Christina Agulira on SNL- Page 2

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 7:30am

Bravo or Brava TheaterBaby , I think I may love you....

The sad fact is most Broadway performers, while very nice, well trained and I'm sure very clean..have about as much star quality as navel lint..

Put Sutton Foster up against X-Tina on a stage and you see who walks away the star!

Put Beyonce on a stage with Alice Ripley and you'll see who you can't take your eyes off of...

Marin Mazzie...

Very nice, talented and clean...but a Superstar waiting to happen, I think not!

The sad fact is, had X-Tina chosen to do theatre and do Broadway INSTEAD OF becoming a mega-star and Alice Ripley had done the opposite..

Everyone would be dissing Alice Ripley..

It's the name of the game...

In 1985 the name was Madonna, now it's X-Tina..."they" need someone they can always compare to a Broadway person and go, well she's no blah..blah..blah......but in this case, X-Tina can sing EVERYONE INTO THE GROUND...makes the name calling tougher..

Big problem..

It's the hysterics who worship Broadway and hate everything else (I imagine it's a latent reaction to being beat-up in the school yard as children)that really help to destroy this institution... Updated On: 2/25/04 at 07:30 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 12:04pm

"In 1985 the name was Madonna, now it's X-Tina..."they" need someone they can always compare to a Broadway person and go, well she's no blah..blah..blah......but in this case, X-Tina can sing EVERYONE INTO THE GROUND...makes the name calling tougher..

Big problem.."

What problem? Who's been calling anyone names besides you?

"It's the hysterics who worship Broadway and hate everything else (I imagine it's a latent reaction to being beat-up in the school yard as children)that really help to destroy this institution..."

Who's hating everything else? I have no hatred for any of those you speak of. Nor have I dissed them in any way. The juvenile name-calling has been all yours, voiceanth. You're making all sorts of imaginary generalisations based on your statements of utter fabrication. Where are the mysterious "they" that you speak of who have made all these statements of Christina or Madonna's singing talents? Your definition of "star quality" is your own. Sutton Foster and Alice Ripley do indeed have "star quality" within their genre. Are they worldwide megastars? No. Do they have to be in order to perform on Broadway? Obviously not. Both of them have won critical acclaim for their performances as well as Marin Mazzie.

Christina is a fantastic singer. But as long as your comparing her to Sutton, can Christina act, tap-dance, or perform eight shows a week for a couple of years? You have praised Christina's singing countless times without ever addressing anything else. Broadway isn't about mainstream pop superstars. Until the occaisional last-resort replacement in Broadway musicals to keep a show from closing, it never has been. If all you expect is your own narrow-sighted vision of "star quality" on Broadway, why do you even attend any musicals without stunt casting?

Marin Mazzie may not be a "Superstar waiting to happen", but that's probably because it wasn't her goal in the first place. Shows like Ragtime and Passion were never meant to be designed as Superstar vehicles to showcase hip-hop or disco performers. But to try to compare Beyonce or Christina to Sutton, Marin, or Alice Ripley is absolutely pointless. If you can't see the difference between Genie in a Bottle or and Sondheim or Ahrens and Flaherty, then there really is no point to your statements.

PS - In 2004, it's still Madonna. Christina has another 20 years to go to reach Madonna's status. I think Christina's voice is spectacular, but no so fond of her songs. It might be news to you, but the works of Tesori, Sondheim, Ahrens and Flaherty, Kander and Ebb, Rodgers and Hammerstein are a completely different style of music and maybe I missed something, but I've never heard Christina sing anything by them or in their style. All I can assess from your rather monotonous posts is that you have seen many Broadway shows and have learned nothing from them.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 12:16pm

i don't think there's any point in comparing pop stars and broadways stars.

if a record company decided that some broadway star was the next big thing and invested the kind of money that they do in building and cultivating their stars, i guarantee you that broadway star would be the next sensation.

the thing that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the fact that once it's decided by a record company that so-and-so is the next big thing, so-and-so becomes an investment. the company is pushing nationwide for that person with tv spots, radio spots, print ads, etc. now add to that the fact that the radio and mtv start to hype the person (viacom of course would never hype anyone that could boost their bottom line, i know) based on sales that were achieved by a massive campaign that saturated the market with so-and-so day and night.

nationwide. that's the big difference. a broadway star plays in one place for a long time. a pop star plays everywhere and drums up business everywhere they go.

hell, compared to that, broadway producers are like barkers outside a comedy club tryig to drum up business.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 12:52pm

Mister Matt...You must have got the fact that that the only reason I continued to write in this thread is to see you go on yet another 14-paragraph tirade....

