Why is it in the Land of the Free, that we are so terrified of excercising our Constutional Right to freedom of speach when it could offend Muslims, that we would never dream of staging the Quran on Broadway?
But when we stage the Book of Mormon on Broadway, it's a critically acclaimed, runaway hit, biggest hit of the 21st Century? 16 Emmies and a Grammy! The list goes on. Mormon church goes wild, sees this as "The Mormon Moment" and takes out really expensive two page adds in EVERY Playbill on Broadway and wen it goes off Broadway, around the country and around the world.

Imagine what reactions Muslims would have around the world, to a play that mocks their religion, their sacred text, and has a hit song about f'ing their God in the ass, ear and cnut?

Do Mormons just deserve the ridicule more? Are there beliefs that much more ridiculous than those of Islam?

Or have we become a nation of cowards for not allowing the South Park Boys to stage a Quran Musical?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 05:48PM by koriwhore.

Because Mormons won't cut your head off plain and simple.

Why do we allow foreigners free reign in our country if they threaten to cut off citizen's heads just for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech?
Either we don't value our freedom enough or
we're too politically correct to stand up for our freedoms.

Either way, the end result is the same, we've lost our freedom of speech if we feel so threatened by believers that we can't even express ourselves the same way we do with EVERY other relgion.

Finally I agree with you on something! lol

If this forum had Red and Green arrows then this comment would be Green arrowed to Kolob. I suspect the real answer is that TBMs really believe and think the jibes are made by people who don't know what they are doing. The moslems don't believe but desperately need people to think they do.

Fear

So you think Americans are cowards?
Not me.
I'm not and I'm an American.
That's the problem. We're so afraid of violence we're willing to give up our freedoms.
I'm with Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Religion should be mocked and ridiculed and parodied, with derision, all religions. None of them get a free pass because they're violent. Violence is an unacceptable response to free speech.
The more absurd the beliefs, the more they need to be mocked, ridiculed and parodied!
There is no religion more absurd than Mormonism, except maybe Fundamentalist Mormonism and Fundamentalist Islam, both of which should be mocked.
And if we're too afraid to deal with the consequences, then they've won, they've taken away our freedom and turned us into cowards.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 06:41PM by koriwhore.

I don't think everyone's a coward, but the Koran is a joke. it ought to be made fun of. I really think fear of retaliation is holding it back. Look what happened to Salman Rushdie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 07:42PM by donbagley.

Is there any evidence for your assertion that it is not okay to stage a play based on the Quran?

Is your ability to criticize Moslems in any way constrained in this country?

Is there any reason to assume that all Moslems share the same attitude about the United States and its citizens?

Do you recommend in some way restricting Moslem's freedoms in the United States more than other racial groups'?

Are you saying that Moslem is a race?

With in a few hundred years all but the most remote places will have made biological essentialism a thing of the past.

However race is also properly defined as sharing a societal relationship.

True. Please substitute "ethnicity" or "culture" where I used the word "race."

The questions still stand.

Interesting. I had no idea Mormonism was properly defined as a race.

I think Jacob and I were both agreeing with the point you made above, namely that my use of the word "race" was suboptimal at best.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any evidence for your assertion that it
> is not okay to stage a play based on the Quran?
>
Yes, for those with a memory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims

> Is your ability to criticize Moslems in any way
> constrained in this country?
I'm Muslim. And dont hesitate to criticize violence, of any kind.
>
> Is there any reason to assume that all Moslems
> share the same attitude about the United States
> and its citizens?
No. Again, I am Muslim and I am not inclined to violence. None of the Muslims I know are violent.
>
> Do you recommend in some way restricting Moslem's
> freedoms in the United States more than other
> racial groups'?
No. Like I said, Im Muslim. Why wiuld I want to restrict my own freedom?
I think if somebody denies my right to free speech, as an American, I will fight them. Thats a hill I will die upon.

So what is the point of your OP?

