YvanEhtNioj said: "Jesus, chiiiiiilllll. lol it wasn’t a dig. "
It also wasn’t a necessary comment, but you took the time to make it anyway. By definition, it’s a dig. An issue many members on this board fail to realize is that plain text type does not imply tone and it should be assumed that someone will take your b**chy comment at face value, not the snarky inflection you’d say it with out loud.
Impossible2, you’re grossly underestimating the cost of having a brand name for a show. Royalties alone to license the title are probably close to 6 figures. Couple that with the amount of insurance above and beyond a standard play given all of the tricks and flying, it’s EASILY close to a million. I’d bank on a number in the $900,000 range as someone suggested they wouldn’t lower their GP below their break even.
Same as the Grammy, the Emmy goes to featured performers. And I imagine you'd be hard pressed to explain how a performance can earn an award without its performers...
She's an EGT. She won't win the Oscar for Harriet (given the reviews), but she is indeed only one statue away.
JBC3 said: "And FWIW while the recent National Theatre production of Angels was indeed the first Broadway revival as a poster mentioned a bit ago, people might have seen the very successful Signature production a few years ago or the HBO special. Angels is pretty accessible if someone wants to see it."
My point was that delegitimizing someone's positive experience with The Inheritance simply because they don't have the context to compare to Angels (which a po
clever2, you've now taken two opportunities to write two long diatribes against this show. We get it. You didn't like it. That doesn't mean you should diminish the experience that a lot of people are having with this piece.
The Angels in America comparisons are both inevitable and unfair and even the writer has said you'd be a fool to try and write the next Angels... Angels is a work of form and profound, academic ideas. From some of these critiques, it's almo
quizking101 said: "When I read the play, as written, I saw Toby as a rather grotesque character and imagined him not looking like he just felt out of Men’s Health magazine. That took quite a bit of getting used to, though I eventually got on board. "
So interesting that Toby is the one you picture as a character you saw as someone not in shape. In my experience, particularly in the NYC gay scene, it’s exactly those who look like they dr
QueenAlice said: "Jordan, I think age isn’t the reason you don’t want Lenk in the role. This isn’t like they’ve cast Bernadette Peters in the part.
And yes, since I’m one of the very few women on this board, I think I can be on the cross for a moment when it comes to defending some of the again ageist and sexist comments trust appear here."
JBroadway said: "If I were you I wouldn’t use Riedel’s column as an update source. He may very well be right about all of these, but his word is not confirmation. He’s a gossip columnist. If I were you I would wait for a press release."
Yeah..if Lehman Trilogy were to be happening this fall, there's no way it wouldn't be on sale yet...at least you would think...
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "OhHiii said: "[Jordan Roth is] not attached to Company."
Jujamcyn Theaters was the 4th-billed producer of COMPANY in London. The 2nd and3rd names are also Americans. Whether he is co-Lead Producing the NY engagement or if he was simply a co-producer in London, there is no doubting his involvement in the show.
Presented by Elliott & Harper Productions, Catherine Schreiber, Grove Entertainment, Jujamcyn
YvanEhtNioj said: "Early reports were that he was taking trips to London frequently to scout out the show. There was a rumor that he's partner with Shubert like he did with Angels In America to produce it."
Hadestown was playing at the same time in London which would explain that. He's not attached to Company.
ljay889 said: "Jordan Roth is no dummy, I think he’s clearly trying to wait for the Caroline transferexcitement to wane. I also assume he wants to be the only major announcement of the day."
Since when has Jordan Roth had anything to do with it?
The men on this thread dictating who is and who isn't right for the role based on these actress' ages and not their abilities is exactly the reason this production is so relevant. Keep it up, boys.
I should note that I do not in any way disagree that gay characters ideally should be played by someone with the experience because it would be more authentic. Andrew Garfield really stepped in it when he made those comments about choosing not to be gay during Angels. Roles, however, are given based on auditions. For this play, I highly doubt the performers were offer-only, so they indeed had to have the best audition to land the parts. Having seen the play, they're phenomenal at what the
Wick3 said: "OhHiii said: "You all do realize that it's illegal to ask a prospective employee what their sexuality is before hiring/not hiring them right?"
Of course. At the same time, this is a small community. If the role is for someone who is 18 or younger than 24, then I understand your point. The main lead role is an openly out gay man in his 30s. I'm sure there are actors who are in their 30s who are openly out these days and who have the t
