|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 19:46:10 GMT
The thing is pointone says that he opposes Trump and everything he stands for but then spends far, far more time commenting about why Trump's opponents (first Clinton, now Hamilton) are in the wrong than he does commenting about why the man himself is. I find that a little odd.
As for the matter of being delicate, well it's hardly a major insult. It's pretty logical to suggest that about people that are taking an issue with something that the person the thing was directed at didn't even take an issue with, no? If someone had a disagreement with me and I said there was nothing to be offended by and it was great that they had the freedom to say it, then people were still adamantly sticking up for me 3 days later, I'd consider them delicate too.
And really this is the thing. This whole debate is being labelled as Hamilton vs. Pence. When in fact, the cast of Hamilton and Pence are the only ones acting with maturity and respect. Not the audience of Hamilton and certainly not Trump and his supporters/defenders. I'm pretty sure if this was upto Hamilton and Pence, this would have stopped being discussed 48 hours ago.
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 21, 2016 19:58:52 GMT
Well I think it's fabulous At the panto this Christmas I'm looking forward to being schooled by Widow Twankey on Brexit, while Buttons rallys against homophobia before I'm allowed to leave the auditorium.
No... don't boo! Perhaps we could get Cinderella to give us a lecture on immigration before curtain down on the first act?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:03:50 GMT
As for the matter of being delicate, well it's hardly a major insult. It's pretty logical to suggest that about people that are taking an issue with something that the person the thing was directed at didn't even take an issue with, no? If someone had a disagreement with me and I said there was nothing to be offended by and it was great that they had the freedom to say it, then people were still adamantly sticking up for me 3 days later, I'd consider them delicate too. Well, no, if that's what happened. But a quick glance back at this thread seems to show that since someone posted Pence's statement, the conversation has been mainly people who agree the cast were right talking to each other, or people moving the conversation on to discuss the rather bizarre Exum statement. I'm not sure how this qualifies?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:05:51 GMT
The thing is pointone says that he opposes Trump and everything he stands for but then spends far, far more time commenting about why Trump's opponents (first Clinton, now Hamilton) are in the wrong than he does commenting about why the man himself is. I find that a little odd. As for the matter of being delicate, well it's hardly a major insult. It's pretty logical to suggest that about people that are taking an issue with something that the person the thing was directed at didn't even take an issue with, no? If someone had a disagreement with me and I said there was nothing to be offended by and it was great that they had the freedom to say it, then people were still adamantly sticking up for me 3 days later, I'd consider them delicate too. And really this is the thing. This whole debate is being labelled as Hamilton vs. Pence. When in fact, the cast of Hamilton and Pence are the only ones acting with maturity and respect. Not the audience of Hamilton and certainly not Trump and his supporters/defenders. I'm pretty sure if this was upto Hamilton and Pence, this would have stopped being discussed 48 hours ago. Well, obviously Clinton was in the wrong. If not, a racist bigot like Trump could never have won. I realise that commenting on Clinton's flaws is not popular withcthe general public because all the celebs supported her so she must be the most wonderful candidate. If you want to believe that, fine. That's your choice. But don't complain because I don't agree with you. Are you really bashing me because I don't whine about Trump enough? What's the point of commenting on Trump's negatives? Anyone can see them because they're so obvious. If the being delicate thing isn't ensulting enough, than what warrants mallardo bringing up completely unrelated things about my collaborators and the musical I'm writing? Mallardo called it my "so-called collaborators" and my "so-called musical". Why is that necessary? Why is there a need to try to personally insult me by bringing up something I've been working on for over a year?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:09:59 GMT
