Now THAT was rude (both the teacher insult and the 'anyone else would have understood it')-- despite a smiley face which I guess is supposed to make rudeness OK? Howard, you should have added a smiley face after the 'Duh' and then no one would have been offended.

I must admit that when I read the Arcadia comment I sort of chuckled too. Wouldn't everyone have chuckled if you said, "I saw King Lear and you have to pay attention to take it all in"?

But Auduchamp has it right. This thread should be light and fun, and there's no point in getting all riled up if someone wants to state an opinion or if it happens to like something you didn't or vice versa.

Thank you, Patrick. I guess everyone else didn't understand it after all! No further comment--or retort--needed!

NP - There was nothing rude in what I said. As has been said to you before - you sure love your words.

I have the greatest respect for teachers and nothing in my post indicated otherwise. So glad you had a chuckle. I look forward to reading something you post that is light and fun. Now I'm chuckling too.

c'mon guys, play nicely. I just want to hear about good theatre productions for when I'm in NYC in mid May.

You probably already know that Priscilla is an Australian story, you may not know that some of the references in it have been changed to suit American audiences, so it will be interesting to see if that works or not. I read that they've dropped references to Kylie Minogue and replaced them with references to Madonna.

I read that they've dropped references to Kylie Minogue and replaced them with references to Madonna

Must be a period piece.

I'll try to remember in the future that there is nothing rude about saying "everyone else understood it". Seems I've been told specifically before that that exact phrase was indeed rude. Either it makes a difference who says it, or else the smiley face makes any such personal slam not rude. If I live to be a hundred I'll never understand how some of you exempt yourself from the same comment being rude that you say is rude when others use it.

Auduchamp is also right pointing out the overly sensitive feelings being expressed here.

Honestly, Centralparkgirl, was it necessary for you to say to me, "it's been said to you before -- you sure love your words", just because I DARED to explain MY opinion? I thought you just finished saying we are allowed to express our opinions, and I defy you to find anything in my post that was the least bit rude -- unlike your snide retort back to me. If anyone said to you "Centralparkgirl, you sure do like your words", you'd be screaming about the rudeness. Admit it, wouldn't you? So why was it OK for you to pull that out of the air and insult me? Are you still upset about some disagreement of opinion done months ago? I thought you just said we are all allowed to have our opinions. Get over it already.

And you were the one who said to Howard, "let's put that behind us. . ." then just couldn't help bringing it all up again with "anyone else would have understood" even when clearly there was no need for ANY further comment from either side. Read that little post again in its entirety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you said it wrong (to quote you). Anyone else would have understood what I meant, but you now have actually corrected it. Are you a retired teacher? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How in the world can you insist that that comment was not rude and how can you justify the post at all other than saying "I'm now getting in the last word"?? There was no point in the entire post other than giving a final dig. Can you honestly not see that?

I'm sorry you don't see it, but you are making personal insults and "splitting hairs" as much as anyone here. Do you honestly not understand that? You said "I will never be rude to another poster". Do you honestly think it's not just as rude to tell someone they were incapable of understanding something that everyone else understood as using the "duh" word to point out something that was or should have been blatantly obvious?
Come on, get over it. They are very much the same in my book. The only difference is that you said one and the other was said to you.

This is always a great thread. An apology has been made. Is it possible to move on and get back to discussing Broadway?

There's a time and a place to do the "dog with a bone" stuff but my fear is continuing this back and forth will negatively impact this long-standing thread series going forward.

Joe, thanks to you and the Times Review and my accidental wandering on Friday (tour guide's afternoon off), I WILL be seeing Peter and the Star Catchers at a price I can afford.

http://thestarryeye.typepad.com/expl...d-present.html

Now in an attempt to get back to talking about Broadway -- nothing has been said here about Wonderland, now in previews.

Here's a very interesting "review" from a poster on BroadwayWorld.com. Just try to ignore the lack of CAPS and all the . . . It tells more about the musical than I've been able to get from press releaases:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WONDERLAND -- first preview thoughts

i liked it!

for a second, i thought i would love it... but i ended up REALLY liking it...

i'm not into the ALICE IN WONDERLAND story... i'm not AGAINST it... i enjoyed the DISNEY cartoon when i was younger... it was never one of my favorites, but my dad bought me a cheshire cat figurine and i was kinda happy that he did... i put it next to my "prehistoric scenes" models... the ones you could snap together and then create a a stone age world on your book shelf... i was OBSESSED with the "prehistoric scenes"... so, it was a big deal that i made room for my cheshire cat figurine on that SAME shelf... a REALLY big deal...

but, THAT was the extent of my liking ALICE IN WONDERLAND...

anyway...

the show is FUN... i thought it was going to be ANOTHER interpretation of the same "alice" story... but... really...

it is MORE "alice in wonderland"-adjacent...

it ASSUMES you know the story... and a lot of the humor is drawn on that... it is really MUCH more like... THE WIZ.... and i LOOOOOOOVE... truly love... THE WIZ...

in this show... alice is middle-aged and she plummets into WONDERLAND on a SERVICE elevator... a pretty cool effect... and she is greeted by a CHORUS of "disney-styled" ALICES...

why not?!!!

then we meet the WONDERLAND version of the caterpillar... cheshire cat... the white rabbit... and JACK the WHITE KNIGHT...

