It's quite a bit smaller than that, and I'd bet very few people there have any idea who Bruno Mars is.

Possibly, but they still identified him as a reviewer for the Post. There was a shit-ton of drama when the Times and Post reviewed Spiderman before it was technically open (though it had been in previews for 4 months). If this guy did blog about it, it would have been a serious breach of etiquette.

I can appreciate that. I just don't see this as Studio 60 "funniest man alive"-esque mistake where the writers are telling us they're the greatest when what they are is just good. Of course, there are plenty of factual errors (for example, a Post critic isn't going to review a bootleg in the first place— a blogger…

Kander and Ebb would have made magic happen with this idea.

Maybe I missed it; when did the show say the writers were great, or the best, or what have you? What they are is writers of a hit show, which in these days has no relation to talent whatsoever, at least at the Broadway level. Broadway shows have become all about the property and its pre-existing ties to an audience…

I'm sorry, when did we start talking about Norma Arnold?

This is an accurate portrayal of musical theatre.

If it wants to portray contemporary Broadway correctly, the role of Marilyn Monroe will go to a Hollywood celebrity with a mediocre singing voice because she "sells tickets." McPhee and Hilty will be competing for the role of understudy.

Simpsons did it!

Or, more likely, that he realizes there are a thousand movie critics who blend into one giant ball of white noise, and in order for anyone to read his work, he has to be deliberately obtuse and ridiculous.  He is the Michael Savage of pop culture; you think "he can't REALLY believe this" and you're right, but you…

I have no problem believing that painkillers have the same effect on Beavis as caffeine, and that this led to a cult believing he was a Messianic figure, but I did immediately think, "there were no IKEA's in Texas 10 years ago!"