Congrats Sutton! Sutton to star in Shrek! — Page 2

"I love her but why does she keep taking these really mainstream roles in all these touristy type of shows?"

What's wrong with that? A role is a role, she needs to pay her bills too, you know. And it's not hurting her...I mean, she has been involved with a lot of projects the past few years.

"I dont even understand why the hell they'd do a shrek musical, but for sutton to star in it sounds like a waste of her talent..."

I disagree. You won't know for sure until you see it.

---

Can they write a role for Harriet Harris.
I had fantasies of playing Mrs Meers, but she was fabulous.

Here we go with the tourist labeling crap again ! All of you artistic, quality folks, who constantly demean ALL the succesful shows, please provide me a list for April ! Since I am gonna be a tourist, I wouldn't want to walk into a non-tourist show and offend your pretentious snobby egos !

Oh, and congrats to Sutton !

Updated On: 2/8/08 at 04:51 PM

I agree with you, but there are people here, that when a show succeeds, they use the term tourist in the most demeaning way ! And I am sick to death of that ! After all, I come from a country were theater WAS BORN and here Theater is FOR EVERYONE !!!

Updated On: 2/8/08 at 04:59 PM

Greek, I think when people talk about "tourist" shows they are really talking about shows that will sell to the non-English speaking audience. A "tourist show is onethat relies on the visuals and big production numbers and not really on character development or interesting or subtle plot developments; the kind of show people can enjoy even if they don't have a CLUE as to what is going on.

---

Thanks, Greek. But lets face it, YOU are not the typical tourist.

---

How are they going to make this look like anything but a big budget kiddie show? I mean VISUALLY, you still need a talking donkey, a gingerbread man, and two leads who look somewhat human, but will have to look enough like real ogres that it will make the real human characters uncomfortable.
This just sounds like a bad, bad, bad idea.

---

"Greek, I think when people talk about "tourist" shows they are really talking about shows that will sell to the non-English speaking audience"

Oh like Americans?????.....Oh i was kidding lol

---

Even though Shrek does not sound like a good idea, we can just hope for the best. It's not like we really wish for a show to close (well....maybe just one. :)) Especially not a show that has an amazing production team. I think many shows are more for tourists, and a lot of times they are not what I at least would consider "quality theatre". Sometimes "tourist" shows turn out to be great. I think this has a lot of hype to live up to, and I just hope it does well.

---

Don't feel too special, honey. I've still never seen the "Young Frankenstein" movie, and I don't have any reason to see it.

I saw the musical, and I don't believe one should have to see a movie before going to see its musical adaptation.

The musical needs to be able to stand on its own, a problem I had with SPAMALOT. I still haven't seen the "Monty Python" movies, but I was bored as heck at SPAMALOT 'cause I didn't understand why everyone was laughing so much.

YF isn't Sutton at her best. She really shines when she is front and center, as she was in MILLIE, LITTLE WOMEN, and DROWSY.

---

If you think about it, this is actually a really wise move. I don't think it's selling out in a bad way. "Shrek" is so popular that it'll last for a while, esp. if it's completely re-envisioned the way "The Lion King" was. We can't completely dismiss it until we see what they're doing with it.

I think it's a good move for a few reasons.

First, for those of us who *are* "Broadway people," we all know Sutton's name. It carries weight. I'm not a fan of the "Shrek" franchise. The first movie bored me to tears. Granted, I liked the second movie a lot, but I think a big part of that was the music (which was in all the right places and heightened everything, imo), and haven't even bothered to see the third movie. I'd COMPLETELY dismiss seeing "Shrek" on Broadway. Granted, once it starts up, I may still dismiss it, but I may not for the sheer fact that she's in it. We'll see. Time will tell. They're going to get a lot of Sutton fans into the theatre from the BWay crowd off of her name alone.

Then, you have "Shrek" itself. The franchise is huge. If it picks up, there will be productions of it around the world. The cast recording will be sold around the world and more readily available than other shows. That's HUGE for Sutton. More people will know about how wonderful she is. She'll ALSO get further exposure because the non-BWay crowd who couldn't give a rat's ass as to who the heck she is will have more exposure to her. She will be more of a household name than she is at the moment.

And in a way, that's also important if she truly is on her way to becoming a legend of the future. How can you be a legend if most people don't know your name?


So, sure, it's *Shrek,* but for Sutton, this can only help her, imo.

She's staying with YF through her one year contract. Many performers leave after their first year is up.

Chances are the rest of the YF stars, save Christopher Fitzgerald and maybe Roger Bart, will jump ship shortly after Sutton.

---