For those who don’t read Cafe Society, elucidator and Sampiro are referring to this regarding old not-Joe the not-Plumber.
Oh yeah, “manly things” like wearing wigs, ruffles and stockings. And having tea parties.
Hmm.
Bricker <— has seen Rent more than 20 times.
Well, with this latest bit from Joe the Plumber, I can now announce conclusively that a wide spectrum of data including some from anti-gay forces has now been amassed to establish the oft-controverted question of “what percentage of the population is gay?”
And it looks to be around 33-35%.
I’ve arrived at this conclusion by taking the 5% or so who are publicly out, assuming there are 2-3% closeted, and then adding in all the gay friends and acquaintances of homophobic bloggers and message board posters who oddly enough agree in every particular with the [del]Neanderthals’[/del] great thinkers’ opinions and have absolutely no contact with the 5% who are openly gay, choosing for some reason to reveaal themselves only to homophobes. And when you figure how many people that must be up, even allowing for some of these crypto-gays to have befriended more than one homophobe, they seem to be 27-28% of the total population.
We’re doomed!
I wonder if Joe thinks gays are effeminate and unable to defend themselves, and hence are not safe around his savage pipe-wielding thug children? 'Cause maybe he’s trying to protect teh gays!
Make the necessary changes and move on. I think Hallmark has a card just for this sort of occasion for your wife.
So, you’re totally gay. Hey, cool with me, just don’t get near Joe’s children.
(I should talk. The last play I saw was Legally Blonde. And I have to say, UPS Guy was TOTALLY HOT! Man oh man, he had a huge package.)
Laugh – but there was more than one message board/irc channel back in the mid-late 1990s where I was assumed to be gay, based entirely on my mentioning my interest in and in-depth knowledge of musical theater. I was once called a “self-hating gay man” because I was defending Bowers v. Hardwick (this was a few years prior to it be overturned).
So… yeah. My wife will be surprised, all right.
The real question isn’t whether you’re gay but why the hell you’d want to see Rent more than 20 times (unless you saw it for free, which is different). The plot is derivative and it’s dated very badly.
Now if you’d said you’d seen Mamma Mia more than 20 times, your toaster oven would be in the mail already.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Stop it, you’re killing me!
It wasn’t dated when I saw it – unless you contend it was dated in the year following its debut.
20 times seeing Rent? I saw most of the movie, and I can’t imagine seeing it more then once.
At least it wasn’t as bad as Hairspray - the plot made no sense.
You Rent-bashers are all self-hating gay men.
Probably no moreso than when you made her legally change her name to Mimi.
…or bought her that strap-on.
Hmmm. Took it too far, didn’t I?
No, she told me last night she’s suspected for a while.
Sampiro, I’m sorry for derailing your rant with this discussion, but…
…geeze.
First of all, if you saw “most of the movie,” that suggests to me it failed to hold you interest, so it’s unsurprising your initial reaction is negative. But if you have any experience whatsoever in watching live musicals and then the movie versions thereof, you must have realized that seldom are the two experiences precisely congruent. Sometimes the movie is better (see, e.g., Carrie.) More often, the live show precedes the movie and it’s the better product. But surely a few moments’ thought will lead you inescapably to the conclusion that seeing the movie (to say nothing of seeing “most of the movie”) gives you sparse credentials for offering a judgment on the show.
When you saw the movie, AIDS was no longer a death sentence; we have anti-viral cocktails and highly active antiretroviral therapy. True, there’s still no cure, but it’s no longer the viral sword of Damocles suspended by a near-useless thread of AZT. We can prolong AZT’s usefulness with protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. In short, Rent gives us a look at a world that simply doesn’t exist now.
But the story is not injured by this fact, because Rent is a retelling of the classic opera La Bohéme, and I assure you Puccini didn’t have a clue what a T-cell count was. In Puccini’s version, Mimi succumbs to tuberculosis; Jonathan Larsen merely updates the disease for Rent. It’s the human condition that makes the story compelling.
But hey – everyone’s different. You may not like the story for a variety of reasons. I just think it’s short-sighted and unimaginative to dismiss the play without knowing what you’re missing.
No prob. As long as we’re on the topic, has anybody seen the Rent final-show DVD? I’ve made many comments about how much I dislike the characters but I like the music and LOVE the staging. I thought the movie was mediocre (good performances but way too many changes) so I’ve Netflixed the stage show.
I wish they’d do this for a lot more Broadway shows. I understand not wanting to release it during the run, but I think there’s a big market for it for those of us who can’t make it to see the show on Broadway, or even for fans who liked it Broadway and want to see it again. Almost all of the bootlegged recordings of B’way shows on youtube have millions of hits.
I think that they should release shows on DVD, for the reasons you state. But it’s a really terrible way to see a play. Better than nothing, I guess, but I’m very rarely able to watch plays on TV all the way through.
I love this thread. From bigoted beauty queens and homophobic ads to musical theater in just a few days, with brief side trips to Miley Cyrus and Joe the Plumber.