#26
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:33pm
I like her too, her movies are very funny. Her singing is ok....acting great I think. I just don't think she's right for the role.
AHHH! Lohan on B'way?!?!? — Page 2
#27
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:37pm
AHHH... Make it effing STOP...
Why does every one have a sarcastic, yet witty signature besides me? :-(
#28
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:45pm
AHHH noooo please don't let her infect B'way!! OMFG if duff came onto b'way i think id probably die. clueless however does sound like a good idea, just please not lohann or duff... YUCK
"Electricity sparks inside of me... and I'm free, I'm free."
#29
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:52pm
Composer9 - "'nough said"
Apparently not. Her recording style was used for a studio recording, like every other pop recording. How many live musicals have you seen her perform that you can judge her so precisely?
Phantom05 - "Plus I agree with others who say that she couldn't handle an 8 show a week performance schedule. I seems to me that so many film and television actors underestimate the stamina needed to do 8 shows a week."
Ever try starring in a major motion picture? Especially those involving stunts? 3am makeup calls before a full day of shooting, then publicity spots, production meetings and appearances. Film isn't exactly a cushy vacation. True, developing the vocal chops for 8 shows a week in a musical is tough, but it is different from film, not exactly more difficult.
"I just think that if you are going to novelize a story onstage, why not base is on the original text? Jane Austen's book Emma is absolutely delicious and witty!"
I heartily agree. And I would pay to see Lohan in that as well.
insomniak - "it might be because some of these movie-to-stage deals are threatening the art in its purest form."
The purest form of musical theatre would be operettas and sketch reviews. Movie-to-stage musicals are no more a "threat" to the art form than play-to-stage musicals were in the 50s and 60s. There are more of them now simply because there are more movies now than there were then.
"People are starting to see broadway as a place to see another version of their favorite movie and don't realize that theatre itself has a lot of artistic and literary merit. Those shows make money and will thus continue to exist, but they make it harder for original pieces to catch a break."
And that is nothing new. Original unfamiliar material has always been risky and normally have short runs. Which is why they need to work much harder at gaining exposure. But the problem with original material lately is not that it's not familiar, it is that it's not very good. Look at Brooklyn, Laughing Room Only, Dracula (though it has been a movie before) and In My Life. But then again, that wouldn't explain the successes of Piazza (also a movie, but little-known) and Spelling Bee, so I guess the point is, there really is no one to blame. The audiences will choose what will run or not, just like always. Trends come and go and art forms evolve. You can either accept it or choose to be unhappy.
sadiem100 - "AHHH noooo please don't let her infect B'way!! OMFG if duff came onto b'way i think id probably die. clueless however does sound like a good idea, just please not lohann or duff... YUCK"
Why would you die? You could just not go see the show. Again, why the dramatics? Unless immaturity is suddenly in fashion. Which would make sense since fashion was officially flushed into the toilet when it decided to revisit the 70s. Hint: The 70s looked awful the first time around. The difference was, we didn't have a choice. Now you do, choose something else.
Apparently not. Her recording style was used for a studio recording, like every other pop recording. How many live musicals have you seen her perform that you can judge her so precisely?
Phantom05 - "Plus I agree with others who say that she couldn't handle an 8 show a week performance schedule. I seems to me that so many film and television actors underestimate the stamina needed to do 8 shows a week."
Ever try starring in a major motion picture? Especially those involving stunts? 3am makeup calls before a full day of shooting, then publicity spots, production meetings and appearances. Film isn't exactly a cushy vacation. True, developing the vocal chops for 8 shows a week in a musical is tough, but it is different from film, not exactly more difficult.
"I just think that if you are going to novelize a story onstage, why not base is on the original text? Jane Austen's book Emma is absolutely delicious and witty!"
I heartily agree. And I would pay to see Lohan in that as well.
insomniak - "it might be because some of these movie-to-stage deals are threatening the art in its purest form."
The purest form of musical theatre would be operettas and sketch reviews. Movie-to-stage musicals are no more a "threat" to the art form than play-to-stage musicals were in the 50s and 60s. There are more of them now simply because there are more movies now than there were then.
"People are starting to see broadway as a place to see another version of their favorite movie and don't realize that theatre itself has a lot of artistic and literary merit. Those shows make money and will thus continue to exist, but they make it harder for original pieces to catch a break."