I hope you’ve had an angiogram recently…

Matt, my first performance at a Broadway house was the original cast of “Annie’…I was kid but I knew what I was watching…

..watching and effortless and vocally opulent Andrea Mcardle stop a show cold in the first act without even breaking a sweat.. (the cast album only hints at the tone of that voice in 1977)

…thinking that would be the highlight only to discover a woman named Dorothy Loudon and only to learn from her in the second act how even the slightest of body movements can make an audience break into applause (“Easy Street”)…. and then an ovation.

I think I learned wee bit from them…

PS: X-Tina has sung a stupendous version of ‘Climb Every Mountain” fairly recently and as a child, her versions of “Come Rain or Come Shine” as well as other “standards/broadway related” songs are well documented …and in most cases, shockingly well sung for a pre-adolescent...

If and when she chooses to do Broadway, I’m sure she’ll be just fine….and hopefully she won’t need to tap (even though she knows how to ..as does Britney for that matter (documented as of 1998, should you need the video clip)....…tapping is not exactly rocket science, is it?

Updated On: 2/25/04 at 12:52 PM

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 2:00pm

Im sure that a smart Producer (no offense to the Weisslers) would still make a pop-star audition. If they couldn't act/dance/sing (at least do 2 out of the three...dancing is not always a necessity depending on the show), then they wouldn't cast them. Casting directors and Poducers know what they're looking for. Who are we to undermind their decisions?

voiceanth , no tapping is not rocket science; but I sure know I can't tap like like the people in TMM or 42nd Street. Sure, if I practiced really hard I might be able to do that eventually. But the point here is that Christina (and even Britney) have trained in both singing and dancing (and probably acting) since they were children. Just because the media tells them how they should dance in videos and at concerts does not mean that if they were asked to tap they couldn't do it. Even P-Diddy can tap dance really well. In fact, he's extremely good.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 2:27pm

Theatre baby..BINGO...

Like your chosen by God to be on Broadway (LOL) Like you take the veil...like it's a select calling that God picks you for...

(eyes roll)

Hillary Duff knows how to tap for gods sake!!! and she can't walk and sing at the same time...

Theatrebaby, I'm booking a hall!(wink)

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 2:41pm

Hell, even I learned to tap for A DAY IN HOLLYWOOD/A NIGHT IN THE UKRAINE and I'm part retarded!

If X-tina is going to come to Broadway, please let it be in EVITA and not that piece of crap show that is so identified with its original star that it would never succeed.

And please...she can belt the hell out of the role, movie a little (any role done by La Lupone will never be considered a 'dance role'), and pose. I mean...has anyone anywhere ever actually 'acted' the role of Eva???

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 2:44pm

"Mister Matt...You must have got the fact that that the only reason I continued to write in this thread is to see you go on yet another 14-paragraph tirade...."

You're saying I make your wishes come true? How sweet! But you should learn to count. I haven't written 14 paragraphs in any single post at all. But I do find your posts to be quite amusing.

So Christina and Brittany can tap. That's very good to know. You answered my question. I had heard Christina's Come Rain or Come Shine. I forgot about that. She was like, ten, I think, and it was a pop rendition with the R&B ornamentation rather than anything like the original legit version. I haven't heard Christina's Climb Every Mountain, but your panting obsession with all things Christina has convinced me that forming my own opinion is completely unecessary as no other Broadway performer could possibly ever do anything as well as her. Ever. Only Christina could play Millie, Dolly, Mame, Fanny, Evita, Effie, Annie, Aida, Aldonza, Eliza, Tracy, Elphaba, Glinda, Laurey, Mamma Rose, Kim, Eponine, or Desiree or any other lead. Except possibly Brittany. They have proven themselves to be consummate actresses with exceptional comedic timing and the summit of anything regarding musical theatre without having ever set foot on a Broadway stage. To run any show without them starring in it is simply a waste and the only excuse for the performers of the past must be that these two supermegaüberstars singer/dancer/actresses of such theatrical renown is that they didn't have the privelege of being born earlier.

I admire your praise for McArdle and Louden, yet I find it somewhat hypocritical as they were never, how did you put it? Superstars! Like Beyonce, who could so obviously wipe up the stage in either role no matter how inappropriately cast.

Tapping is not rocket science. You got me on that one. Rocket science is rocket science. Tapping is a dance form. Some find it more difficult than others. But if it is so easy for you, I'm sure Tommy Tune or Savion Glover have a part for you. Unfortunately, you couldn't do it. You're not Christina. Unless...are you?