When asked if there is evidence that a parody of the Quran would be unacceptable in this country, you refer me to a list of terrorist activities in other countries. You have no evidence that Broadway or Hollywood has considered and rejected such a parody let alone that such rejection was borne of fear. In other words, you have no evidence that free speech in the United States is constrained in relation to Islam or the Quran.

In answer to my other queries, you say you want no new restraints on Islam and you don't feel constrained in your activities either as an American or as a Moslem.

So what are you trying to tell us?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what is the point of your OP?
>
> When asked if there is evidence that a parody of
> the Quran would be unacceptable in this country,
> you refer me to a list of terrorist activities in
> other countries. You have no evidence that
> Broadway or Hollywood has considered and rejected
> such a parody let alone that such rejection was
> borne of fear. In other words, you have no
> evidence that free speech in the United States is
> constrained in relation to Islam or the Quran.
>

Remember Bengazi?
Americans died at an American Embassy, because of a very insinuficant, obscure film.
And you dismiss that as evidence of a predictable reaction to a Broadway play, like the BoMoBway?

> In answer to my other queries, you say you want no
> new restraints on Islam

I want restraint on any agents who threaten me or any other American with violence for any reason, but especiallybfot denying us our freedoms. I will fight anybody, personally who tries to deny me my freedom of speech, especially if it is religion inposing on secular society and restricting freedom.

> and you don't feel
> constrained in your activities either as an
> American or as a Moslem.
>

No I didnt say that at all.
I think we have turned into a nation of politically correct candy asses who cant win a war with onevlittle country in less time than it took to actually win both world wars combined.

> So what are you trying to tell us?

I just asked a question you still have not answered.

You've merely denied the validity of my question by denying the threat of radical Islam to civilization.
I think it is a huge existential threat that we need to deal with before radical muslims get ahold of a nuke.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2016 12:38AM by koriwhore.

Your question is nonsensical. You have not provided any evidence that Hollywood or Broadway are discouraged from addressing Islam critically. You are asking me to explain the reasons for a phenomenon that does not exist.

As for the Bengazi attack, you have no evidence that that had an inhibitory effect on US creativity. The opposite seems more likely since the theatrical world has made piles of money on action films showing Moslems as unidimensional terrorists and villains.

Finally, the canard that the Bengazi attack was provoked by that movie was discredited long ago. But even if it were true, you would still need to show us that it--as opposed to the dozens of other instances in which enemies have killed handfuls of Americans overseas--would uniquely cause a bout of self-censorship in one of the most greedy and cynical industries in the United States.

Until you can demonstrate the truth of a proposition, you cannot reasonable ask others to explain it.

You've edited away some of the things I disagreed with.

For what it is worth, I have not denied the threat posed by radical Islam nor need to prevent our enemies from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I agree with you generally on that.

"Is your ability to criticize Moslems in any way constrained in this country?"

Seriously? Did you not hear about this incident?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/

Ever heard of (the United States of) AMERICA? I can't answer that question (for you).

moremany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever heard of (the United States of) AMERICA? I
> can't answer that question (for you).
Thanks for disproving the cliche that there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit A above.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it in the Land of the Free, that we are so
> terrified of excercising our Constutional Right to
> freedom of speach when it could offend Muslims,
> that we would never dream of staging the Quran on
> Broadway?

It is also our right to not speak. And what leads you to believe that no production has been done on the Quran because it would offend. In fact I would be willing to bet that it hasn't been done because it would receive very bad reviews and slow ticket sales. Perhaps the fear is that they would lose money, not their heads. But that is just my guess against yours.


> But when we stage the Book of Mormon on Broadway,
> it's a critically acclaimed, runaway hit, biggest
> hit of the 21st Century? 16 Emmies and a Grammy!
> The list goes on. Mormon church goes wild, sees
> this as "The Mormon Moment" and takes out really
> expensive two page adds in EVERY Playbill on
> Broadway and wen it goes off Broadway, around the
> country and around the world.

Because they can and they want to and it has been effective for both the producers and Mormonism. This is free speech and free market at work my friend.

