MAYBE HAPPY ENDING Reviews- Page 60

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 9:42am

“As has repeatedly been stated, the industry refuses to consider talented Asian actors for many other roles that any talented actor (regardless of ethnicity) could be eligible to play.”

How do you know the industry refuses to consider them? Just because someone doesn’t end up in a role, that does not mean they weren’t considered. 

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 10:44am

MemorableUserName said: "Funny how that only applies in situations to keep roles available for white actors.  [...] But when it's a robot in South Korea, anyone should be allowed to play it!"

Yes, exactly.

That decision was intentionally and purposefully made by the creators of the show, long before any of this controversy began.  (see: Creators Respond to “Maybe Happy Ending” Casting Controversy)

The article makes many valid points regarding the temporary replacement of an AAPI actor with a white actor, including:

"Ultimately, I don’t think the outrage is about Andrew Barth Feldman as a performer. He’s clearly talented and a wonderful human being. And I believe the decision came from a mix of practicality, star power, personal connection, and artistic trust. But this moment, and this reaction, is about more than one actor. It’s about patterns. It’s about perception. It’s about how fragile progress can feel.

And for a lot of people, it’s personal."

I agree with every point they make in the article.

What I am troubled by is the possibility that the reactions to the decision are equally as "wrong" as the initial casting decision. In other words, "two wrongs don't make a right". (FYI: I would love to know not only WHO made the decision, but WHY they made it. It's kind of maddening that no one is stepping up to provide that info.) 

So... I guess (for me) the question at hand is: Should the purposefully designed intentions of the creators of the show be ignored and disrespected, or should the voices of those who are personally wronged by the "patterns" and "perceptions" mentioned above that this casting decision exemplifies take precedence.

No one is going to come out a "winner" in this situation.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 11:19am

Way earlier in this thread, I said that, although I'm squarely on the side of those disappointed by the casting decision, I think people of good faith can find themselves on both sides of this question. Since then, unfortunately, people of very bad faith have been sucking all the oxygen out of the room as far as the other side goes. I thank John Adams for providing some sensible arguments for that side of the debate.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 11:54am

fray3 said: "I went to see maybe happy ending around two weeks ago, and it was amazing. I know people are all talking about the drama with ABF, but since this thread is called MAYBE HAPPY ENDING reviews"

This is the place to post them, unfortunately! I saw this a few days ago with Andrew and Helen and it was really wonderful. Andrew, I believe, was the youngest Evan in DEH years ago, and he is very comfortable on stage. Their chemistry was excellent, he is in great voice especially during "Never Fly Away", and people seemed incredibly excited to meet him afterwards. I love the new key art with their backs, I think long term it works since many people will be playing these roles both in New York and on tour. For those not interested in seeing Andrew, Steven and Christopher are covering all weekend and next Fri/Sat as well.

[Luminaire2]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 2:15pm

There’s a video going around from Darren’s “last” curtain call, where he brought Andrew on stage, said many nice things about him, thanked him for doing this big favour for him, and passed the charger along to him. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 4:57pm

Luminaire2 said: "There’s a video going around from Darren’s “last” curtain call, where he brought Andrew on stage, said many nice things about him, thanked him for doing this big favour for him, and passed the chargeralong to him."

 

It was posted here on Monday the 1st. Page 56 comment #1380.

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/5/25 at 7:29pm

Sutton Ross said: "I saw this a few days ago with Andrew and Helen and it was really wonderful. Andrew, I believe, was the youngest Evan in DEH years ago, and he is very comfortable on stage."

I remember (very distinctly) his performance at The Jimmy Awards in 2018. He was nominated for his performance in his High School's production of Catch Me If You Can and his solo performance at The Jimmys was so, SO very impressive. I could not believe he was only a high school student.

2018 was the first year I watched the Jimmys online. Since then, I've watched The Jimmys every year. I compare every solo performance (male or female) to his by how close, or beyond the soloist comes to recreating that same level of excitement and interest I felt watching Feldman.

 

Updated On: 9/6/25 at 07:29 PM

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 6:56am

Something uplifting to distract from the name calling:

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 10:27am

"For those not interested in seeing Andrew, Steven and Christopher are covering all weekend and next Fri/Sat as well."

Has this been posted/confirmed elsewhere? I find no announcement. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 12:28pm

John Adams said: "
So... I guess (for me) the question at hand is: Should the purposefully designed intentions of the creators of the show be ignored and disrespected, or should the voices of those who are personally wronged by the "patterns" and "perceptions" mentioned above that this casting decision exemplifies take precedence.

