I don’t know who this fool is, but he is responsible for THE most offensive marketing of the past year, and that includes the fool woman who did that ridiculous, glamorized domestic violence ad for her salon in Canada. No, really. This happened. For more details, check my archives.
I stopped everything I was doing specifically because this was too disgusting. This lands you in the oh, HELL no!! section of dumbasses.
Pictures of the Auschwitz, posing as a threat to calories?! Millions of people were starved, tortured, murdered and this location was base camp 1 for human injustice and your idea was to use this for your gym?! You showed no remorse, and were thrilled when your Google numbers went up!
To do something this crass for the sake of bringing up membership numbers in your gym, is reprehensible. You managed to bypass all of the Republican caucus nonsense and go straight to the head of the line. You win for the week, marketing genius!
A critic friend of mine posted this on his Facebook profile.
People who think they’re immune to copyright laws make me roll my eyes.
Not to be left out, the director wrote a letter to the editor, expressing her displeasure at having to change the measly “five lines” and return the script to its original state.
Holy crap, this woman is pretentious.
You know what?
If you want to piggyback on the original (original is relative, in this case) author’s success and tack on your vision at the end? That’s fine. But you’ve got to get that past that author or that author’s estate. Period.
That’s why copyrighting exists.
So that a creator can protect their creation.
I’ve seen 3 different productions of Pippin done with variations on the ending.
3 different endings!
You know why that’s cool?
Because the guy who changed the original script… is the guy who wrote the original script!
You cannot rewrite the ending of a show just because you don’t agree with it.
I didn’t like the play “Next Fall.”
I’m sorry, I didn’t. No offense to the playwright, cast, crew, anyone.
I just didn’t like it.
Were I to suddenly be put in charge of a college production of this show, and thought to myself, “You know, if I just get rid of these four words, it will make this character more accessible to the audience and the ending will make more sense,” I’d be wrong.
I could expect to find a letter from the author’s law office, requesting a cease and desist, on my desk almost instant after making that decision.
I would be immediately ordered to change it back or not do the show at all.
Because, you see, it’s not mine.
It is the intellectual property of Jonathan Larson. He worked, and sweat and starved to get his story developed, workshopped and produced, Off and On Broadway. He died before seeing his vision brought to complete fruition. Your little revision does not pay him homage.
Let me spell it out for you, Ms. Director with a hyphen.
This has nothing to do with money.
The organization already has the money your department had to pay for the rights.
To be allowed to do this production for a limited amount of time.
In the grand scheme of this show, your contribution is, pardon me for saying so, insignificant.
RENT, in its current “unrealistic” state, generated more money than you will ever see, more fans than you could ever conceive, tours, merchandising, a Broadway run most producers could never even hope for, worldwide fame & recognition beyond your wildest dreams.
Don’t take it personal. It’s not that your version was better or worse.
They just need you to stop trying to fix that which ain’t broke.
A woman woke up in her home to find a strange man standing over her bed, in his underwear, with her husband, who also is in his underwear.
The woman was then informed by her half nekkid husband that he’d been taken hostage by a screwdriver-wielding man and a woman who forced him to inhale a substance that he assumed was crack cocaine. They then pushed him into his home and demanded money.
He had no cash on his person, so he promptly obliged the “attackers” by going to a nearby bank ATM to take out $800. The husband and the criminals returned to the house, where they forced him to smoke more of the “substance”, strip down to his skivvies and pay his wife a visit upstairs.
(Just let that sink in for a hot minute.)
THEN, when his wife decides the best course of action is to call the police, he stops her.
He tells her to let them do what they want.
Apparently, “what they want” included “crazy screwdriver underpants” man making advances to the (understandably) bewildered wife. She refused, of course, and stayed in her room, where her husband again wouldn’t let her call the police.
He continued to refuse this request until after the two “assailants” left their house $800 richer and in possession of his car keys, wallet and garage door opener.
Shockingly, the police found this story lacking a ring of truth, and came up with a very different scenario.
Horny husband finds a couple and decides to “Spice up your life” by paying them to have a sex party in his home, with his wife.
Who knows absolutely NOTHING about this plan.
My guess is the topic of multiple partners never came up once in the Fakhoury household. I’m also guessing that if any “substance” was used, the husband knew exactly what it was, because that’s what he ordered.
What I love is that he continued to stick to this ridiculous story with the police.
Can’t you just picture it?
After the husband finally broke down after being interrogated, after learning that the couple ratted him out, after the truth came out and after all of this ends up in the police blotter. Somebody had to ask him, “Why didn’t you just bring up your idea about another couple to your wife before this incident?”
And I can hear his answer: “That would have been too embarrassing!”
This is so dumbass, I actually made this face:
This was too funny not to talk about, people.
This guy may get a write-in vote into the DA Hall of Fame on his first try!