>
> Imagine what reactions Muslims would have around
> the world, to a play that mocks their religion,
> their sacred text, and has a hit song about f'ing
> their God in the ass, ear and cnut?

The offense would be real but isn't that a reflection on Muslims. What does that have to do with the freedom of one person to speak.

>
> Do Mormons just deserve the ridicule more? Are
> there beliefs that much more ridiculous than those
> of Islam?

I think you miss the point of the BOM production. It isn't to ridicule Mormonism. It is to make money.

>
> Or have we become a nation of cowards for not
> allowing the South Park Boys to stage a Quran
> Musical?

Who is stopping them from making such a show? I did a search on the internet and it was silent on this topic. What info do you have that Google doesn't?



As with all of your arguments you start with A and find yourself at K. Some of us point out that you are missing B-J and you tell us to screw off. I get the gist of what you are saying but I don't get the conclusions you draw. Could you help a bit?

I am just askig the question in the title of the op.
I just want answers.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am just askig the question in the title of the
> op.
> I just want answers.

Broadway productions have to be financed, preferably by eventual ticket sales to play attendees.

It costs huge money to open this kind of a theatrical performance.

The BoM made a wonderful musical, but (from the bits of the Quran I have read over the years---I was actually given a copy by one of my "regulars" when I worked for the fan magazines) I cannot see the Quran making an equally compelling stage production.

I can see lots of dollars being spent in creating such a production, very little return (past the first couple of weeks after a Quran-theatrical debut), and no eventual financial profit.

From a financial, an artistic, or a professional career viewpoint, it just doesn't make any sense for anyone to do this.

I don't see the money from ANY audience.

Yeah, the Quran is supposedly great literature in the Arabic, so harder to ridicule than the BoM. Also, we know a lot more about the quirks of those who produced Mormonism and hence can make fun of them more easily. Comedy requires familiarity.

The way to make money from Islam is to portray Moslems as villains and terrorists. People will pay to watch that, for better or worse.

The South Park Boys did an episode about Muhamed. It only aired once, unlike their Episode about Mormons, which has aired over and over.

Revolution Muslim entry
We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh (who got his head chopped off and a note attached to his chest with a 12" long blade) for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

“”
Abu Talhah al Amrikee[12]
The website for the organization Revolution Muslim, a New York-based terrorist organization, posted an entry that included a warning to creators Parker and Stone that they risk retribution for their depictions of Muhammad.

