This is an article?!?!?!?!?

Posted: 3/15/05 at 8:17am

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/nyregion/15ink.html

Someone spent their time writing this? For the TIMES?

[Sargar]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 8:42am

it's supposed to be...funny?

[BeeBee]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 8:48am

A hack writer does a hack job. Good for Nathan Lane for ignoring him!

Posted: 3/15/05 at 8:57am

A hack writer enough that he had to point out in his article that he was sent to cover this. Well no sh**... articles are covered by reporters who are sent to write the articles?

Somewhere out there, trees are dying to have the extra newspaper to print this crap out today.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 9:07am

Ya know, there are real injustices in the world worth getting upset about. This article is several things. One of them is funny. Another is, it's just a puffy feature article. Why get your panties in a twist about it?

Every person who doesn't travel in the rarified circle of theater fandom, including some who "hate musicals," has responded in a similar way when I've mentioned the movie of Hairspray.

"It was already a movie."

"I know, but this is a movie of the musical."

"The original was practically a musical anyway."

"Well, no, not really. This is a movie of the musical based on the movie."

"That's ridiculous."

GOD FORBID somebody should write an article that takes these ideas on.

And PS, Nathan has a tendency to shut his cellphone and walk way. It's one of the things we love about him.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 9:16am

The funny thing is, there really was a nifty article to be written about the PRODUCERS "Be An Extra for Charity" bit. I would have asked the participants if they were bored or if the expected more. Or what exactly the experience was like for them. But the Times didn't do it.

"And PS, Nathan has a tendency to shut his cellphone and walk way. It's one of the things we love about him."

Exactly, Namo.

Posted: 3/15/05 at 10:18am

Well I'm not saying I'm pissed about it. It's a stupid little thing. I would like to see a real take on somebody who sat in the St. James for that day of filming, though...

[BeeBee]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 11:32am

It could have been a cute piece. Instead it's just dumb. That's all.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:02pm

Sounds about right for Mr. Lane to me....

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:15pm

Ugh. I can't open the article.

[dancersmom2]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:31pm

You aren't missing a thing!

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:33pm

Hehe. Im gathering that, but its about Nathan Lane - which makes it required reading.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 1:14pm

I only skimmed it, but it seems to make a reference to his treatment of all those who aren't Matthew Broderick, Susan Stroman, Mel Brooks and Steven Sondheim.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 3:08pm

Stephen Sondheim.

Not Steven.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:03pm

A friend sent me the text of the article. If some dumb reporter came up and asked me that stupid of a question, I would walk away too. And Nathan Lane remains my personal hero.:)

[ikmbway]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:06pm

haha its messed up but its funny wow someone in 2nd grade could do that and they wouldnt publish it in the times who knows the little kid could write more and better than that