Posts made by Roz

@crawfish WHO COULD IT BE

@crawfish

@sunny said in RL Anger:

If one more person tries to blame the recent tragedy in my life on the COVID vaccine I am going to stab somebody in the damn face.

The number of times I have now been asked, "Was he vaccinated?" and then got a knowing "ohhhhhhhhh" after is DISGUSTING, leaving me to either explain the gory details of why I know it wasn't that, or letting them think that my partner's death helps justify them continuing to put everyone else at risk.

Holy shit how can people be so monstrous

I'm sorry, in my rush to tell you how missed you are and how glad I am that you're okay, I totally missed speaking on the things that are clearly not okay. I am so sorry you lost a family member. I am so very sorry about your parent's diagnosis; Alzheimer's is a cruel, shitty disease. I'm glad you're okay, but I'm so sorry for the ways in which you aren't.

@caryatid I have been thinking of you and missing you often in the past year or two since you slipped away from our mutual spaces and went quiet. I’m really glad you’re okay. I hope you continue to be okay. I’ll keep missing you.

@sunny Jesus. I am so, SO sorry.

@sunny said in General Video Game Thread:

Soooo, how about that queue boss?

(ffxiv)

I have never felt so lucky to be EST. I finished the MSQ on Monday and I’m still reeling.

@arkandel said in The Work Thread:

@roz One of my team leads came to me with an offer from another company. But it was in good faith and they were going to pay him significantly more than he was making - it made sense he'd take it if we didn't match. And he did ask if we would - and we did.

When there is trust from both sides it works out.

However if you expect that person to strong-arm their way out the first time they get the chance to make 4% more elsewhere, or they expect you to screw them over because that's the working relationship you've established with them then that whole exercise changes.

Yeah that requires a LOT of trust for me. Because it doesn't even have to be someone being a jerk and consciously refusing to give me opportunities after giving me a raise to retain me; even an otherwise decent job can just get the seed planted in their brains that you were looking elsewhere and might again and so might give you a bit less, etc.

@macha said in The Work Thread:

I mean, I will probably offer to stay at current job, if they will match the small amount more for the job I pee in a cup for tomorrow (as soon as things are set in stone with a new job, I will let you all know. Without you guys, I think last month would have... been very, very bad.

I know they won't do it, but then I can say I offered in good faith, and well.. money is money

Don't do it. Don't do that even for a job you otherwise like decently, because 1) it tells them that you're looking for other opportunities meaning they'll invest in you less, and 2) you don't want to stay at a place that will only give you a raise if you're about to leave.

DEFINITELY don't do it for a job you don't want to stay at. There's no expectation -- no reasonable expectation by actual sane people, at least -- that employees are expected to give their employers room the counteroffer. It's not included in the professional norm of leaving a job. Just put in your notice and GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE.

@reimesu said in Dead Celebrities 2021 Edition:

@roz

1. Raul Esparza's Bobby in that version of Company is quite possibly my all time favorite Sondheim rendition of any song and that's REALLY saying something because Sondheim is my favorite theater composer. Favorite. (My favorite accolade about Lin-Manuel Miranda is that he can be as complex as Sondheim.)

I got to see that production live twice, and one of my favorite details was seeing how Raul (one of my absolute favorite stage performers, bar none) would come down center during "Marry Me A Little" -- but stop just shy of the spotlight he'd step into during "Being Alive" at the end of the next act. I was in college, so still in the habit of stagedooring, and I remember telling him how I noticed it, and he was really pleased that someone had. He was a revelation in that role, and I nearly threw a book at my television when he lost the Tony.

I think you're spot-on that you can really see the line of influence from Sondheim to Miranda, absolutely. There will never be another Sondheim, but we'll get to have the art of those he influenced and inspired forever.

@tnp And he was still writing. He'd been working on a show that had a reading as recently as September that he was hoping to have ready for next season. I wonder what will happen to it.

@greenflashlight said in Dead Celebrities 2021 Edition:

@roz Would you like to talk about his contributions to someone who doesn't know theater, so would be duly impressed by all of it?

For folks who aren't particularly into theatre, probably his most well-known work would be West Side Story, which he wrote the lyrics for (which came out when he was all of twenty-seven). He also wrote the lyrics to Gypsy. But the bulk of his work he was both composer and lyricist, and was heavily involved in the full development of the shows, from conception to creation. Into the Woods and Sweeney Todd probably got a bit more well-known after having blockbuster films made for them, although I personally don't think either of them quite lived up to the originals. Other shows of his that I love include Company, Pacific Overtures, A Little Night Music, Follies, Sunday in the Park with George (his Pulitzer win), Passion, and Assassins.

He's known for being an intensely intelligent and thoughtful writer, and his music quite complex and often tricky to perform, but so intensely rewarding. It marked a certain departure in style for Broadway melodies, and there is kind of an infamous moment where Jerry Herman won the Tony Award for Best Score for La Cage Aux Folles, beating Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George, and in his Tony speech he said, “This award forever shatters a myth about the musical theatre. There’s been a rumour around for a couple of years that the simple, hummable show tune was no longer welcome on Broadway. Well, it’s alive and well at the Palace." It was kind of a contentious sentiment, although in truth I don't think he meant any ill by it, but it is kind of indicative of the stylistic shift Sondheim's work represented. His work is always complex. Even when it's simple to the ear, it's almost always deceptively so. His work is always cerebral and challenging, but deeply, deeply emotional and character-driven. And dizzyingly clever. Most theatre fans will be able to name their favorite Sondheim rhymes.

