HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH THREADED MODE

not logged in

Threaded Order | Chronological Order

re: No

Posted by: ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - Zelgo 05:10 pm EDT 09/09/14

I am about done with repeating myself here but the meaninglessness is that the dimming was not a plebescite, it was a gesture by the League toward individuals they deemed worthy. The League reached a decision, and reversed it only to shut the mob up. What possible meaning could the gesture have in that context? If the fans (and that includes me) care about honoring Joan,then they should honor Joan instead of forcing someone else to honor her even when they clearly concluded it was not warranted. And that's all I have to say on the subject. I think.


reply to this message |

re: No

Posted by: portenopete 05:51 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14

Exactly....


reply to this message |

re: No

Posted by: tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14

So your logic is it was their decision to make and because it is theirs and theirs alone there was no incorrect decision to made?


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: No

Posted by: ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14

no-they could and likely have made multiple incorrect decisions. My logic is simply that it is their gesture, and while we can criticize it to our heart's content, we need to be wary of decisions that are reversed because of internet mobs.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: No

Posted by: Thom915 (Thom915@aol.com) 08:40 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14

On the contrary ryhog, you are showing yourself to be a very poor loser indeed. You refer to an internet mob and while I do not feel slighted to be included as such, do you feel that Audra McDonald, Donna Murphy, Steve Kazee, Harvey Fierstein, William Ivey Long, Daryl Roth, and Jordan Roth deserve to be mentioned as such. I would not be surprised that many other theater luminaries also made their views known to members of the League. These are people who make and create the very theater the Producers depend upon, the very people who likely will be honored with memorials of their own some day in the (hopefully) distant future. Yes the theater owners do have the right to do what they wish with their property but the public if they wish have the right to make their views known . You speak of hijacking someone's gesture. How was such a gesture hijacked? The "mob" did not storm the Shubert and Nederlanders properties and pull the light switches. Hell I don't even know of any threats to do so or to take any other action which might "force" someone to change their mind. It seems to me that the original decision was just rethought. Do we know who made the original decision? Is it not possible they were overridden by someone higher up in their organization and more attuned to what would best further the interests of the League? Is it not possible that producers were unaware that the original decision might make their stars and casts very unhappy? Is it not possible that with all the evidence presented to them perhaps Ms Rivers was indeed deserving of the gesture? Did they consult with you on every aspect of their process?


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: No

Posted by: enoch10 06:19 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14

how do you know it was" internet mobs" and not folks like william ivey long and others with real influence with the league that caused the reversal?


reply to this message | reply to first message

"My logic is simply that it is their gesture, and while we can criticize it to our heart's content, we need to be wary of decisions that are reversed because of internet mobs."

Posted by: sandcastle 06:09 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14

Well, I guess you'd better get over your logic. It is 2014, like it or not.

You're the one who lives on this chat board.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: No

Posted by: tandelor 05:30 pm EDT 09/09/14
In reply to: re: No - tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14

to make?


reply to this message | reply to first message


All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)

Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.

[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]

Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]

Time to render: 0.047712 seconds.