Cinderella rehearsal photos up

I have no idea how this show will do but it's got a hell of a cast.
Cinderella in rehearsal

---

It's just such a neutered interpretation of the fairy tale, I can't get past it. Didn't know Harriet Harris was in this though, will definitely see it for her.

---

I get that from him too. I wish he was a bit more.

I wish Santino was in my bed more.

Does anyone know what the new songs are, and where they came from?

I don't find him to be hunky enough for Prince Charming. Great voice, but that's all he does for me.

---

See, I have the opposite issue, I find her far too obviously beautiful to play Cinderella. It's like when they put nerd glasses on Rachel Leigh Cook in "She's All That" and try to sell you the idea that she's nerdy and dirty and covered in paint and then, oh my god, take them off and she's a knockout! I don't buy Osnes as the Cinder girl of the fairy tale. She's simply too beautiful, and beautiful in the most Disney Princess way.

"You saw it? How is it neutered?"

Have you ever read the original Grimm's story? Or even some of the earlier interpretations, I quite like Perrault's, actually, as well. The Rodgers & Hammerstein version, as well as the Disney one, omit some of the most fascinating details, plot elements, and characters from it. It's disappointing for anyone who actually is a fan of the fairy tale. Into the Woods borrows more heavily from the original text than this does, and even Into the Woods is not without it's faults.

Though I WILL confess to being a complete nerd and loving dearly the inaccurate, impossible, and deeply cheesy movie version "Ever After", which to me would make a far more fascinating musical than this.

---

Updated On: 1/8/13 at 10:56 AM

"Have you ever read the original Grimm's story? "

they have repeatedly said that its NOT the Grimm version, rather the FRENCH version of the tale.

i dont know how you can say its a neutered version unless youre a time traveler. it hasnt even started yet!

Ever After? goodness gracious.

And doesn't Perrault's Cendrillon predate a definitive written version of Aschenputtel by almost 200 years?

---

"Can't we at least hold our judgment until the show starts previews?"

I'm not judge the quality or the content of the show (except the costumes). I am judging the business decision here. It boggles my mind producers would take such a huge risk and in the doldrums of winter.

Maybe Prince Christopher doesn't always have to be hunky? In fact, of all the Cinderella movies out there, the prince always seems sort of average in my opinion. To be honest, William and Harry are average looking to be, but everyone else thinks they are hot, so beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

Isn't Cinderella supposed to be extremely beautiful, which is one of the reasons why her stepfamily despises her? I think Laura looks fine in my opinion. Although, I do like that in Ever After, one of Cinderella's (Danielle, actually) stepsister looks better than she does.

"The Rodgers & Hammerstein version, as well as the Disney one, omit some of the most fascinating details, plot elements, and characters from it. It's disappointing for anyone who actually is a fan of the fairy tale."

The original version is by Perrault. The Grimm story came after, but you've already mentioned that. This new R&H version is strictly based on Perrault's telling. Aside from Into the Woods, all the other famous retelling of Cinderella follow the Perrault version.

I'm excited for this. From what I've read and behind the scenes videos I have watched, it seems to be a combination of the original R&H version, the Perrault version, Ever After, and Ella Enchanted. It should be fun!

Although I'm excited for this, I'm much more excited for the Ever After musical. I've heard three songs from it, and they are amazing! Hope it arrives next season!

She's too "unfamous" for the role, I'll give her that much.

She was a Tony nominee, and I can't think of too many in her generation of performers who would fill the role better.