JACK the WHITE NIGHT is super, scary HOT... DARREN RITCHIE... and his introductory number is a FULL ON... BOY BAND... BACK STREET BOY... SONG AND DANCE moment...

WHYYYYYY NOT?!

it is TOOOOO CUTE/FUNNY...

up to this point, i LOVED the show... i enjoyed EVERY song... the dialogue was fine... the jokes were funny... a few CLUNKERS.... but some VERY FUNNY... the audience laughed HARD... i did too...

then, it gets a little scatter-y.... they take a simple story and make it unnecessarily confusing... if it just STAYED simple... it would be fine... because, eventually... after some nonsensical and wordy detours... it DOES get back to simple, upbeat, entertaining themes...

i enjoyed all the songs... and all the leads are talented... JANET DACAL is an excellent ALICE... she is NOT the ALICE you would expect and that is what makes her good... she OWNS it... i liked her... i rooted for her...

i hope they have enough time to trim it down and focus the story... just some MINOR shaving... but, if not, i am STILL cool with what is there...

it is creative... it is funny... it is entertaining... and i look forward to OWNING the ORIGINAL CAST RECORDING... i haven't felt that way since IN THE HEIGHTS !!!! no, wait... AMERICAN IDIOT...

i will definitely see it again after it opens....

why not?!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The show is by the Jekyll and Hyde and Scarlet Pimpernel team --the type of music that is often not everyone's cup of tea. It's been in workshops for a couple of years and apparently has been rewritten and rewritten. There is a lot of hype about Kate Shindel's performance. She apparently plays a very evil Mad Hatter.
I'll be seeing it the first weekend in May.

starrs - you are so right. Thank you.

Yes, once an apology is given, we should just move on! Let's do.
Or even better would be to ignore any comment to begin with that seems questionable and just assume it was meant in jest or as a simple difference of opinion. Then we could REALLY move forward.

Geez, NeoPatrick. :-(

HowardR, would you please post your review of Priscilla after you see it? Or anyone else, please.

If we (5 friends) want to see Priscilla in early June, on a Sat afternoon or evening, should we buy them now to get good seats? I saw $147 tickets yesterday, center stage orchestra, Row P. Think we should get them now?

PeaceOut, I'll definitely post a review next Sunday after seeing the show.
As for buying tickets, since you're talking about a weekend performance, I would definitely buy them now! Unless you want to pay the high premium ticket price, you probably won't do any better!
I certainly wouldn't wait for possible discount offers. The current one expires April 18. Who knows after that? And even if there is one, the tickets for a Saturday performance certainly will not come close to what you say you can get now.

PeaceOut, I'm not sure what you mean by center orchestra. The Palace Theatre's orchestra section has a center aisle. If the seats are around 101 to 116 or so, then that's pretty center, but if they are more like 125 to 128, they are really to the sides. And row P is about 5 rows under the mezzanine. Have you checked on front row mezzanine? I'd WAY rather see Priscilla from there than from Row P even if it is pretty far to the side.

As to discounts -- really hard to say, but around Tony week (first week of June) and being a Saturday, I'd say your chances aren't great for getting a discount. If you like good seats and can grab front row mezzanine I'd grab those at full price in a heartbeat.

As to reviews, I think Priscilla is one of those shows that if you like big (gay themed) mindless fluff then you'll like it. If you don't, you won't. It's really pretty much that simple.

And now the reviews are coming in for How to Succeed. So far with reviews by LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, Toronto Star, and USA Today -- it's almost a unanimous rave -- particularly for Daniel Radcliffe (although the Toronto paper suggests he's only a 2 and 1/4 threat, not really a triple threat).

Pretty amazing since when I walked by the theatre at 5 this evening, everyone was going in for Opening Night.

Yea, it seems reviewers stopped reviewing opening night some time ago, and now review from previews.

Well, many more reviews are now in on How to Succeed and still most are mixed positive to absolute raves with the exception of the Washington Post which was pretty negative. Only Ben Brantley of the NYTimes was downright and outright nasty. It's hard to imagine that so many critics praised and even raved about Daniel Radcliffe, yet Brantley treated him like the worst thing that ever happened on a Broadway stage. Did Brantley just take a nasty pill before writing the review? Or did he just have an axe to grind about a young popular "celebrity" being cast -- that's what it actually sounds like. I, of course, haven't seen it, but I've been surprised at how many regular theatre types have gone expecting to see Radcliffe fall on his face and instead ended up raving about his charm and exuberance on stage. Did Brantley see the same guy?

http://theater.nytimes.com/2011/03/2...ml?ref=theater

Thanks for your advice re: seats for Priscilla. I will look again for mezzanine, amd see if my friends are ready to take the leap to buy now.