As for the matter of being delicate, well it's hardly a major insult. It's pretty logical to suggest that about people that are taking an issue with something that the person the thing was directed at didn't even take an issue with, no? If someone had a disagreement with me and I said there was nothing to be offended by and it was great that they had the freedom to say it, then people were still adamantly sticking up for me 3 days later, I'd consider them delicate too. Well, no, if that's what happened. But a quick glance back at this thread seems to show that since someone posted Pence's statement, the conversation has been mainly people who agree the cast were right talking to each other, or people moving the conversation on to discuss the rather bizarre Exum statement. I'm not sure how this qualifies? ali973's 'delicate' comment wasn't directed at people who agreed with the cast or people discussing Exum though. It was directed at, and I quote, those 'who have issues with the cast's stance'. And I'm sure he didn't just mean people on this thread, believe me when I say there are plenty of people on the internet still railing against the cast.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:10:46 GMT
By the way, I had stopped discussing the Pence thing. But someone brought it back up today, so stop blaming it on the person you don't agree with
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:15:17 GMT
The thing is pointone says that he opposes Trump and everything he stands for but then spends far, far more time commenting about why Trump's opponents (first Clinton, now Hamilton) are in the wrong than he does commenting about why the man himself is. I find that a little odd. As for the matter of being delicate, well it's hardly a major insult. It's pretty logical to suggest that about people that are taking an issue with something that the person the thing was directed at didn't even take an issue with, no? If someone had a disagreement with me and I said there was nothing to be offended by and it was great that they had the freedom to say it, then people were still adamantly sticking up for me 3 days later, I'd consider them delicate too. And really this is the thing. This whole debate is being labelled as Hamilton vs. Pence. When in fact, the cast of Hamilton and Pence are the only ones acting with maturity and respect. Not the audience of Hamilton and certainly not Trump and his supporters/defenders. I'm pretty sure if this was upto Hamilton and Pence, this would have stopped being discussed 48 hours ago. Well, obviously Clinton was in the wrong. If not, a racist bigot like Trump could never have won. I realise that commenting on Clinton's flaws is not popular withcthe general public because all the celebs supported her so she must be the most wonderful candidate. If you want to believe that, fine. That's your choice. But don't complain because I don't agree with you. Are you really bashing me because I don't whine about Trump enough? What's the point of commenting on Trump's negatives? Anyone can see them because they're so obvious. If the being delicate thing isn't ensulting enough, than what warrants mallardo bringing up completely unrelated things about my collaborators and the musical I'm writing? Mallardo called it my "so-called collaborators" and my "so-called musical". Why is that necessary? Why is there a need to try to personally insult me by bringing up something I've been working on for over a year? I don't think there's been a presidential candidate in history that hasn't been in the wrong for at least a few things. A racist bigot won because there's plenty of people in the world that love racism and bigotry. And let's remind ourselves that if America's voting worked like ours did, then Hillary would be the president-elect now. I don't think Clinton is the most wonderful candidate, but as you yourself have noted, she was far better than her opponent and the comments that you and people like you made against her before the election probably didn't help her case in beating him. When there's two clear choices, you make the right one, and then push her to do better once she gets elected. I'm not bashing you at all, I'm just confused about why you seem to show more opposition towards those on the opposite side of Trump than to Trump himself or those on his side. And clearly his faults are not so obvious if so many people still voted for him and support him. I have no comments on mallardo's comments as I honestly have no idea what they're discussing. I was just addressing the 'delicate' thing which I think was more than fair to say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:26:46 GMT
Well, obviously Clinton was in the wrong. If not, a racist bigot like Trump could never have won. I realise that commenting on Clinton's flaws is not popular withcthe general public because all the celebs supported her so she must be the most wonderful candidate. If you want to believe that, fine. That's your choice. But don't complain because I don't agree with you. Are you really bashing me because I don't whine about Trump enough? What's the point of commenting on Trump's negatives? Anyone can see them because they're so obvious. If the being delicate thing isn't ensulting enough, than what warrants mallardo bringing up completely unrelated things about my collaborators and the musical I'm writing? Mallardo called it my "so-called collaborators" and my "so-called musical". Why is that necessary? Why is there a need to try to personally insult me by bringing up something I've been working on for over a year? I don't think there's been a presidential candidate in history that hasn't been in the wrong for at least a few things. A racist bigot won because there's plenty of people in the world that love racism and bigotry. And let's remind