If and when she does Broadway, I hope she'll be better than just fine. I also hope that a hundred other actresses who are just as talented (is it possible?) and more appropriate for the role who have spent their lives just trying to make ends meet for their love of performing on stage don't get bumped out because they are not millionare bored "Superstars". I also hope she has some respect for her fellow cast members for their hard work. Just because you don't like some of the current leads, doesn't mean their not good. It only means you don't like them. I hope you get your wish and Christina is the next Mother Superior in The Sound of Music at the ripe old age of twenty-something. No one else could possibly handle the part. One, two, three, four, five, six paragraphs. Damn! I'm still eight short.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 3:00pm

Great Roles for Great Singers:

I think X-Tina would make a rather charming Madwoman of Chaillot .......the "Dear World" one of course....not the play...

and as for Beyonce, why, Dolly Gallagher Levi, of course....

and as for Britney, Cissy in "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" seems like a good fit!

and as for me, my dream role was Gideon Briggs in "Greenwillow".... "Still I looooovvveeee my summmmeerrtiiimmme loooovvveeeee"



Updated On: 2/25/04 at 03:00 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 3:09pm

Oy...you two...I mean...

Well...don't you think that there could be a greater issue at work here? One that Anthony does have a point about?

I have, on this board, lamented the dulling of Broadway performers over the last 15 or so years. Conservatory schools have created these cookie cutter performers that are proficient at everything and just bland enough to be able to move from show to show. I mean...how many early-late thirties blonds with strident belts do we have in this business???? Where are the original, freakish performers that brought something so magical to the stage? Cause they ain't working on the stages of NYC (for the most part).

People used to come to NYC at a young age, get involved in the theatre and learn their craft on the job. Now we all go to 'acting school' (yes...even me) and are torn down and made into the likeness of whatever that department is. Individuality is sacrificed. Say what you will, but Xtina is an original. And perhaps that's what we need here. Something more than proficiency...something special...star power.

That said, Anthony, not every star is cut out to be on the stage. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

And Matt, for every one hundred actresses that don't get the part, 20 of them will actually be on a Broadway stage in the ensemble of EVITA. It's not like it's a one-woman show. There's always need for a star. And until Broadway starts cherishing those that are truly special instead of those that are just enough, I see no problem bringing in a star.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 3:41pm

robbiej - The whole idea of acting schools for what we now know as legit theatre started as early as the 20s, so it's been around for quite a while. Individuality may be sacrificed in some schools, but it was celebrated in the ones I attended. But individuality is not something I see in the pop-star top-40 genre at all. It's quite the opposite. I really have seen Christina do anything that original. She sings well. She moves well. But I have never heard one of her songs and thought, "that sounds so Christina". Yes, there are other women in Evita, yet neither Patti LuPone or Elaine Paige were stars, but both of them were theatrically trained. I do believe that the past 15 years have brought out some rather distinctive and memorable female stars of the stage including Sutton Foster, La Chanze, Sherie Renee Scott, Kristin Chenoweth, Idina Menzel, Donna Murphy, Audra McDonald, Bebe Neuworth, Karen Ziemba, Jane Krakowski, Judy Kuhn, Carollee Carmello, Lilias White, and Heather Headley to name a few. Are they all national household names? No. But it doesn't mean they're not good. It just means they're in a different business. The days of Broadway stars being nationally known past decades ago, but it doesn't change the fact that Broadway stars were always recognized for their beloved performances in a show. Not because they have or have not appeared in a music video.

Updated On: 2/25/04 at 03:41 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 3:44pm

Avril Lavigne would be enchanting as Alice Challice in "Darling of the Day"..

Think what darling Avril could do with "Not on your Nellie!"

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 3:45pm

ok, now you're just piling on.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:12pm

NOT on your Nellie, your blinkin' bloomin' Nellie...absolutley posi-toot-ly NO!"...

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:21pm

Matt,

A lot of those names you've mentioned have been around quite a bit longer than 15 years. And of the remaining, I'd give you two that I would consider Broadway stars and not just ladies starring in a show on Broadway.

Of course, it's all a matter of opinion. But I will stick by mine. The major conservatories are churning out 'the next [fill in the blank]' or 'the future [insert name here]'. Drama schools are just like business...turn out as many people as will work so that our numbers look good so that recruitment goes up so that we make more money. Chenoweth is a star in the same manner as Channing; how many sides are there to her? Or will she be performing her schtick (not that there's anything wrong with it) for the rest of her life. Audra MacDonald is the one true great singing actress that also has star quality today. But she won't do revivals.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:32pm

Chenoweth!

Channing!

Chuck-up!

Give me Norah Jones in "Minnie's Boys"....

Now that would make me geshrai all the way to the Box Office! Updated On: 2/25/04 at 04:32 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:51pm

Ashanti in PURLIE, perhaps?

