| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 11:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think the rule only makes sense in the context in which it was created, which was the two Sam Shepards and then Fortune’s Fool (I think it was), juxtaposed with “Not About Nightingales”. The rule became a somewhat official way of saying that plays that took 20+ years to come to Broadway after becoming widely produced - and generally in brand new productions - were no longer to be seen as new, especially in an era when most Off-Broadway plays transferred in the same season. Now that we’re in an era where Off-Broadway plays are routinely taking many years to come to Broadway - and sometimes getting re-tooled out of town - the rules get fuzzier to parse. So while I agree that a lot of the logic in this thread is faulty, the way it’s being debated is true to the reasoning behind the rule. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Wiki lists some of the productions - dramedy 12:09 am EDT 04/12/23 |
| Next: | re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 01:10 am EDT 04/12/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.054964 seconds.