jimmycurry01 said: "This suggests that the couple being gay was not the primary problem, but instead the focus brought to the gay couple that made producers worry. It had already been agreed to that the gay couple would be present in the production."
No, Jimmy. It suggests that including two fathers holding a baby was somehow considered as a "compromise" by this producer. Interesting how they talk of "genuine acceptance" when the producer
B.JAMES said: "I don't mind that they changed the main characters orientation. My own family is accepting and affirming. But I can see how it would turn a lot of people off to the show if the orientations were "shoved down their throats." I am okay with having minor LGBT roles and side stories for this type of thing because it means that people who may have normally tuned out to avoid this sort of thing can experienceit in small doses and just maybe begin to make a conn
jimmycurry01 said: "Now tell me, newintown, would you as a producer, not try to sway your directorfrom including something that could elicitcomplaints from a large chunk of your audience? I would. I am gay as the day I was born, but I know that if I am catering to a group that has certain expectations, I am going to deliver on those expectations without trying to push the enevelope or an agenda that I really do truly believe in.
jimmycurry01 said: "Now tell me, newintown, would you as a producer, not try to sway your directorfrom including something that could elicitcomplaints from a large chunk of your audience? I would. I am gay as the day I was born, but I know that if I am catering to a group that has certain expectations, I am going to deliver on those expectations without trying to push the enevelope or an agenda that I really do truly believe in.
everythingtaboo said: "A lot of people wrote off the show because of the so-called straight-washing of the main character, but it better served the needs of the show. Also, those people missed out on missed out on plenty of other LGBT representation, the openly gay kid, the trans kid, and the closeted gay kid with his possibly also closeted dad."
So-called? Really? It's flat out straightwashing. Period. And quite frankly, I'm sick of LGBT characters
If you count all of the musicals/plays, then no, "plenty" would not be the right word here. Besides, most of the shows with gay protagonists that are running right now are revivals; things we've seen already.
BroadwayRox3588 said: "Huh? Broadway is literally a commercial enterprise. Money is first and foremost on the minds of producers and investors alike. I want representation for LGBT as much as the next person, but let's not pretend that money is not extremely important on Broadway."
I get that, but using money as an excuse to not create more shows with LGBT protagonists is both rude and ridiculous. There has been a couple of shows with LGBT protagonists that
QueenAlice said: "I would say there are actually proportionately a large number of gay characters on Broadway in relationship to other commercial forms of entertainment."
No. There isn't. I went to see ten shows last year, and only one of them included a gay character; the other nine shows acted like gay people didn't exist. Odds are that most people who go to see a show every two or three months would most likely see shows that h
Miles2Go2 said: "Sadly, that’s not too surprising. I think even if the quality had been higher, this show would’ve had trouble finding a broader audience."
Nah, it would have found an audience. The problem is that the show alienated their intended audience by straight-washing the main character. NBC and Rise received major backlash because of that, and their explanation didn't convince anyone.
Casey Cott was obviously the best singer in this episode (even though he only sang for like a split second), and it would have been great to hear him sing "Dreamer in Disguise".
QueenAlice said: "HEDWIG was on a Broadway because it had a major bankable star attached to it."
Then maybe that's what the producers should start doing more often. Make commercially pleasing musicals with gay protagonists, and just a have a big celebrity name attached it. There, problem solved!
haterobics said: "Yes, but that is different from saying something is underrepresented, based entirely on a feeling, since that isn't anything that can be addressed, since it is defined solely by the person making the claim."
It's not just a feeling, but it's also pretty obvious that they're underrepresented. Straight people get to have countless of shows with straight protagonists, meanwhile gay people only get a few here and there....and wh
SeanD2 said: "LGBT Americans make up roughly 3.4% of the population. There are 25 musicals currently on Broadway. Mathematically only 0.85 shows should feature an LGBT protagonist to accurately reflect the makeup of the country."
Oh boy, why would you say this? Ugh. Firstly, some sources are saying 10%, others are saying 5%. Either way, it doesn't matter and it's illogical to use a minority group's population as a tool to show how many times they shou
