What happened with that Promises Promises revival?

Do you mean Chuck? And he is the main character in the show and narrates the piece.

Ok.

Yes, he was the host that year.

"No i mean Sean Hayes was just playing Jack Mcfarland from will and grace"

I don't think Sean played "Jack" at all when I saw Promises, Promises. (During his Tony hosting gig, sure...) For lack of a better work, I thought he played it straight, but if you mean bringing some of his charm and personality to the role, well sure. I mean, it's not like Chenoweth disappears into her roles!

You know, I honestly didn't hate it. Was it great theater? No, not exactly but I left entertained. I would never see it again (though I've watched Katie's scenes numerous times for obvious reasons) but I enjoyed myself. Sean Hayes was very good and Katie was excellent and deserved her Tony. She was hysterical. Kristen... Meh. Incredibly miscast.

"Oh my god. Why did they not use the original choreography to the turkey lurkey number? "

I kinda wonder about this too. I am no big fan of Rob Ashford's choreography, but I admit it seems like a thankless job to have to do a new version of such a now iconic dance (even more so in the post-youtube days.) I felt similarly about Wayne Cilento when he had to create his own Rich Man's Frug for Sweet Charity. (For that matter, I would always use Michael Bennett's Who's That Woman in Follies as well--the choreography has been saved, and it was used for both the 1987 London Follies and the Papermill version, and again, I don't envy anyone trying to create a new version.)

The Bacharach interpolations also annoyed me... I don't think they made sense for the character (though I guess they showed off Cheno,) and, while the score only has a handful of songs that I guess would be known from their pop versions (Never Gonna Fall In Love Again is one of the big Bacharach/David standards, Promises Promises less so,) it's not like the score needed to be goosed with bigger hits. I guess at least they didn't use the dreary song Bacharach wrote for a 90s version.

I am a huge fan of the show, but I think it might be one that seems deceptively easy and is hard for revivals to get the tone right.

Eric, I've always thought that part of the problem with this musical is structural. Chuck has the first five songs in the show (two are duets) but before we're halfway through the first act, you're already tiring of him. After those first five numbers, there's not a lot of emotional life that we haven't already seen him play. I agree that the interpolations for the revival were unnecessary.

I think "hated" is too strong a word for those who didn't think Chenowith was especially right for the role. If you're not familiar with the source material or the musical then it's difficult to discern who the character is meant to be and, therefore, whether she may have been miscast. I certainly didn't hate her, enjoying her performance as I always do, but she did not embody the character imagined by the original screenwriter or the book writer of the musical ( I.A.L. Diamond and Neil Simon). That probably played into her lack of a Tony nomination.

If you're not familiar with the source material or the musical then it's difficult to discern who the character is meant to be and, therefore, whether she may have been miscast. I certainly didn't hate her, enjoying her performance as I always do, but she did not embody the character imagined by the original screenwriter or the book writer of the musical ( I.A.L. Diamond and Neil Simon). That probably played into her lack of a Tony nomination. "

I know a bit more about the source material now than I did then I can see your point and would agree to some degree. Kristin's Fran was a different one. But all of the creative team was still alive in 2010 and I'm not sure if all were involved with the revival but I remember something about Hal David visiting during rehearsals and I would assume that they all had a bit of a say in this production, and didn't seem to mind Kristin being cast. That being said, not knowing what her character was supposed to be in the original, the story still worked for me. It didn't seem odd to me that Fran wasn't particularly mousy. After all, she's the love interest of the show. I'm not sure if we Fran we saw was just a result of Kristin playing her the way she did, or because of the vision the creative team had, which resulted in casting Kristin. I feel like they tried to make her be mousy or whatever, not even in terms of costumes, hair ect. And I'm quite confident Kristin could have portrayed that more, had it been the intention. At the end of the day, the show worked for me, everything felt natural and believable. Maybe it wasn't a replica of the original, maybe it took a different take on it. That doesn't necessarily mean Kristin was miscast.

I know a lot of people, including all the critics and award voters, disagree with me, and that's okay. But I feel like it's at least in part because people had a certain expectation of what the show was supposed to be and what kind of roles Kristin should play. This wasn't met and most people weren't willing to look at the product with a more open mind maybe and just look at the show they saw on that stage without all these expectations and comparisons. And they were a little more harsh than might have be justified.

And I'll shut up now

Ashford's choreography is always hit or miss. His choreography for this was some of his worst. yet he managed well with How to Succeed, Millie, Cry Baby & the Chicago movie.

It was horribly miscast and directed by Ashford. Enough said.