It said that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show." Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist in 2004 for making a short documentary on the violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting provided the addresses to Comedy Central in New York and the production company in Los Angeles. The author of the post, Zachary Adam Chesser (who prefers to be called Abu Talhah al Amrikee),[68] said it was meant to serve as a warning to Parker and Stone, not a threat, and that providing the addresses was meant to give people the opportunity to protest.
The entry included audio clips of a sermon by al-Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki, calling for the assassination of anyone who has defamed Muhammad, saying, "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that."[69][70] It also included a link to a 2009 Huffington Post article that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado,[70] and images of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an activist writer and critic of Islam, who lives in permanent security protection because of threats.[71] Comedy Central declined to comment on the post.[70] Before writing the Revolution Muslim post, Chesser wrote an April 15 entry on his Twitter page: "May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses."[67] Chesser was subsequently sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment for this and other offenses.
Despite Chesser's statements that the website entry was a warning, several media outlets and observers interpreted it as a threat.[72][73][74] Ayaan Hirsi Ali dismissed claims that the website entry was just a warning, calling it "an assault on the freedom of expression" that should not be marginalized or overlooked. She said of the episode, "The 'South Park' episode of last weekend was not just funny, and it wasn't just witty. [It] addressed an essential piece in the times that we are living. There is one group of people, one religion[,] that is claiming to be above criticism."[72] New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he was aware of the website posting, but said, "We don't think that this threat, as [it] is currently assessed, rises to a crime right now."[75]
CNN journalist Anderson Cooper said of the episode, "You might not like South Park the cartoon. You might think it's offensive. [But] the notion that some radical Islamic group in America would make a threat, even a veiled one, against two men's lives because of it is chilling."[72] Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly said he would have advised Parker and Stone not to do the episode out of fear of retaliation: "On the one hand you do have to admire their courage. But I don't know whether the risk–reward [ratio] is worth it."[73] The Daily Telegraph writer Douglas Murray said the entry only gave "200" more legitimacy, writing, "[It] of course just confirms the point that the South Park boys were making. [...] I'd have said that was point proved. South Park 1: Islamists 0."[71] On the April 22, 2010, episode of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart went into a ten-minute tirade about the alleged death threats, expressing disgust at the alleged hypocrisy of Revolution Muslim's speech while its members enjoy the American lifestyle and freedom of speech.[76][77]
In response to the Revolution Muslim post, the South Park episode "201", which aired the following week and concluded the unresolved storylines from "200", was heavily censored by Comedy Central. The channel inserted audio bleeps over all references to Muhammad's name and other portions of dialogue, including the entirety of the ending speech by the show's main characters.[78][79]
The Dutch version of Comedy Central began airing commercials for "200" during the week of April 26, with the show scheduled to air on April 30. However, "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs" was shown instead. When asked about this, a spokesperson for Comedy Central Netherlands said they had reluctantly decided the episode to be pulled,[80] along with the episode "201".[81] Neither episode is available on the Dutch South Park Studios website; the same applies to the German website as of May 9, 2010.[82][83] The Swedish affiliate of Comedy Central also refused to broadcast "200" and "201" in Sweden:[84]
Comedy Central has decided not to air these two episodes of South Park. It is a decision we've made with great reluctance. Comedy Central believes strongly in creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit. However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number[-]one priority, and therefore we have decided to take these precautionary measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_(South_Park)#Reception

I've provided all the evidence I need to back up my position, but I'm sure there are those on this thread who will still argue that I'm full of shit and that the radical Islam poses no threat whatsoever to our freedom of speech.
Amazing.

Thank you for that link. The material is amazing and, for me, surprising.

another agreeing view-

"""Right now in the cinemas we can see Louis Theroux’s My Scientology Movie and this summer the musical comedy The Book of Mormon will be staged in a theatre near you.

The Scientologists are notoriously litigious, but there seems no danger that the cinemas screening Theroux’s film will be bombed, or that people coming out of them will be attacked. Mormons tend to be pretty earnest types and to take their absurd beliefs seriously, but there seems no likelihood that they will storm theatres when the musical is being performed or seek to assassinate its creators.

Why, asks Murray, should Islam be an exception in this regard? There are two reasons. From its inception, as spelled out in the Koran, Mohammed built into Islam execrations and dire threats against unbelievers, apostates and what he called “hypocrites”.

Those passages from the “holy book” of Islam are cited again and again to justify acts of violence against “blasphemers”, apostates and infidels all over the world.

This is both disturbing and unacceptable. But the second reason is, in some ways, even more disturbing. It is that a body of thought has grown up in the West to the ­effect that criticism of Islam, whether substantive scholarship or sceptical raillery, is “politically incorrect”, “inflammatory” or “neo-colonial” in character and should be avoided.

Under the aegis of this school of thought, “toleration” means ­acceptance of conservative and even militant Islam pretty much on its own terms.

This, of course, hamstrings civil society’s response to the influx of Muslims into the West and the problem of militant Islam on the global stage.

We need new and better ground rules for civilising Islam. The first such rule has to be that there can be no justification at all, whatever the Koran says, for violence or threats of violence against people for either criticism of Islam or mockery of it.

Toleration does not mean treating the religious beliefs or ideological positions of others as sacrosanct. It means respecting the humanity and civil rights of others, despite their often strange beliefs, and feeling perfectly free to differ with them and to josh them about those beliefs.

