bostonman

Right. The only "person" taking account of political affiliation is trump, who, when Roseanne was canned for her comment, immediately went into "what about me" mode, without ever ever ever addressing the racial ugliness involved. Fucking ungrateful asshole. I can't speak to Maher, who I really don't follow that much. I can speak to Joy Reid, who used a good portion of her Saturday show not long ago to offer not just an apology for her homophobic comments, but a panel discussion of the issues involved. She not only seemed seriously contrite, but also entirely interested in discussing and exploring her faux-pas (or, faugh-paugh as a friend of mine used to think it was spelled). To contrast, when Roseanne didn't get the fuzzy warm responses after her initial apology (clearly she felt entitled to that), she fell apart again, blaming her Ambien and her co-stars and seemingly everything else EXCEPT herself. She had to be the hapless victim, the poor defenseless little girl who everyone was picking on. As if the initial apology meant bupkis, which I now really think is the case. The only thing she's sorry for is that she got called out - not so much for hurting so many people with what she said, or for putting her coworkers out of a job, etc. Like trump, it's not "I'm so sorry," it's become another round of "what about me?" ANYONE can say rotten, ugly things. It's how you graciously try to mend things afterwards that can matter so much. Roseanne, like her favorite fan trump, is incapable of that. It has nothing to do with her politics. It has to do with her (utter lack of) class and humility. And I refuse to blame all of that on any mental issues. If she knows she can't be in control of her utterances, she shouldn't be using social media. And notice that after saying she was going off twitter, she came right back, with a vengeance to rival trump's. #growthefuckupalready.

In other words, all of trump’s rhetoric is nothing but ambien noise???

Ha! Not everyone has Blanche's take on things, lol.

Oh, I'm really not sure I'd call a 15-year marriage "doomed." That's being a little severe, doncha think?

Actually, no, I don't think they wonder any more. The world is surely past that by now.

It could very well be that trump is so blind to his own racism that he's missing the entire point of all of this. Could it really be that he thinks this is simply all about the insult (at any cost) to Jarrett, and not the racism involved? He can't really be that stupid, can he? Or, of course (and perhaps more likely), that he considers ANY insult toward him more damaging than ANY racist statement made about anyone?

I'm sure this will become a standard warning soon enough. "Do not drive or use heavy machinery while on [drug in question]. Do not use social media while taking [said drug]."

Maybe she can be the Grand Dragon Marshal of the big military parade on the 4th? (Is that still on, or did everyone "conveniently forget" to organize it?)

Maybe Fox News will give her her own show?

Oh, I totally agree. Just that it's even more dismaying that she threw the Muslim comment in there as well. The "apes" comment wasn't enough for her already????

donald j trump: "You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country." his heroine, roseanne barr:

The "Muslim Brotherhood" part of the tweet wasn't any better. What a disgusting animal roseanne has become (or always has been).

I applaud ABC for their incredibly swift action. Especially in light of the show's overnight success.

Only the Frank (Mark Umbers) and the Charley (Damian Humbley) were from the London production. Mary was played by Broadway actress Eden Espinosa. The rest of the cast, including the other principal roles, were local Boston actors. I enjoyed Espinoza and Humbley a lot, but unfortunately felt Umbers was entirely miscast. The Boston actors did themselves proud - particularly 3 colleagues that I've worked with many times - Aimee Doherty as Gussie, Jen Ellis as Beth, and Christopher Chew as Joe. One also has to take into account that only in recent years has the Huntington NOT treated local actors primarily as spear carriers or understudies - they should be roundly applauded for finally coming to their senses lol. I enjoyed the production in general, but I did think the set designer should be shot for that behemoth of a useless, boring white wall that dominated the stage. (Same set that was used in London, unimproved.)

