Robbie2 said: "Jarethan said: "Was very saddened by Channing's death; that said, it is inconceivable tome that a Broadway theatre would ever be named after her, when you consider the more prolific (in terms of number of distinct shows)legends who have not had a theatre named after them. Just think. Off the top of my head:
-- Angela Lansbury, Ethel Merman, Mary Martin, Zero Mostel, Gwen Verdon (and eventually at least Nathan Lane).
-- Julie Harris, Jason Robards, Colleen Dewhurst, James Earl Jones
-- Tennessee Williams (!!), Arthur Miller
-- Harold Prince, Bob Fosse, maybe even Gower Champion
-- Cole Porter, Jerry Herman, Jule Styne, Andrew Lloyd Webber
I just don't see how Channing would deserve recognition more than any of the above, with a couple arguable. Two hit shows just not enough."
Agree far more deserving then the Plymouth & Royale being renamed ~ Schoenfeld & Jacobs."
I agree with you 100%. I thought it was absurd...totally self-serving...sounds like something Drumpf would do.
Personally, I find it hard to believe we have an Al Hirschfield Theatre, a John Golden Theatre (no one knows who he is today), a Nederlander Theatre, a Minskoff Theatre, when we don't have theaters named after the names I mentioned above, as well as others that I forgot, e.g., Irving Berlin, David Merrick. At least the Uris group finally named their theatre after George Gershwin. (Re Hirschfield, I loved his sketches, but did he really contribute more to the theatre than ANY of the people listed above)? And who is Broadhurst?
Further, while I have grown up loving the Majestic, the St. James, the Music Box (especially the one), the Palace, the Winter Garden, the Ambassador, et al, once they changed the names from Royale and Plymouth to those of businessmen, I have always felt there should be a few more changes. Do we really not have a Tennessee Williams Theatre when we have a Neil Simon theatre (most of whose plays have aged faster than ice cream melts)?