His shows for which he was both composer and lyricist (so ignoring West Side Story and Gypsy) rarely recouped (made back their original investment and proceeded to turn a profit) in their original Broadway productions, but they were almost always artistically and critically successful. I think they all made him personally successful, because they would all continue to have lives on the road and in licensing, but it's pretty remarkable the number of productions he continued to see put up on Broadway when his shows so rarely turned a profit. (Apparently only three, of all of his shows' original Broadway runs.) He would never have the commercial appeal of someone like Andrew Lloyd Webber, but I would say that the quality, importance, and impact of his work far outstripped ALW.

We do have the benefit of a large number of Sondheim productions that were professionally filmed with their original casts:

• Into the Woods
• Sunday in the Park with George
• Sweeney Todd (not QUITE the full original cast, but close!)
• Putting it Together (a revue of his work)
• Pacific Overtures (this one is FREE on YouTube)
• Company (2006 Revival) (I'd list an official streaming service for this one, but I can't find anywhere hosting it right now, so I give you another free YouTube link. Raul Esparza's Bobby devastated me me in this production.)

For me, I grew up with musicals and always loved them, but I feel like discovering Sondheim as a freshman in high school marked a distinct shift for me. A new chapter in how I understood and appreciated the artform.

If you watch the newly-released tick, tick...BOOM! on Netflix, which is an adaptation of Jonathan Larson's (of RENT fame) musical and a bit of a biopic, you'll see how intensely and reverently he and his generation of theatrical professionals viewed Sondheim; one of the numbers in the show is an absolute love letter to a particular number in Sunday in the Park with George, and Sondheim's support of Larson's work was undoubtedly integral to him continuing to soldier through rejection to finally find posthumous success in RENT. For those in the industry, or those who love theatre, Sondheim was bar none the most important composer of the second half of the 20th Century.

@TNP is right: Sondheim was 91, and lived a long and full life with a huge catalogue of art we are blessed to have. But I think more than any writer, filmmaker, or artist in any and all artforms, his impact on my life was by far the greatest.

...sorry i wrote a lot.

Stephen Sondheim.

I'm really, really not okay with this one. I can't even begin to describe what he did for American theatre.

I really regret never having the opportunity to meet him back when I was still in the industry.

I am still very much on the side of wanting to keep the history of the board active as part of the board if it all possible, and would make regular contributions in order to make that happen if it required additional hosting space of power and hiring someone to manage any migration.

@juniper said in The Work Thread:

@roz That makes sense, I guess I'll check the number of invitees from now on!

Yeah, in my day to day, the meetings I DON'T send a response to are rarities. Almost entirely just, like -- our monthly company all-calls. Or if there's some sort of seminar or whatnot that everyone is invited to if they want to come, that sort of thing.

Which sounds like exactly the sort of meetings @silverfox is scheduling. I WOULDN'T SEND YOU A RESPONSE, BB.

@juniper said in The Work Thread:

@silverfox said in The Work Thread:

I need people to learn how to use the 'accept but don't send response' option for their Microsoft calendar invites.

Wait, I'm not supposed to send responses to these??

I send responses for normal, small meetings. I don’t send responses for things like…my full company all-call. Big stuff where my attendance doesn’t impact scheduling and such, I figure they don’t need an email notification about whether I’m coming or not. A small meeting with my team? I send a response, because if I can’t make it we probably have to reschedule.

@silverfox said in The Work Thread:

@roz

HOW IS THIS NOT STANDARD KNOWLEDGE

I think I only discovered it when someone at some point sent me an invite that didn't have the notifications options with my response, and I was like, oh that's neat, wonder how they did that.

@silverfox said in The Work Thread:

I need people to learn how to use the 'accept but don't send response' option for their Microsoft calendar invites.

As MTSS coordinator I set up all the calendar invites for our middle of year meetings and came back to my computer to 100+ emails of people accepting the meeting.

You can actually turn off the option to request responses.

Also, I mean, I'm pretty sure it's also standard for actors who are interacting with the weaponry to receive some training and instruction, and it's standard for them to be shown the weapon in full in regards to its loaded status whenever it's given to them. Which is not because the actor is intended to be the one with final responsibility for safety on set at all, but because a constant and consistent standard for checking the weapon and showing its status to those using it and others in proximity of it means that the armorer is doing additional checks while in the process of proving the gun's status. For the actors and other crew, I think it's just as much about maintaining their personal sense of safety (so that they can do their jobs effectively).

@faraday said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the just HOW FREAKING MANY safety rules had to be violated for this to happen.

Live ammo had to get onto the set somehow.
Whoever loaded the gun had to not notice they were loading live ammo.
TWO people who were supposed to verify that the gun was safe failed to do so.

And those are just the verifiable facts - there are other accusations not verified. Crew members using the props on their time off, guns being left unattended on carts, chain of custody issues with the weapons once loaded, even more live ammo mixed in with the prop ammo, crew members raising safety concerns and being ignored, etc. etc.

There's a certain threshold of negligence at which all the safety regulations in the world won't help because the people involved aren't following them.

Yeah. This isn't a case of "the safety standards of Hollywood filming in regards to guns are a failure." It was a very extreme case of a specific production failing the very extensive safety standards on -- just, like, every conceivable level. Like -- the number of standard safety checks that were flouted for this to happen are so numerous.