John Mayer in ALLEGRO?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:53pm

John Mayer in "Anthony's Bedroom"....

now that would be a great big hit!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 5:38pm

robbiej - I guess it all comes down to the subjective opinion of what one calls a "star". All those ladies I mentioned I consider stars as they are recognizable and have been featured within their own genre based on their talent and their name. Some of them may have been around more than 15 years, but they haven't been "stars" before then. I'm not really seeing the Chenoweth/Channing corrolation. Channing became a star from one role and created a lifetime career of another. Her singing voice was quite unique, but not as versatile and legit as Kristin's. I'm not a huge Kristin fan or anything, but I think she's going to have quite a bit more work and range than doing Glinda for the next 40 years. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think she's quite as distinctive as Channing, but obviously she does have mass appeal.

"The major conservatories are churning out 'the next [fill in the blank]' or 'the future [insert name here]'."

I can't fill in the blanks because I haven't seen anyone who is the next Merman, Martin, Streisand, Channing or anyone else. The stars of today are stars because they are unique. The performers who resemble others are not stars, they're just working actors. For example, Bierko's Harold Hill was so identical to Preston's it would hardly make him distinctive enough to be a star. Whereas Chenoweth's Glinda doesn't resemble anyone else but Chenoweth.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 6:48pm

All those ladies I mentioned I consider stars as they are recognizable and have been featured within their own genre based on their talent and their name....


.....recognizable to whom, my darling Matt..you..and who else..

To the couple with children....in Ota Creek, Montana?

Or maybe the cowpokes in Wyoming?

Honey, I betcha there are folks up in parts of Cali-forn-i-yeah who don't know HALF of the ladies you mentioned in a previous post!

Ask them who Christina is though and you'll probably get an answer, pro or con!

The fact is Matt, most people, besides you, of course, consider stars, real stars, to be either Music or Movie stars:

To quote Miss. Streisand in 1967 (who at that point had been on Broadway, TV and recorded 12 gold records)

"To me, being a star always meant being a Movie Star!"

Even SHE did'nt consider broadway stardom to be worth much and she was a MEGA Broadway star!

You may hate to hear this and lord knows I did'nt like her but when Melanie was doing CHICAGO, there were freakin' CROWDS in the STREET just waiting for a glimpse...

That fact, no one likes to admit...the chaos around that stage door on a Saturday night...for HER, of all people!

The other fact is how chaos, of any kind, is ABSENT FROM DONNA MURPHY'S STAGE DOOR or Miss. Chenowerth or most of the ladies you mentioned ....!



Updated On: 2/25/04 at 06:48 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 7:53pm

Oh thank you for opening my eyes voiceanth! Stars only exist in the film and music industry. According to you, there is no such thing as a Broadway star unless they have had success in films and pop music first. I see now. According to you, Streisand was never a star until she made a film, so why do you call her a MAJOR Broadway star? In your own words, a "Broadway star" is an oxymoron and does not exist in your little world.

T"he fact is Matt, most people, besides you, of course, consider stars, real stars, to be either Music or Movie stars"

I wasn't speaking for most people. If you're going to attempt to be superior, you need to pay attention! Apparently, you completely missed my saying the women "I CONSIDER STARS...WITHIN THEIR OWN GENRE" (I used the caps this time so maybe you'll be able to read and understand it) which you even quoted back to me unnecessarily in your reply. The people in mid-America and California (which you horrendously misspelled) consider many people stars that I do not. It doesn't mean I think they're wrong, it just means I don't share the same interest.

"You may hate to hear this and lord knows I did'nt like her but when Melanie was doing CHICAGO, there were freakin' CROWDS in the STREET just waiting for a glimpse."

Does that mean she was actually good? Does it even mean all those people attended the show? Not in New York. When I saw the original cast of this revival, there was a huge crowd waiting for the cast after the show. Your point is moot.

Clearly your use of the words "darling" and "honey" illustrate your strong desire for me. Unfortunately, the feeling is not reciprocated and I shall tell you again they are unwanted. Feel free to state your opinions, but save the nauseating pet names for the one or two that may be unfortunate enough to accept them willingly. Within the context of your desperate need for superiority, I find them disgusting and offensive.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/29/04 at 2:09am

I just watched the SNL with Xtina---she is great! I would love to see her as Eponine in the film of Les Miz. =)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/1/04 at 8:33am

Yes, JRB, Great choice!!!!...what I hope is that she tours with it for like a year first as well....

I hear they may include tap dancing in that role since she is talented in that area!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/1/04 at 9:42am

A regular Ann Miller.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 3/1/04 at 10:48am

and yet, even Ann Miller, by her own admission, more a legend than a "star", had name recognition in Wyoming and Montana.