And that is nothing new. Original unfamiliar material has always been risky and normally have short runs. Which is why they need to work much harder at gaining exposure. But the problem with original material lately is not that it's not familiar, it is that it's not very good. Look at Brooklyn, Laughing Room Only, Dracula (though it has been a movie before) and In My Life. But then again, that wouldn't explain the successes of Piazza (also a movie, but little-known) and Spelling Bee, so I guess the point is, there really is no one to blame. The audiences will choose what will run or not, just like always. Trends come and go and art forms evolve. You can either accept it or choose to be unhappy.
sadiem100 - "AHHH noooo please don't let her infect B'way!! OMFG if duff came onto b'way i think id probably die. clueless however does sound like a good idea, just please not lohann or duff... YUCK"
Why would you die? You could just not go see the show. Again, why the dramatics? Unless immaturity is suddenly in fashion. Which would make sense since fashion was officially flushed into the toilet when it decided to revisit the 70s. Hint: The 70s looked awful the first time around. The difference was, we didn't have a choice. Now you do, choose something else.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 07:52 PM
#30
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:57pm
I liked her movies too. Her acting may be fine, but it's her singing that's nothing spectacular.
"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611
#31
Posted: 10/2/05 at 8:03pm
Um... sorry. I honestly just cannot see Ms. Hohan doing a show eight times a week.
#32
Posted: 10/2/05 at 8:09pm
Mister Matt-
Thank you for pointing out my error! I am at a loss for words! You're absolutely right...I haven't seen Lohan in a live musical...have you?
I do, however, know "precisely" how those studio recordings work as my father is a recording engineer in California. You know that tiny hint of digital twang behind most pop vocalists voices ie. Spears, Simpson, Lohan etc? That's called pitch adjustment software. It's become commonplace in studio recordings just like airbrushing a magazine cover and it creates a standard that simply can not be upheld by the artist. Lohan does not have the depth or gerth in her voice to last a month on broadway.
On another note, I too wouldn't mind a clueless musical, but Lohan and Duff are not the way to go...
Thank you for pointing out my error! I am at a loss for words! You're absolutely right...I haven't seen Lohan in a live musical...have you?
I do, however, know "precisely" how those studio recordings work as my father is a recording engineer in California. You know that tiny hint of digital twang behind most pop vocalists voices ie. Spears, Simpson, Lohan etc? That's called pitch adjustment software. It's become commonplace in studio recordings just like airbrushing a magazine cover and it creates a standard that simply can not be upheld by the artist. Lohan does not have the depth or gerth in her voice to last a month on broadway.
On another note, I too wouldn't mind a clueless musical, but Lohan and Duff are not the way to go...
The key to the mystery of a great artist is that for reasons unknown, he will give away his energies and his life just to make sure that one note follows another... and leaves us with the feeling that something is right in the world.
~Leonard Bernstein~
#33
Posted: 10/2/05 at 8:14pm
i think she's cute and she does the whole "teen queen" thing well, but i definitley DON'T want to see her anywhere near a broadway stage.
#35
Posted: 10/2/05 at 8:43pm
Lohan will STAY AWAY from Broadway! Why should they give the role to an overrated millionaire, when some young, talented broadway-hopeful-ingenue is waiting to have her big break? It doesn't seem fair. That goes for Hilary Duff too.
If either of these ladies decide to "make a splash" on the great white way, I'll give up my dream of being an actress, because obviously, who can get parts if their always stunt casting undeserving people.
Sorry for my rant, I'm emotional right now.
If either of these ladies decide to "make a splash" on the great white way, I'll give up my dream of being an actress, because obviously, who can get parts if their always stunt casting undeserving people.
Sorry for my rant, I'm emotional right now.
~And let us try, before we die, to make some sense of life~
#39
Posted: 10/2/05 at 8:54pm
I really wish people would stop talking about Lohan as if she was untalented.
My two cents:
I think that Lindsay Lohan is a fine actress, especially for her age. She was charming as hell in The Parent Trap. She did well in Freaky Friday, but it was her work in Mean Girls that really made me take notice. Her work as Cady Heron was nuanced, funny, and intelligent. A strong lead performance. If she chooses her projects very carefully, and spends a year or two working on her craft, she'll be great. I think she's got what it takes to go into dramatic roles.
As for "Clueless", I don't think it will happen.
My two cents:
I think that Lindsay Lohan is a fine actress, especially for her age. She was charming as hell in The Parent Trap. She did well in Freaky Friday, but it was her work in Mean Girls that really made me take notice. Her work as Cady Heron was nuanced, funny, and intelligent. A strong lead performance. If she chooses her projects very carefully, and spends a year or two working on her craft, she'll be great. I think she's got what it takes to go into dramatic roles.
As for "Clueless", I don't think it will happen.
#40
Posted: 10/2/05 at 9:09pm
i think she is talented in her movies, but i wouldn't want to see her on Broadway. it just looks like a publicity stunt to try and bring in money.
sometimes i think my head is so big because it is so full of dreams- the elephant man
#41
Posted: 10/2/05 at 9:53pm
"Ever try starring in a major motion picture? Especially those involving stunts? 3am makeup calls before a full day of shooting, then publicity spots, production meetings and appearances. Film isn't exactly a cushy vacation. True, developing the vocal chops for 8 shows a week in a musical is tough, but it is different from film, not exactly more difficult."
