Oak Speaks out on great comet controversy — Page 14

QueenTwinnied said: "You and Boris are both ****ing dumbasses"

Thank you for this, I was running low on ad hominem and wondered when my next fix would arrive.

Kagan has always been a bit funny with the cash register it seems. I suppose Malloy was paid in full for Broadway but I wonder what happened with the missing composer royalties for the foreign productions; I can’t find any updates:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/theater/great-comet-dave-malloy.html?smid=url-share

binau said: "This was one of the important events/experiences that started to make me realise in addition to dangerous 'right-wing' ideological thinking (that I think we could all accept was real and existed, and continues to exist today)there is also such thingas dangerous 'left-wing' ideological thinking too demonstrating that the progressive movement can go too farand it's not ok. For all the good intentions that went into the criticism around Mandy's casting, it simply reflected a reasoning failure and low quality thinkingthat this issue became racialised and it had devastating consequences. I heard one of the producers comment on this issue publicly at BroadwayCon during a Q&A and they were very upset at the situation, explicitly calling out the diversity and POC they employed in the show.
"

You tied the political climate Trans people are dealing with right now to Cis people having pronouns in their Instagram bio. Your pontificating is as meaningless here as it always has been...

TheatreFan4 said: "binau said: "This was one of the important events/experiences that started to make me realise in addition to dangerous 'right-wing' ideological thinking (that I think we could all accept was real and existed, and continues to exist today)there is also such thingas dangerous 'left-wing' ideological thinking too demonstrating that the progressive movement can go too farand it's not ok. For all the good intentions that went into the criticism around Mandy's casting, it simply reflected a reasoning failure and low quality thinkingthat this issue became racialised and it had devastating consequences. I heard one of the producers comment on this issue publicly at BroadwayCon during a Q&A and they were very upset at the situation, explicitly calling out the diversity and POC they employed in the show.
"

You tied the political climate Trans people are dealing with right now to Cis people having pronouns in their Instagram bio. Your pontificating is as meaningless here as it always has been..."

I don't believe that is accurate, are you sure you're talking about the right person? I remember, however, suggesting that clear overreaches in trans activism and behaviour (e.g. participation of biological men in women's sports) is highly unpopular with almost all of the general public (e.g. polls show this is true in US, UK it is not really divided at all) and that this is causing a backlash towards trans people and hurting rather than helping the cause. I actually think much of the public were more willing to accept the pronoun ask (or at least it's divided) but not some of the more recent overreaches.

In any case, I find these kind of responses so shallow and thoughtless because they don't respond to the topic at hand. It seems that you (and the previous poster) seem to have any issue with what I'm saying, why don't you describe how you think about and characterise this situation?

Was there in fact no problem here and you want to defend the behaviour of the people who caused the show to close and put everyone out of work?

Do you want to defend the low quality thinking that went into this backlash that did not seem to recognise the economic factors at play (name vs non-name) and focus on the skin colour of the replacements?

Do you agree that this was a terrible situation but there is no higher-order cultural problem (e.g. ideological extreme left-wing attitudes) associated with this and it's a once-off? (e.g. there is no similarity between what happened here and the Kecia Lewis/Patti situation?)

If you believe any of this then I understand why you wouldn't agree with what I'm saying, but I think it would be hard for anyone to defend any of the points above. So I don't really get the criticism.

Updated On: 8/6/25 at 11:31 AM

Aren't something like 40% of roles on Broadway played by a Black actor, which seems considerable when Blacks make up about 15% of the population. Which also means, there is more likelihood that a Black actor will get a role simply because of their race.

I am not denying there are deep rooted race issues in this country, but Broadway is hardly the place to set blame.

Man, you guys who have responded to the troll that resurrected this 5-year-old thread just fell into his trap.

Be smarter than that.

SMDH.