It wouldn't work, even if it were allowed. The show drives to "Opening Doors" and "Our Time" as the 11:00 and closing numbers, and the first scene, structurally, would make for a terrible finale. The show goes back in time chronologically, but its arc is pretty much traditional otherwise. (A similar case for the act break - "Now You Know" is the obvious and strong Act I Finale, but running the show in chronological order would change that arc entirely.) You'd essentially have to restructure the whole show to make it run smoothly in chronological order, and I doubt even Sondheim would allow that much change. (Plus, sorry, but the POINT OF THE SHOW is that it goes backwards in time, just as the original Kaufman and Hart play did. The title of the show is deliberately ironic in that sense - the plot chronologically gets less and less merry as it rolls along, but in reverse, it gains idealism as it goes. And all the while, the characters ironically warn us to "never look back, or that partnerships as they develop in time can be a "good thing going...going...gone." It's actually quite clever if you really look at it.) That said, I do think we all agree that the score is much stronger than the book in all ways and all versions. And though I do feel that the revised version (now the only one available for performance) does make some improvements on the original, there was also a lot in the original that didn't really need to be fixed. (Don't forget that a good deal of the problems in the original production were also due to things like the costume design, the choreography, and some of the casting.) And I absolutely miss the original framing device - the high school graduation scenes with "The Hills Of Tomorrow," gone forever at this point. I would also debate that Pinter's Betrayal (written to go backwards) works perfectly.

I remember that...the nickname for that gum was "cum gum" - because it would squirt in your mouth.

Using the Rentmen app on my phone, with the hide.me VPN, I can see the text reviews.

You might have misunderstood the question, lol. What I meant was, in what other sitcom do we get an actual scene taking place on the Murphy Brown set, where a main character (from the sitcom in question) becomes Murphy's secretary? (And if he indeed gets fired as all the others do, which he probably should, we never see it happen?) Hint - this sitcom featured at least one other cross-reference to Murphy Brown, where we discover that one of the other characters has been writing her own Murphy episode?

I think they should have trump play Murphy’s secretary. So she can fire him. Trivia question - in what OTHER sitcom did a character play that same role - and NOT get fired?

I loved Murphy Brown in its original run. But this is becoming an odd trend. Granted, a number of movies over the years have had remakes - some good, some horrid. But TV seems new to the "revival" game for the most part, and I'm not sure I like the idea of resurrecting and remaking dead sitcoms, especially when the originals are still out there to be seen. The idea of the spinoff has been popular for years, and it hasn't been uncommon to showcase a star in a new show where they, more or less, get to do the same kind of stuff they did in the last show, often with diminishing returns (Lucille Ball's two pale sequels to I Love Lucy come to mind). Another common idea is the copycat show - from The Honeymooners/The Flintstones/The Jetsons, to the glut of "rural" sitcoms in the 60's, to Bewitched and I Dream Of Jeannie, etc. But the new shtick seems to be to revive/remake the oldies, and I'm just not sure we need that. But ok... Just please, don't remake the already-perfect M*A*S*H. (And yes, I know the show itself was inspired by the film.) Or All In The Family, for that matter - even though it would certainly be appropriate in the current zeitgeist...

So, I've never met a transguy, but there are 2 right now in Boston, one based here, one visiting, that have both caught my eye - and I'm getting curious. Does anyone have any experience with either of these cuties? ThomasClif - https://rentmen.eu/thomasclif BonusHoleLuke - https://rentmen.eu/BonusHoleLuke

I've seen this "bad gateway" issue there before - I doubt the site is down for good. That said, I remember when I first noticed the site a while back, and thought it seemed pretty worthwhile then. But it really hasn't been of much use in a long time.

That's practically the plot of the show itself.

I still remember in elementary school, we once had some sort of gymnastics exhibition. There was one guy who did rope climbing, but turned it into a joke where his pants fell down in the process. (It was clearly planned, because there were several performances of this "show," and he did it every time.) Obviously his underwear stayed on. But I'm thinking - that was the mid 70's - I wonder if anyone would dare throw in a gag like that anymore?

Huh? This sounds backwards to me. Sounds like she’s calling Brando a 2-year old. Is that what she meant?