Mister Matt, from what I've heard from those who have witnessed Lindsay Lohan on the movie set, everyone involved has to go out of their way to make the environment as "cushy" as possible for her. She's barely started in the movie industry and she's already gotten a reputation of being a complete diva on the set. Even though movies may not be a walk in the park, every actor that's gone from movies to Broadway has commented that Broadway is much harder than any movie role. Denzel Washington, Brooke Shields...people that have had long-term careers in movies, not child stars that are just now outgrowing Disney.
Don't assume I'm one of those people that hates Lindsay Lohan because all the cool kids are doing it. I do enjoy some of her film work; I even own some of the movies on DVD. But I'm realistic enough to see that at this point in her career, she can't handle doing a Broadway show.
Mister Matt, from what I've heard from those who have witnessed Lindsay Lohan on the movie set, everyone involved has to go out of their way to make the environment as "cushy" as possible for her. She's barely started in the movie industry and she's already gotten a reputation of being a complete diva on the set. Even though movies may not be a walk in the park, every actor that's gone from movies to Broadway has commented that Broadway is much harder than any movie role. Denzel Washington, Brooke Shields...people that have had long-term careers in movies, not child stars that are just now outgrowing Disney.
Don't assume I'm one of those people that hates Lindsay Lohan because all the cool kids are doing it. I do enjoy some of her film work; I even own some of the movies on DVD. But I'm realistic enough to see that at this point in her career, she can't handle doing a Broadway show.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#42
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:22pm
Whether or not Lohan has the work ethic, she does not have any real singing ability.
And can you really imagine her playing Cher Horowitz? AS IF :0)
Lohan is the anti-Cher. Any appeal that Lohan has is as the more relateable and down to earth character.
And can you really imagine her playing Cher Horowitz? AS IF :0)
Lohan is the anti-Cher. Any appeal that Lohan has is as the more relateable and down to earth character.
-Anyone want to turn anarchist with me?"Bless you and all who know you, oh wise and penguined one." ~YouWantItWhen????
#43
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:24pm
What's scarier about the possibilty of Lindsay Lohan on Broadway is the fact that they are turning films like CLUELESS and LEGALLY BLONDE into musicals. GIVE. ME. A. BREAK!!!!!!
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 10:24 PM
#44
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:24pm
Bottom line: If she can handle the role and sing the music, she deserves the same shot as everyone else. Period. If she can't do it, she shouldn't be cast. But unless someone here is one of the producers or the director of this show, then they won't be making the decision anyway. I hate stunt casting when the person is not right for the part or cannot perform well (i.e. Mel B. in Rent, David Hasselhoff in Jekyll and Hyde, or Marla Maples in Will Rogers Follies), but I don't see Lohan as being a poor choice to consider for an audition. The show is far from hitting Broadway yet and this is still only a rumor. Most of the comments on this thread are just immature comments. I thank those who can at least argue a point maturely. It makes a debate far more stimulating and interesting.
PS - Divas with bad behavior make up half the most revered and lauded leading ladies of Broadway. That has nothing to do with talent.
PS - Divas with bad behavior make up half the most revered and lauded leading ladies of Broadway. That has nothing to do with talent.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#45
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:28pm
Jane Fonda has said she would want Lohan to star in the Barbarella musical.
#46
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:31pm
Lohan would end up in the hospital within 2 weeks. She's in the hospital for exhaustion, injuries, etc. practically daily.
We wouldn't want her to fall into the orchestra pit and hit her head on a tuba now, would we?
We wouldn't want her to fall into the orchestra pit and hit her head on a tuba now, would we?
~And let us try, before we die, to make some sense of life~
#47
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:32pm
CLUELESS the musical has been in the works for a few years now. The person at helm of the project is Tony Award Winner Jerry Mitchell. But as for Lindsay...we will see...
Jovie
Jovie
"Now the best way to learn the theater, always, is to be a stage manager"
-Stephen Sondheim
#48
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:33pm
Also, I think her movies are fine, she's a perfectly watchable actress with more talent than her fellow teeny-boppers. But I don't think she has the prescence to be in a Bway show. Besides, that would leave less time for partying.
~And let us try, before we die, to make some sense of life~
#49
Posted: 10/2/05 at 10:38pm
While Clueless as a musical sounds promising, I have to say that I'm pretty against the idea of Lohan starring or co-starring in it. It's just my personal opinion and I have nothing against her as an actress or person or whatever, but based off hearing her sing on her CD and in movies/TV etc I just really don't like her voice. I think it sounds very weak and poppy, like she's trying to make it sound breathy and deep to sound sexually appealing and that alot of it is helped along by editing in the recording studio. Again, that's just my personal view on it but I'd be very dissapointed if they cast her in this musical.
I wanted to get something that an "ex"-junkie like him would really appreciate and cherish....it's a brick of heroin shaped like a heart.
-Scrubs
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95