Now, mockery of the Murray kind presupposes something still hotly disputed: that the dogmatic claims of Islam are absurd and many of its conservative practices both objectionable and deserving of parody. Those things can be established only by discursive argument. Within the Muslim world, even such argument is largely forbidden. If we intend to win the war of ideas with a resurgent Islam, we must both engage in such ­argument and insist on our right to do so.

https://www.rationalist.com.au/permission-to-josh-muslims-would-aid-understanding-tolerance/""";

the reigion calls for violence

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am just askig the question in the title of
> the
> > op.
> > I just want answers.
>
> Broadway productions have to be financed,
> preferably by eventual ticket sales to play
> attendees.
>
> It costs huge money to open this kind of a
> theatrical performance.
>
> The BoM made a wonderful musical, but (from the
> bits of the Quran I have read over the years---I
> was actually given a copy by one of my "regulars"
> when I worked for the fan magazines) I cannot see
> the Quran making an equally compelling stage
> production.
>
> I can see lots of dollars being spent in creating
> such a production, very little return (past the
> first couple of weeks after a Quran-theatrical
> debut), and no eventual financial profit.
>
> From a financial, an artistic, or a professional
> career viewpoint, it just doesn't make any sense
> for anyone to do this.
>
> I don't see the money from ANY audience.

Apparently you're not looking then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_(South_Park)#Ratings

Ratings
In its original American broadcast on April 14, 2010, "200" was watched by 3.33 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research, making it the most watched cable television show of the night.[63] It outperformed the previous week's episode, "You Have 0 Friends", which was seen by 3.07 million viewers,[64] and it was seen by roughly 177,000 more viewers than its closest competitor on April 14, USA Network's In Plain Sight. The episode received an overall 2.0 rating/3 share, meaning that it was seen by 2% of the population, and 3% of people watching television at the time of the broadcast. Among viewers between ages 18 and 49, it received a 1.9 rating/5 share, and among male viewers between 18 and 34, it received a 3.7 rating/13 share.[63]

> Or have we become a nation of cowards for not
> allowing the South Park Boys to stage a Quran
> Musical?

"Who is stopping them from making such a show? I did a search on the internet and it was silent on this topic."

Do you not remember this incident?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html

"Cognizant that Islam forbids the depiction of its holiest prophet, Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker showed their “South Park” characters agonizing over how to bring Muhammad to their fictional Colorado town. At first the character said to be Muhammad is confined to a U-Haul trailer, and is heard speaking but is not shown. Later in the episode the character is let out of the trailer, dressed in a bear costume.

"The next day the “South Park” episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site, revolutionmuslim.com. The post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode “outright insulted” the prophet, adding: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Why? Cowardice, hypocrisy, and lack of imagination are all a factor.

Mormons are far less likely to blow up the stage.

You obviously haven't seen Little Mosque on the Prairie. Long running Canadian sitcom.

Remember the "Satanic Verses" by Rushdie? Unlike most of Christianity, Islam has teachings against saying anything against its scriptures. A fatwa may be issued against anyone saying or writing against the Koran. Yet, Sunnis and Shites kill each other.

Many years ago an Egyptian client gave me an English translation of the Koran. Frankly, it reminds me of the BoM just written for a different people and era.

Non-Islamic countries currently have to fear terrorist attacks if they even permit attacks on the Koran or Mohammed. OTOH, there are people in this country who will paint all Muslims as being evil. The extremism of ISIS and the jihadists will lose and we don't need to discriminate to succeed.

>> Why is it in the Land of the Free, that we are so terrified of excercising our Constutional Right to freedom of speach when it could offend Muslims, that we would never dream of staging the Quran on Broadway?

No money to be made from it.

>> Imagine what reactions Muslims would have around the world, to a play that mocks their religion, their sacred text, and has a hit song about f'ing their God in the ass, ear and cnut?

I never felt the play mocked the LDS religion or sacred text. If you believe that you missed the point of the play - - That despite our differences we should all work together to make our world a better place. Obviously the church itself didn’t feel mocked or they wouldn’t have spent tremendous amounts of cash to advertise their product in the Playbill.

As far as having a hit song about f'ing their God in the ass, ear and cnut, that song wasn’t about the “Mormon God”, it was about the African’s God.

