ApexNomad

I love low hanging fruit. 😉

Yes, I binged it over two days and didn’t care for it. I wanted to like it, especially with the cast, but it just didn’t land. The same tired troupe of gay couples in open relationships—yes, they exist (and it’s perfectly fine!!), but it felt overdone and uninspired. Why not show me one of the hetero couples in an open relationship and see how that goes. None of the relationships felt earned or emotionally grounded. It was trying to be profound but ended up feeling hollow.

What a loss. 👀

I forgot to talk about the set in my review. This is perhaps the best I have ever seen the circle in the square for a production. I’m trying to remember the ones I’ve seen there. What they did here was amazing!!

Why is he hosting this? His time could be better spent writing a sequel to Fire Island.

Have you seen it with Titus Burgess? He’ll be taking over again.

Love Conrad! He’s wonderful.

Maybe that was true a few decades ago, but Broadway today is a different ecosystem. For directors, it’s not just about talent or even past success—it’s about the alchemy of money, branding, relationships, investor confidence, and timing. Lightning in a bottle doesn’t strike twice without a whole team trying to manufacture the storm. Dreams don’t die—but they do get optioned, reworked, and focus-grouped into oblivion. And with corporations like Disney and powerhouse production companies dominating the field, even veteran directors are often sidelined unless they come attached to a brand or IP—and those brands leave very little room for true creative expression.

“Genoveva” isn’t a widely recognized slang term or euphemism in English or gay culture—it’s a Spanish/Portuguese female name (like Genevieve in English). In this context, it seems to be used as a personal code or nickname. For what, I’m not sure. He also spells Fuck with three Ks.

A newspaper? At his age?

Bc they’re expecting The Producers-level hit. That’s never going to happen again. That’s lightening in a bottle.

I get why shows do projections. Very rarely do projections add anything. But I am old school, and the amount of money I’m paying to see some of these shows, I want a set.

They didn't nominate anyone from Tarzan and they flew across trees too. This should have been a lesson.

👆🏻 ^^^^^

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I agree—there are cases where withholding support is a principled stand, especially when a business openly promotes harmful ideologies or takes actions that impact communities negatively. In those situations, choosing not to engage can absolutely reflect strong, values-based convictions. But I reject the idea that my stance demeans anyone or their principles. That’s not my intention at all. I’m not dismissing the importance of values—I’m questioning whether all decisions made in the name of “principle” are truly that, or whether some are reactions based on discomfort or assumptions, especially when there’s no evidence of harm or unprofessional conduct. I think there’s a meaningful difference between standing up for your beliefs and shutting someone out for who you think they are. My concern is that if we’re not careful, we risk calling it principle when it’s really just division.

Political differences can override professionalism and skill if you believe they conflict with your values or threaten your way of life—but that’s on you, not the provider. A true professional won’t let personal beliefs interfere with their work. And if you do know their political beliefs, and they’ve done nothing but treat you with respect and professionalism—never compromising your safety or dignity—then choosing to disengage is, in my view, driven by fear or prejudice, not principle.

That’s a really thoughtful—and honestly, complicated—question. I believe that in a professional context, especially when it comes to hiring or evaluating someone’s work, the focus should remain on merit: their competence, integrity, professionalism, and how they treat others. If someone does their job well, respects boundaries, and maintains a neutral space free from ideological imposition, then I don’t see political affiliation as a relevant metric—just as I wouldn’t judge someone’s qualifications based on their favorite football team or preferred coffee order. That said, I also recognize we live in an increasingly polarized world, and political affiliation today can feel personal to many people. It’s often tied to values, identity, and how we see the world—not just policy positions. So I understand the emotional impulse to withdraw support if someone’s political stance feels threatening to your sense of self or community. But here’s the thing: once we start judging each other solely through the lens of tribal affiliations, we risk missing out on meaningful human interactions and even unexpected moments of growth. I don’t want to live in a world where everyone I hire, befriend, or engage with must reflect my worldview exactly. That seems like a recipe for stagnation. So, assuming the provider keeps politics out of the room and shows respect for all clients, I personally wouldn’t let political differences override professionalism and skill. To do so feels like making a decision out of fear or prejudice, not principle. In the end, we can’t control what others believe—but we can control how we respond. And maybe the most radical act today is to choose understanding over assumption.

I went to see Redwood on Broadway because, well, Idina Menzel. I figured even if the story didn’t land, her voice would carry the show. Not even she could save it. The plot—a grieving woman climbing a tree to find herself—felt thin and forced, like a Hallmark card stretched into two hours. The music blurred together, and by the third power ballad, I was ready to leaf. It was visually pretty—if you like a massive tree trunk in the center of the stage—but emotionally? Totally sappy. I went in hoping to be moved and left stuck in the branches of a show that just didn’t grow. (That’s all the puns I have folks.) Redwood Sets Early Closing Date on Broadway PLAYBILL.COM Idina Menzel stars in the musical at the Nederlander Theatre.

Time’s a luxury we all can’t afford to waste, so why keep engaging with someone who doesn’t seem to value it? It’s like giving your energy to something that’s never going to give back.

This is not a common trait with providers.

I think these are the categories to watch. There was an incident with Nicole some months back about a tweet or something I recall reading about. I think it ruffled some feathers. If voters want an excuse, they will use that. I thought she gave a brilliant performance. Absolutely stunning. Audra was electrifying! Also terrific. She’s a beloved figure in the community. Will voters extend her record or give another woman her first Tony? I think the roles are very different and demanding in their own right. In a perfect world, Megan Hilty should have won a Tony by now. And Helen J Shen should have been nominated.

I predict Smash will be the first to close. It needed Tony love and didn’t get it. Maybe Happy Ending is the little engine that could. I see this show really benefiting from today’s nominations. It has great word of mouth already (as it should - great show). And I think Darren Criss could pull an upset over Jonathan Groff for best actor.

I’m sorry for your loss my friend. What a blessing to have 42 years though. I like your idea. Crazy, yes. LOL but we’re entitled at our age.

What a fantastic show. Jonathan Groff delivered a truly mesmerizing performance—raw, nuanced, and magnetic from start to finish. Coming off the heels of last year’s triumph in Merrily We Roll Along, it’s remarkable to see him bring such a different kind of brilliance to the stage once again. A back-to-back Tony win wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I have always loved the music of Bobby Darin, and Just in Time honors it with both reverence and freshness. The arrangements are lush, the storytelling personal, and the entire production just glides. This show is a love letter to Darin’s legacy—and with Groff at the center, it’s unforgettable.