calling someone's worked forced and cheesy communicates something specific and apparently genuinely perceived about the performance. For that reason it is not ad hominem, i.e., something reductively abasing that appeals merely to emotion without regard to logic or reason. Which is not to say that it's irrebuttable or objective. Those are very different things. By your definition, Joey, half of everything Pauline Kael ever said about acting performances would be in the nature of an ad hominem.
Updated On: 8/2/14 at 11:18 AM
#37
Posted: 8/2/14 at 11:22am
Without him, the show is as flat as day old soda left out on a table.
Poster Emeritus
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95