There should be a Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson revival and or concert — Page 2

Cupid Boy2 said: "You're confusing with me another poster, and "put your money where your mouth is" is not a demand that commercial success be guaranteed before suggesting a show be revived. I still see it as a call to respect the fact that investors lost millions of dollars on this property just six years ago.





"

Right you are, sir, about my confusing you with another. My cataract surgery is scheduled for 3 weeks from now. (True.) I hope that will help. In the meantime, I apologize.

But as for discussion etiquette, if I can't say I'd like to see a first-class revival of LI'L ABNER win the Tony for "Best Revival" and then tour to Los Angeles, where I can see it, without acknowledging how many millions might well be lost in such an attempt (the book is really dated, IMO), then what is the point of a discussion forum?

Yes, I know such a scheme would cost millions for the Broadway revival and millions more for the tour, but since I'm not even qualified to calculate those costs with any precision, what "respect" do you want me to give them? It's just an idea, one that influences exactly no one.

A comparison might be made to sci-fi sites, where STAR WARS and STAR TREK and BATMAN are discussed ad infinitum with no regard for the cost of additional scenes, casting Brad Pitt as Captain Kirk, etc.

In contrast, we might all sit home quietly, waiting to see what the Nederlanders and Shuberts decide to do. After all, they and their ilk are the ones putting up the money and/or theater space.

UncleCharlie could have enriched the discussion by simply asking "Why do you feel a revival would succeed where the OBC failed?" Instead he felt compelled to be snotty.

GavestonPS said: "Cupid Boy2 said: "You're confusing with me another poster, and "put your money where your mouth is" is not a demand that commercial success be guaranteed before suggesting a show be revived. I still see it as a call to respect the fact that investors lost millions of dollars on this property just six years ago.





"

Right you are, sir, about my confusing you with another. My cataract surgery is scheduled for 3 weeks from now. (True.) I hope that will help. In the meantime, I apologize.

But as for discussion etiquette, if I can't say I'd like to see a first-class revival of LI'L ABNER win the Tony for "Best Revival" and then tour to Los Angeles, where I can see it, without acknowledging how many millions might well be lost in such an attempt (the book is really dated, IMO), then what is the point of a discussion forum?

Yes, I know such a scheme would cost millions for the Broadway revival and millions more for the tour, but since I'm not even qualified to calculate those costs with any precision, what "respect" do you want me to give them? It's just an idea, one that influences exactly no one.

A comparison might be made to sci-fi sites, where STAR WARS and STAR TREK and BATMAN are discussed ad infinitum with no regard for the cost of additional scenes, casting Brad Pitt as Captain Kirk, etc.

In contrast, we might all sit home quietly, waiting to see what the Nederlanders and Shuberts decide to do. After all, they and their ilk are the ones putting up the money and/or theater space.

UncleCharlie could have enriched the discussion by simply asking "Why do you feel a revival would succeed where the OBC failed?" Instead he felt compelled to be snotty.



Gaveston, if you read back in the thread @z5 basically asked that question in statement form, questioning whether there would be any audience for it since the original run was just a few years ago and it bombed. And the response was that it didn't get a fair shot (what does that even mean? Half the run was during the busy Thanksgiving/Christmas season) and it should have another shot. It just seemed to me the height of "well, I don't care if it bombed and probably would again, I think it should it get another chance, so there." which prompted my response wondering if his own money was at risk, he would feel as strongly? In response I was called an asshole which no one seems to have a problem with.

It's really about what kind of threads people want to see on here. Realistic discussions about the feasibility of reviving a favorite show, or pie in the sky discussions about things that are likely not going to happen? The comparison you make to sci-fi sites where endless hours are spent discussing Brad Pitt as Captain Kirk are reasons why some people laugh at those folks for being so wrapped up in their fantasies, they've lost touch with reality. Is that what you think the view of this board should be rather than a group of passionate, knowledgeable theater fans who have informed discussions about the theater? Maybe it is and maybe that's OK. Not for me to decide. All I know is, I'd better feel the love tomorrow when I start a thread about how BRONX BOMBERS deserves another shot at Broadway.

Updated On: 11/23/16 at 12:29 AM

Thanks Greased. It's cool and coming from you, it's practically a compliment, kind of like a nod to a fellow asshole that "hey dude, you're doing good work". And as I said earlier, I'm not even sure I would disagree with your assessment.

Have a wonderful evening!

Welp....I will think twice before trying to talk about reviving a show next time lol