God Bless Brooke Shields — Page 2

Alright. Remove the god damn comment, but i still stand by what i said. And yes, I realize that it costs a lot to put on a musical. Im not an idiot. And yes, i realize that it takes over a year to turn a profit. I dont really care what you think of my theatrical intelligence frankly. My point in the post was to say that stunt casting in order to ATTEMPT TO TURN A PROFIT is a shame. Id rather see amazing stage talent perform nightly over a formerly popular, and in my opnion, abominable tv and film actress anyday. Regardless of which rich producers are losing money or not. Do you honestly think that when producing a sondheim show, producers expect to turn a massive profit? No. And they certainly dont pull this stunt casting in order to. Why should a great work of leonard bernstein get this treatment then? All im saying is real talent deserves work over stunt casting. Period. Please, inform me of my ignorance again, as im sure you will.

All I can say to you is that I would love for Karen Ziemba to be headlining in a show. I really think she deserves it. However, she doesn't sell tickets. It's a vicious circle - the unions demand high rates of pay and benefits for their members. Theater owners want lots of money too. The producers have to come up with all that money, plus money to pay back their investors. So, the rental fees and salaries have to come from ticket sales. I'm not disagreeing that stunt casting of an untalented actor is upsetting and wrong. However, in this case, they are obviously in the hole for quite a bit of money. And, I'm not convinced that Ms. Shields can't handle this particular role.

---

Well, I didn't say that.

---

Hear hear!

---

And all this goes to show--we need a national theatre. A place where stunt casting doesnt have to exist and great art can still thrive. Haha, now hows that for a shift in topic?

PS ~ I totally agree on the National Theatre thing! Lets start a fund!

How do you "know" you'll be unhappy with her performance if you haven't seen her in it?

---

You made your bed babe, lie in it.

It's a healthy, albiet heated discussion. There's no slander or deformation of character, therefore no reason to delete the thread.

---

i think you people need to *chill*, reality is: brooke's in the role. you can't do anything about it. all the b!tching and moaning isn't gonna change it. so just live with it, and if you don't agree with it just do one simple thing: don't go see wonderful town and call it a day.

if on the other hand you do like brooke then by all means go see wonderful town and enjoy the hell out of it and cheer brooke on.

Actually, I am more interested in seeing the show with Brooke than when Donna was in it. Having a diva who can sing the hell out of Swing makes absolutely no sense and is totally out of character. That, and Donna's attendance record really left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why Jarico and I passed the show up on our NYC trip. With Brooke, however, I have a newfound interest in the show. She has proven to be quite charismatic and plays the insecure and clumsy bombshell quite well. Though she is glamorous, as robbiej said, Russell was glamorous and not especially ugly. Thousands of beautiful women never get a second glance because they are shy, or insecure, or never discovered their beauty. And put Brooke next to a twentysomething blonde knockout and guess which will draws the guys' attractions. It's not so far-fetched.

---

I saw Brooke during her opening week in a half full house, but that was September and allmost all the shows were strugling. It's good to see that ticket sales are now back up where they should be.
Brooke Shields has had an amazing career, and I'm glad to have seen her. She is a great comedic actress, but I agree, not that great a singer. She is also very tall, and she towers above those Brazilian cadets in "The Conga".
Jennifer Hope Wills was terrific as Eileen! She's as stunningly beautiful as role calls for, and she has such sweet, lovely voice! Her "I'm A Little Bit In Love" actually sounds better than that other Jennifer on the OBCR.

Welcome the the board. Now, in response to your comment. I can assure you that most people here on this board are full-well aware of every supposed enlightening comment you have made but the facts are this--There is far more work in LA than in New York for actors. That cannot be disputed. LA is the home of the film industry (far bigger than the stage industry), the television industry (ditto), and many other acting opportunities (voice overs, commercial work, etc.) Therefore (and i realize this is difficult to do at all), it is far easier to attain work in LA than in New York. So, to make it as a steady working actor in New York, you obviously must have a slight advantage in the talent dept. over many who attempt to work in New York, but then move to LA to find more steady employment. Next, it takes a different type of talent to perform something brilliantly once on camera after hundreds of takes than it does to perform a brilliant moment on stage eight times a week, while always keeping it fresh. In my opinion, it is more difficult. I think most would agree. Next, most stage actors are at some point trained in the likes of Shakespeare, Chekov, Ibsen, Mogliere, and many of the other classic playwrights of theatre. Those who take a four week film acting seminar in LA are not. They dont need to be. The work doesnt require that depth. Stage acting does. So here's my gripe--many of the film actors we adore began on stage. This holds them in a higher degree of respect for myself. Because while Kevni Kilne (per say) can make me laugh and cry in a performance like "In and Out", I also realize that his Julliard training allows me to be just as deeply touched when he playes Falstaff. All some of us are saying is that it takes a bit more to act on stage than it does on film. It's a fact. And as for Brooke Shields, I just dont think that getting work from being beatiful aand tall in LA is cause enough for me to pay $100 to see her in anything on the Broadway stage.

and by the way, the "hugh jackmans, etc." began their careers on the stage.

Updated On: 10/13/04 at 01:50 PM