>> Do Mormons just deserve the ridicule more? Are there beliefs that much more ridiculous than those of Islam?

Again, you missed the point. ANY religion could have been substituted in place of Mormonism in the musical. The South Park Boys were just more familiar with Mormonism and saw it as being more marketable than other religions.

>> Or have we become a nation of cowards for not allowing the South Park Boys to stage a Quran Musical?

It has nothing to do with becoming a “nation of cowards” but has everything to do with what is more popular, marketable, and would bring in the most cash. It appears the South Park Boys clearly have a handle on that.

But as Kori's link to the wikipedia article shows, there is a strong case that parody of Islam was very successful and was shut down due to immediate threats. You and I may be wrong on this one.

OK, first let me state that I haven't read all the other posters on here, I just don't have the time at the moment... So, this may have been covered already. That being said...

> "Why is it ok to stage the BoM on B'way but not the Quran on Bway"

If you want an honest answer, the answer is because we live in a world where people are afraid of being shot, or killed in a horrific manner. We live in a world where publishing a cartoon image of the Muslim's leader can get the entire office of a magazine shot. Death threats are made against entire family members for even considering making anything remotely offensive to Islam.

I'm not saying that all of Islam is violent and horrible, most are good people who simply want to live their lives in peace, even with people of other faiths who live around them. But those who would "defend" their faith with violence are very, very real, they have shown that the threat of law doesn't matter to them and are willing to literally kill and then die for their beliefs. They are highly motivated and recent history has shown that they follow through with their threats.

So, while there may be money to be made in parodies of pretty much any religion, some, for now, are off limits.

Why was it OK to parody the Mormons? Mormons have shown that they see this type of thing as boosting their their fame (hence including advertising in playbills for the play). No such thing as bad publicity in their book... Add to that their percussion complex, this only "strengthens" their faith. Also, in recent history (which is important) Mormon's haven't bombed, maimed, or otherwise hurt anyone mocking their beliefs. Oh, they might throw out a lawsuit here or there, but Hollywood and other media avenues can handle lawsuits... No one's dying from that. And if enough money can be made, producers will risk a lawsuit and have a team of lawyers at their beck and call to handle that easily... On the other hand, the prospect of a horrible death for them, their coworkers and potentially their families... Not so much.

And yes, you can claim that the South Park guys have mocked Islam and survived, but for everyone group that has done so successfully, you can name others who have been killed... Producers aren't that willing to put risk it, not when they can make money without that danger.

> "have we become a nation of cowards for not allowing the South Park Boys to stage a Quran Musical?"

So, in a way, the flat answer to this is, Yes. You can be upset about it all you want, and demand equal parodies for all religions, but no one wants to put their life on the line for a Broadway play. You can have all the money in the world, but you can't spend it if your dead... Most people understand that concept all to well. Even if you can protect yourself somehow, it's not all that much fun livin in near constant fear of someone jumping out from around the corner with an assault rifle spraying bullets and not caring who they kill in an attempt to get you.

All that being said, if you want to produce an Islam parody musical, go right on ahead and do so... You won't make a lot of money because fear is a real thing and people would be afraid of what might happen opening night, but other than that, no one will stop you.

ETA:
Put another way... Let's say that there was a certain type of Play that when produced, there is a significant chance that a number of people will die. I don't even care if it's by accident. If it's an established fact that there is a non-trivial chance that someone or a group of people would die from the production of that type of play, the odds of it actually getting produced are next to nil.

Even if someone produced a similar safer but similar type (but safer with little to no risk) of play successfully and no one died, that doesn't mean that someone else would be willing to risk the "real thing". Someone might eventually, but until the risk of actual death is near zero, it would be difficult to get financing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2016 05:16PM by Finally Free!.

Who said it was OK?

The critics who gave it 16 Emmys and a Grammy.
The record audience who made it the #1 Box office smash hit of the 21st C.
The Mormon Church itself, by taking out a 2pg ad in each playbill,