It's not the greatest gesture in the history of humankind, but it is a nice example of leading by example and doing something practical to try to help. Good for him.
SweetLips22 said: "You and I drink from different taps HH. Mine is tinted with optimism and nil scepticism [in this instance] and yours is----add your own flavour."
As it happens, I am very optimistic, but I am also skeptical when called for. This is an example of neither: I just don't trust him.
Not very much, but then again, my net worth isn't 1.2 billion dollars and I'm presently unemployed because my industry is, for all intents and purposes, indefinitely gone.
But let's not get it twisted: good for ALW for participating in the trial. But I don't think it's particularly noble, heroic, or putting his money where his mouth is.
His stated purpose for doing it is to "prove that theatres can re-open safely"- his words. Not "cure a global pandemic, which will lead to our industry reopening." But rather to prove something that he feels should already be happening.
His focus has been solely on reopening theaters and therefore on his income and bottom line, not helping fight the pandemic and those affected.
(also I'm not sure why Lin Manual Miranda is being dragged into this as a golden child, when it seems like he's facing popular backlash of his own).
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
If people over 65 with past or present health issues (Most have present) can prove a vaccine to be safe and effective it should mean said vaccine should be safe and effective for everyone else (except children or infants which would require a ton of separate studies). On the other hand if healthy young or middle age people should show a vaccine to be safe and effective it would mean little to the elderly. Andrew is in exactly the group of people where testing would mean the most and good for him for participating. I only hope he is part of the 15,000 that receive the actual vaccine and not the placebo.
My first reaction to this news was sort of, “uh.. okay. I guess he needs his name talked about.”
But I have to say, this is a really great thing he’s doing. Whether it’s for his own shows or for the good of theatre everywhere, he is actually doing something that will maybe help the industry. Props to him. Even if this trial goes nowhere, I bet he will continue to do this stuff. Good for him.
Seriously, there seems to be a stupid wiff of sophmoric Webber hate on herewho would not be exactly objective in the first place. He has done more and spoken up more than anyone for the theater these days, so I applaud him and feel relieved that at least he is attempting to do something. And for those trying to crap on it saying its for the money, like he is the only guilty man in freaking Broadway to care about that. Or are we on a board for off off off Broadway independent theaters or something? As if Broadway/West End wasn't a business already,,,,,hypocrites
No one is saying he is a hero or comparing him to landing on Normandy (you guys really are showing yourselves up here and also showing your incredible bias.)
The theatre industry has had no support from the government (the promised funds have yet to be seen by most venues). He has spent money trying to make theatres a viable business to open with appropriate safety measures (like EVERY other business in the UK has had to do), using South Korea Phantom as a template. He has proven this isnt viable, and he invited government representatives to watch.
He has now volunteered (like anyone can and has) to be part of the trial. He is a higher risk group which is also one of theatres core demographics so it makes complete sense. This also keeps theatres desperation in the news and pressure on the government.
As has also been said before, being a billionaire doesnt mean you have that much in ready cash.
I'm not saying he is a saint, far from.it, but there is no one else in the theatre industry doing as much and attracting as much publicity on the plight of the theatre industry in the UK at the moment.
Cameron mackintosh by comparison has laid off his staff and casts and closing the original production of the most successful piece of entertainment ever to replace it with a cheaper version to save money.
@Princeton2 this is not helping the industry; this is just a manifestation of the greed of a Tory lord. Stunts in support of his agenda of encouraging the irresponsible reopening of theatres cause more harm than good.
What a load of tripe. If this 'Tory Lord' wants to 'greedly' help his theatre business which in turn will help THE WORLD, praise be the Lord[best I could do].
SweetLips22 said: "What a load of tripe. If this 'Tory Lord' wants to 'greedly' help his theatre business which in turn will help THE WORLD, praise be the Lord[best I could do]."
How is one helping the world by exposing some of its residents to the risk of getting horribly sick so one can make money? And make no mistake: this is precisely what he has been trying to do since Day One. Careful what you praise, sweetie.
SweetLips22 said: "and why not? Theatres will only open to capacity once a vaccine is found, not before.
And as you have used my avatar name in a derogatory, childish attempt at humour, farewell."
I am glad that you recognize that theatres should not open until there is a vaccine (or some other effective treatment perhaps) but ALW expressly does not. That is the crux of my issue with him.
I have never thought of "sweetie" as derogatory, but if you took it that way please know that was not my intention. To me it is a term of endearment, no pun (or childish attempt at humo[u]r intended. au revoir.
HogansHero said: "SweetLips22 said: "and why not? Theatres will only open to capacity once a vaccine is found, not before.
And as you have used my avatar name in a derogatory, childish attempt at humour, farewell."
I am glad that you recognize that theatres should not open until there is a vaccine (or some other effective treatment perhaps) but ALW expressly does not. That is the crux of my issue with him.
I have never thought of "sweetie" as derogatory, but if you took it that way please know that was not my intention. To me it is a term of endearment, no pun (or childish attempt at humo[u]r intended. au revoir."
Liar! Your use of "sweetie" was complete condescension and you know it!