Talk:Pal Joey (musical)

Revival

I added the information about a possible revival and re-write of the musical "Pal Joey". The source is a theatre columnist for the New York Post, in a column from March 1, 2006. Although there are internet rumors about a reading and whether or not Jackman will do this play, it appears to be only at the stage of rumor at this point. JeanColumbia 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Richard Greenberg did write a revised book for "Pal Joey". The revised production was performed at "The Huntington", in Boston, Sept 1992-Oct 1992 with Donna Murphy as Vera, directed by David Warren. Again, this information could be included in the main article on Pal Joey, as one of the revivals, with detail of this revision in Greenberg's main article. JeanColumbia 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the revival information from above to the Pal Joey article, under Musical play. Today I added a reference to a report that Greenberg is rewriting for a revival to be produced this year. This appears to be more than a rumor now.

Merging makes sense to me. JeanColumbia 16:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-This musical deserves it's own article - the musical information in the other article should be moved here. It should not be a sub-set of the novel article. As it stands, it is mis-named. To conform w/ other theater articles it should be called Pal Joey (musical) not "play". J. Van Meter 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

The article most urgently needs a history/background section and an expanded plot synopsis. Without these, it is barely a "start". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I could do it, maybe start in 2 or so weeks. By the way, I think Pal is a limited run (at Studio 54 anyway), not just because the playbill article says so, but Dancin' is sked for April '09. I guess they could move it to another theater (like American Airlines after Hedda), but this is all too speculative for the article. (Although this [[1]] playbill listing shows it as "open-ended". My head hurts :D.) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hurt your head! I wouldn't worry too much. As more information emerges, the information will become clear, so no hurry. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great progress! Probably a C-class article now. I'll let someone else decide if it's ready for upgrade. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]