Come back, Theresa Rebeck! All is forgiven! - Page 2

[goldenboy]

Posted: 2/20/13 at 11:25pm

I too enjoyed the first season. Bollywood and all. I couldn't wait for it to start up again.
Liked the first episode but after last night???????
The show is now lacking in all credibility..

Bring back Theresa Rebeck.
They have destroyed her baby.
Not that's a musical. Therea Rebeck's Baby.

[beensince1987]

Posted: 2/20/13 at 11:38pm

Phyllis, cause to me Dead-Eyes fakes how talented she is and how "big" star she is, and I know it's not written that way but to me... she is.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 12:04am

Imagine removing Norman Lear from All in the Family.
Never fire the visionary.

[supersam1026]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 12:10am

This whole thing actually reminds me a bit of Spiderman. Substitute Julie Taymor with Theresa Rebeck and the similarities are uncanny. First try, fails massively for both, but at least keeps it interesting. Second try, bring in someone new, make it more "accessible", but extremely dull.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 12:14am

Please. This season makes more sense in its own universe than last season did, plot wise.

The checked outfit on Debbie in Times Square was just plain mean.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 1:04am

I think it was a horrible mess to begin with. They should have given Rebeck a "created by" credit, but brought in a real TV scribe to straighten out the show and be a show runner. Have some theater be on as consultants, but let's get some real writers in there.

[Bueo]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 1:25am

yes it was good the first time

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 1:35am

A SMASH, you might say.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 4:01am

"Imagine removing Norman Lear from All in the Family.
Never fire the visionary."

I *think* you were partly joking, but Rebeck is no visionary. Still, I think this is part of the problem (and I agree with some of this thread).

Though I think that Vulture piece about what happened behind the scenes last year should be taken with a grain of salt, a lot of it rings true.

Spielberg, who for all his immense talents has rarely done right by TV since directing Duel, has never really had success with TV, or much respect for him. And this was his concept--they hired Rebeck after he came up with the idea. I don't think he's been much involved directly since then--and Zadan and Meron sound like they're not helping much. Add to the mixture the fact that it sounds like Rebeck did not like the network TV way of working with a writers room, and the huge interference of network tv (though I'm starting to wonder how, with much of the same team, it would have been much better on Showtime where it was meant to be before Greenblatt took it with him when he moved to NBC) and I think a change had to be made--as much as I liked much of last year and, yes, never got the extreme hate towards the Bollywood number.

My issue with the show now--though I still find it more enjoyable than a lot of network tv--is it seems like it's just getting even more atered down. I was hoping that at the least they'd up the camp and the parts that, sometimes despite themselves, were working. Instead it feels like the opposite is happening.

As per Spielberg, and the way his name is used to sell unsuccessful, after unsuccessful tv show (e.r. being one major exception) a friend of mine said this on the Sondheim forum (you can find it there in the TV thread):

"I remember a Time or Newsweek article about Spielberg when Amazing Stories was on, describing him on the set of that hour-long episode he directed where Kevin Costner was a World War II bomber pilot. Between takes, he was strutting around the set saying, "Tender vittles. That's what TV stands for and that's what we're going to give them. Tender vittles." Around the same time he was quoted by a critic as having derided television by saying that he made movies for sophisticated people, not the sort of people who stayed home and watched 30-Something. The critic pointed out that Spielberg didn't realize that the people who watched his movies were the same people who watched 30-Something (or arguably they were more sophisticated) and that he was wildly underestimating the television audience. I would go further and say most viewers of 30something of all shows prob were more sophisticated than most of his movie audiences.

While watching an episode of Amazing Stories that reminded me of a bad episode of Twilight Zone from circa 1961, I realized what the problem was. Spielberg had started making movies so young that he had completely dropped out of touch with television and hadn't realized how much more sophisticated it had gotten since he had last been a TV viewer in the early 60s. In the 90s, after he had kids, he took some time off to spend with his family and reportedly watched a lot of TV, which I think helped. He's not as bad as he used to be and probably wouldn't do Seaquest DSV today. But I think a little of his contempt for the television audience may remain. So his keeping hands off on Smash is probably a good thing. But I'm sure he still has an influence.""

Posted: 2/21/13 at 10:10am

Does anyone think we'll get back to the interesting, entertaining stuff? The only enjoyable moment in this week's episode was JFK's song and then the show had to SCOLD US for enjoying it- telling us it wasn't true to life, it didn't work in the context of the show and we CERTAINLY don't understand Marylin.

I get that for whatever reason the entire show hated Rebeck and since Julia IS Rebeck, we have to have her brutalized repeatedly before we move on. But come on. Enough is enough. The "Dramaturg" was totally absurd- that rhymes and I hope it turns out to be a lyric in Jeremy Jordan's show.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 11:27am

I think you're over-identifying with Cousin Debbie. I think you have Stockholm Syndrome.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 3:02pm

I don't think the show was scolding us if we liked the song... *confused*