ourselves that if America's voting worked like ours did, then Hillary would be the president-elect now. I don't think Clinton is the most wonderful candidate, but as you yourself have noted, she was far better than her opponent and the comments that you and people like you made against her before the election probably didn't help her case in beating him. When there's two clear choices, you make the right one, and then push her to do better once she gets elected. I'm not bashing you at all, I'm just confused about why you seem to show more opposition towards those on the opposite side of Trump than to Trump himself or those on his side. And clearly his faults are not so obvious if so many people still voted for him and support him. I have no comments on mallardo's comments as I honestly have no idea what they're discussing. I was just addressing the 'delicate' thing which I think was more than fair to say. I hardly think my comments on Clinton made her lose. And any comments that progressive outlets made about here were entirely warranted. And yes, Trump is a lot worse and clearly Clinton was the lesser of two evils. But that doesn't lean I can't critisise her. I completely admit that I discussed Clinton's flaws more than I did Trump's. Partly because she was an extremely weak candidate which meant the Trump threat was getting more and more serious because there was a growing chance he would actually win. And partly because hardly anyone else was discussion the issues surrounding Clinton. And about the delicate thing, it's not a major insult. But it does bug me that this person thinks he should just dismiss anyone that doesn't agree with him as delicate souls. Anyway, we are way off topic so I'm done discussing politics on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:35:01 GMT
I don't think there's been a presidential candidate in history that hasn't been in the wrong for at least a few things. A racist bigot won because there's plenty of people in the world that love racism and bigotry. And let's remind ourselves that if America's voting worked like ours did, then Hillary would be the president-elect now. I don't think Clinton is the most wonderful candidate, but as you yourself have noted, she was far better than her opponent and the comments that you and people like you made against her before the election probably didn't help her case in beating him. When there's two clear choices, you make the right one, and then push her to do better once she gets elected. I'm not bashing you at all, I'm just confused about why you seem to show more opposition towards those on the opposite side of Trump than to Trump himself or those on his side. And clearly his faults are not so obvious if so many people still voted for him and support him. I have no comments on mallardo's comments as I honestly have no idea what they're discussing. I was just addressing the 'delicate' thing which I think was more than fair to say. I hardly think my comments on Clinton made her lose. And any comments that progressive outlets made about here were entirely warranted. And yes, Trump is a lot worse and clearly Clinton was the lesser of two evils. But that doesn't lean I can't critisise her. I completely admit that I discussed Clinton's flaws more than I did Trump's. Partly because she was an extremely weak candidate which meant the Trump threat was getting more and more serious because there was a growing chance he would actually win. And partly because hardly anyone else was discussion the issues surrounding Clinton. And about the delicate thing, it's not a major insult. But it does bug me that this person thinks he should just dismiss anyone that doesn't agree with him as delicate souls. Anyway, we are way off topic so I'm done discussing politics on this thread. No not yours alone. But as a group, those that consistently spoke against her but ultimately would have preferred her to win probably didn't help. You can criticise her, but I can't wrap my head around criticising someone who you want to win more than you do the one you want to lose. In your opinion she was a weak candidate, okay. But she was the candidate. Nothing was going to change that. So what was the point of complaining about it rather than trying to make the best out of it? If hardly anyone else was discussing the issues surrounding Clinton then her favourability ratings wouldn't have plummeted over the last few years. Honestly it's a little ironic that you're bugged by someone calling you delicate. It kind of proves his point. People consistently form opinions on those that disagree with them. I'm pretty sure you had dismissed the opinions of those that thought the cast were in the right too. That's how opinions work.
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 21, 2016 20:39:32 GMT
Just a gentle reminder that this is the Hamilton thread, not the Clinton/Trump thread. Oh, and if you could just quote the bits of earlier posts that are pertinent to your response instead of the entire thing it makes for a more pleasurable experience for your readers.
Carry on!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Nov 21, 2016 20:46:44 GMT
pointone, I call you out because you're an attention seeker, pure and simple.
