"The fourth slot fell to THE WEDDING SINGER which emerged from the same putrid swamp as TARZAN, LESTAT, LENNON and HOT FEET." jezz i thought I was critical..... that's harsh!
Hmm well if you go to the "Search" option on the board, and type Curtain's username, you can find more then 50 posts bashing Wedding Singer. This should tell you something.
That probably wasn't the best choice of words, but The Wedding Singer is painfully unwatchable. The only people who seem to like it are the little kids paying $26 for a rush ticket every other night.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
I can't speak for Act II but Act I of The Wedding Singer was about as bad as I've ever seen. I'm glad Reidel informed us why the show got a Best Musical nomination.
I disagree. I found the Wedding Singer very entertaining.
I also loved Shuler in Tarzan and Andy Pellick makes a beautiful and elegant butterfly in Tarzan. Tarzan needs to eat more! He is gorgeous but skin and bones. Where is his MOTHER? (Feed TARZAN, PLEASE!)
The only people who seem to like it are the little kids paying $26 for a rush ticket every other night.
I'm well into my twenties. I don't really think you can call that a little kid. I love Wedding Singer. Is it the most brilliant piece of writing ever on broadway? No, most definitely not. But it's a fun time. Everyone has the right to their own opinion of a show though, you're allowed to hate it (no show is for everyone), but I think it's unfair and rude to make comments about the people who DO like it.
Is there a way to access this article other than paying $3.95 to the Post on-line? I don't mind paying $100 for a theatre ticket but paying the Post anything to read their should-be-for-free archives just galls me. Thanks
'Our whole family shouts. It comes from us livin' so close to the railroad tracks'
"I can't speak for Act II but Act I of The Wedding Singer was about as bad as I've ever seen. I'm glad Reidel informed us why the show got a Best Musical nomination."
Getting "information" from Riedel is a dicey proposition. He is so tied up with being "the Bad Boy of Broadway" and creating scandals that he can jump in the middle of that the "truthiness" of his column rivals Pravda, circa 1975.
Only a few people know "why" TWS got nominated, and they ain't telling. My best guess? The nominators felt it was one of the four best original musicals of the year. And I agree. Why don't you let the WS people enjoy it, rather than imply their nomination was the result of trickery and deceit?
Believe me, Wedding Singer Despisers are the same as Drowsy Despisers, Color Purple Despisers and Jersey Boy Despisers - a small, vocal minority. By all means, have fun with it, but don't pretend that most theater people agree with you.
You can't take Reidel all that seriously: He writes for the POST for god's sake! Hardly a paper known for its journalistic integrity!
He just wants to make a name for himself as a Broadway gossip columnist, and the Post just wants to sell papers.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks." Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
To Kill A Mockingbird