If the purposefully designed intentions of the creators of a show are disrespectful and feed into inequity and industry-wide ill effects, even if that wasn't the intended effect, then no, they shouldn't be respected or given a pass. Even if in this instance the creators weren't deliberately trying to hurt anyone, I don't believe simply saying "That's what the creators wanted" can be used as a blanket excuse. It ignores the fact that creatives are (for now) human beings, and human beings are fallible. They're also not operating in a vacuum. Where is the line? If other creators' intentions ARE deliberately disrespectful and ill-intended, if they set mandates that were deliberately racist/sexist/anything, would they still get a pass because "That's what the creators wanted"?

Even beyond the theater, we live in a world where, just because the cause is innocuous, that doesn't excuse the effect. In most instances, if someone breaks something without intending to, something was still broken. If someone physically harms someone without intending to, someone was still harmed. (I feel like there's a show about to open on Broadway about that very thing...) The intentions may be mitigating but the very real effect still has to be contended with. People seldom say, "Well, they didn't mean it to be bad so the thing that happened wasn't actually bad after all."

The article you linked to eloquently details how, no matter the thought process that went into them or the intentions behind them, the creators' decisions fed into the same excuses the industry has used not to cast Asian performers for years. That making shows more relatable and universal means making them whiter, in a way that seldom applies in reverse. (Funny that making the characters universal meant giving them non-Asian names, as if real-world global South Korea-based companies aren't shipping products with more Korean-sounding names worldwide...) That white performers are supposedly easier for audiences to relate to, or place themselves in their shoes (or "anthromorphize" when they're robots...), or see as romantic leads than Asian performers.

And yes, too often those arguing for or justifying Feldman's casting are those unaffected by this issue, or prioritize one person's feelings over the very real hurt thousands have expressed, or are (perhaps unintentionally) doing the same thing the creators did: promoting whiteness as universal. Those who argue that "anyone" should be allowed to play this supposedly non-race-specific role without arguing that every other non-race-specific role should be open to Asian performers is simply saying that white performers are more relatable. (I've asked several times if the people so vehemently arguing that this one white actor should be allowed to play this supposedly non-race-specific role are equally vehement that Asian actors should be allowed to play other non-race-specific roles. There's been far less urgency on that point.)

[Seb28]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 12:40pm

MemorableUserName said: "If the purposefully designed intentions of the creators of a showare disrespectful and feed into inequity and industry-wide ill effects, even if that wasn't the intended effect, then no, they shouldn't be respected or given a pass."

Their intentions are the ultimate way of creating true equity/equality. This is the only universal path forward. They have explained why into great detail. Also, the discussion about equity/equality has been moved to another thread a while ago.

 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 12:44pm

“If the purposefully designed intentions of the creators of a show are disrespectful and feed into inequity and industry-wide ill effects…”

Disrespect and feeding into are in the eye of the beholder and are not the obligation of the creatives to tread around or ensure everyone’s safety. Perhaps what we need aren’t lobby signs that say “Trigger warning: show contains gunshots” but instead say “Trigger warning: show contains people with different skin color talking.”  Hmm… tastes like segregation to me!

”no matter the thought process that went into them or the intentions behind them, the creators' decisions fed into the same excuses the industry has used not to cast Asian performers for years.”

Best to just not write a show then. Fire all the actors (especially the Asians!!!) immediately. No more shows shall ever be written by anyone. 

From now on, to ensure no one gets offended by anything, we shall have rooms full of monkeys write the shows. “It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.”

https://imgur.com/a/RtYi7B4

[Ensemble1726583963]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 1:11pm

Auggie27 said: ""For those not interested in seeing Andrew, Steven and Christopher are covering all weekend and next Fri/Sat as well."

Has this been posted/confirmed elsewhere? I find no announcement."

It's posted on their Instagram and confirmed by the actors. 

[Dom P]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 4:34pm

PaigeTurner2 said: "Auggie27 said: ""For those not interested in seeing Andrew, Steven and Christopher are covering all weekend and next Fri/Sat as well."

Has this been posted/confirmed elsewhere? I find no announcement."

It's posted on their Instagramand confirmed by the actors."

He's at TIFF 2025 with Poetic License this weekend.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 7:22pm

Contractual out. I get it. Thanks.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/6/25 at 10:58pm

It's interesting that, rather than promote one or both of the understudies for two months, the producers invited so much controversy in order to cast someone who wasn't even available for the first two weekends of his run. (And for all the talk about how his real-life relationship with Shen would be a sell, they ultimately only went on together four times in the first week.)

[YankeeDani]

Posted: 9/7/25 at 2:19pm

Seb28 said: "Matt Rogers said: "Hag, you are repulsive. You are supposedly an Asian, and you are campaigning all over this board for less Asian roles on Broadway. I think I’m going to puke."

In any case there is no need to demand more roles at this point. Asian people with good intentions just don't want to stab white people in the back by engaging in this racist act, like the mob with bad intentions does in the MHE situation. Equity should always be a two-way street. Ifany percentage is off, it's theirs. But we are discussing this in the other thread."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNDqxrUUwQ YOU 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/7/25 at 2:32pm

Subject-related replies please Dani.