As an American who was in the US for the election and who suffered through that nightmare of a night and watched his country being stolen by a pack of lying con men praying on the fears and prejudices of the soon-to-be jobless white working class, I'm angry and I have a right to be. There's no way on earth I could have been as tempered and modulated as Brandon Victor Dixon was with Pence and I salute him for that. And when I see these piddly little arguments from you, especially, about not the right place, not the right time, I want to throw up. You have no idea, pal. None.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 7:41:33 GMT
mallardo (and everyone else), you have good reason to feel the way you do. I also have good reason to feel the way I do about bullying. About what happens in theatres. About society in general. Are we really going to get into an argument about 'my suffering is worse than yours therefore my opinion is more valid'? Our experiences define our opinions. To deny someone's opinion - in the way some here have done - is to deny them their experience. And, to (mis)quote someone else on this thread,I thought we were better than that.
And now I really am ducking out of this thread for good, because otherwise I think I might quit the whole darn board!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Nov 22, 2016 8:13:58 GMT
jeanhunt, well said. And I apologize to pointone for the remarks about his musical - they were entirely gratuitous. Now that it's the morning after it seems to me that I just needed to get all of that stuff off my chest. Cheers.
|
|
299 posts
|
Post by bengal73 on Nov 22, 2016 8:27:50 GMT
Can we get back to discussing the show itself now. Or even the so far released tracks from the mixtape.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 9:03:18 GMT
Can we get back to discussing the show itself now. Or even the so far released tracks from the mixtape. Yes. Lin's verse on Wrote My Way Out is incredible.
|
|
422 posts
|
Post by carmella1 on Nov 22, 2016 17:51:19 GMT
Any ideas about who could play King George. Do you think they want the higher pitched tenor of Jonathan Groff or someone who could sing it a touch lower. Or think Jonathan may come over himself?
|
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Nov 22, 2016 18:05:12 GMT
Or think Jonathan may come over himself? Struggling to reply without getting myself banned
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 19:21:32 GMT
Any ideas about who could play King George. Do you think they want the higher pitched tenor of Jonathan Groff or someone who could sing it a touch lower. Or think Jonathan may come over himself? Been rooting for Jamie Parker from day one and even more so now that him and Lin have met.
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Nov 22, 2016 19:44:40 GMT
|
|
299 posts
|
Post by bengal73 on Nov 23, 2016 1:35:38 GMT
Can we get back to discussing the show itself now. Or even the so far released tracks from the mixtape. Yes. Lin's verse on Wrote My Way Out is incredible. Indeed it is. That track and Immigrants are both astounding
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 9:48:18 GMT
I stand by my earlier stated idea that King George is a good place to stick a name (not necessarily a *celeb*, but certainly a *name*) to encourage a potentially slightly more reluctant West End audience through the doors. I'm sure Dominic West has expressed interest (though I don't know how seriously), and I could see someone like Simon Russell Beale in the role too (or even Michael Ball, if you wanted to really startle people!).
(Open auditions have explicitly said "don't come if you want to audition for King George", which some people are taking as "we already have someone in mind if not in place", though I reckon it's just to make sure you don't get hundreds of white men with traditional MT portfolios clogging up the auditions when they need a wider variety of skin tones and skill sets.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 9:54:02 GMT
I am so intrigued as to how this will sell. I honestly have no idea how prepared I need to be in January to get multiple tickets.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Nov 23, 2016 10:03:42 GMT
I think it'll go the same way as Book of Mormon, obviously it'll have fans here already (more than the usual broadway transfer) and then you'll have American fans who can't get a ticket to the Broadway show, and of course tourists and fans from elsewhere too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 10:09:37 GMT
I don't think it'll be a Cursed Child-esque stampede, but I do think the website will have a few teething issues. I might book in the afternoon myself, give the dust a chance to settle before piling in.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 12:13:16 GMT
I stand by my earlier stated idea that King George is a good place to stick a name (not necessarily a *celeb*, but certainly a *name*) to encourage a potentially slightly more reluctant West End audience through the doors. I'm sure Dominic West has expressed interest (though I don't know how seriously), and I could see someone like Simon Russell Beale in the role too (or even Michael Ball, if you wanted to really startle people!). (Open auditions have explicitly said "don't come if you want to audition for King George", which some people are taking as "we already have someone in mind if not in place", though I reckon it's just to make sure you don't get hundreds of white men with traditional MT portfolios clogging up the auditions when they need a wider variety of skin tones and skill sets.) I imagine they'd still need to cast understudies for King George?
|
|