Broadway Starts to Film Stars- Page 2

[modnar]

Posted: 5/23/08 at 4:47pm

I think Idina came across very well in the RENT movie.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/23/08 at 4:50pm

Honey, nothing came across very well in the ReNt movie.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 4:37am

BettyBoy72, I disagree!
Bway stars, with the right guidance, project, and oportunity, can transition very well, as long as they come accross right on camera, of course (there is such a thing as "photographing" well, and the "timing" for TV and films is a bit different that the stage).
Stage IS much harder than films, and requires so much more discipline. An actor that can do 8 day weeks in a show, can certainly waltz on a less demanding piece of work. Acting is the fundamental thing, here.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 4:45am

Updated On: 5/5/09 at 04:45 AM

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 4:55am

...one of the reasons, LePetite, is that, in TV and film (I've done both), you can do "another" take, and get it right...NOT same in theater...hit it on the nail, or fail. definitely, more demanding, IMHO
The hours are long in TV and film, but you can still hang out in your "trailer", sometimes for hours, while others are doing their work...

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 5:05am

Updated On: 5/5/09 at 05:05 AM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 5:14am

I have to agree with Petite. Film acting is hard of course, but even film I feel you do it for a few months and then many actors choose to just take a break and whatever. But TV acting feels INSANE to me, working 16 hour shifts for a single-camera series is just...wow, and what's sad is that I believe that is more or less the average. TV actors do shoot scenes at 4am, whether they have to pretend they are having the most exciting moment or their laughs, the most hilarious moment of their lives, the most erotic one, etc. I mean, what is that?
Of course doing Broadway is insane as well, but I don't think you can say one is hardest than the other. I do believe (and it's not like I've ever done TV/film work so how would I know?) that Broadway has to be more rewarding--in terms of your viewers-- simply because of the live audience factor.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 5:31am

ray...agree with stage being more rewarding, instantly.
As far as the craziness of TV work, it's right up my alley That is one of the things I enjoyed most about TV, the weird hours. I even came to love the dreaded "hurry up, and wait" thing. I just loved the whole scene (no pun intended...), really.
LePetite, yeah, the "script" thing is quite hard for most actors...actually, this would be one of my weakest points (thus, hardest to deal with). I still think stage work is more demanding, though, even if it is just a couple of hours work (but very intensely packed). :I

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 5:53am

Updated On: 5/5/09 at 05:53 AM

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 5:55am

Ditto!!! ;D

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 10:08pm

May this new Wes Craven movie prove me wrong, but I don't exactly see Raul Esparza becoming much of a film star. Love him to pieces, but from what I've seen of his screen work, it just doesn't show off his talent and I'm not really sure why that is.

Anyways, I would say Sutton Foster could be a very popular screen star. And Jane Krakowski had a broadway start, and not that she is a big film star, but her run in Ally McBeal made her pretty famous.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 10:48pm

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Sara Ramirez yet. Okay, she has done some bit parts in movies and television after doing theater for awhile, then returned to theater to end up on "Grey's Anatomy."

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 10:49pm

But didn't she do movies before broadway?

[Marianne2]

Posted: 5/24/08 at 10:55pm

As far as I know, she was casted in "The Capeman" right after she graduated from Julliard. At least that's what I remember reading and hearing. Forgive me if I am wrong.