Hate against "Replacing"

Something I have always been a little curious about is why there is such hate against people being a replacement in a show.. it seems that once someone else is OBC, the character loses dignity and it seems to be a downgrade for people to take over.

My biggest example is Patti Lupone. I don't think any of us would ever even imagine Patti replacing in a show, especially now. However, there are so many already-created roles that we all know she could dominate if she played. One example of a role I think she would BLOW away is Madame Morrible. (now I am saying NOTHING about the quality of the show, I know most on here hate it, but I don't think any of us can deny that Patti would rock the living **** out of it) If it was ever announced that she was taking this role, or any other role like this on Broadway, she would be "downgrading herself", like she was above it. Why is this?

To me, if you are at a point in your career where you are successful, you should be doing roles that you enjoy! If an actor truly thought they would enjoy doing a role, and would be good at it, why should they not take it? I understand that creating the role and working with the director and creative staff is an incredible experience, but I guess I just want to understand why replacing in a show is deemed as being less.

Im also sorry how poorly this is written, I couldn't think of any way to bring up this topic without someone getting upset or not understanding my intention of it... so, it is what it is.

Updated On: 5/22/13 at 09:00 PM

If you were Mick Jagger, would you want to cover a Billy Joel song?

ETA: A show like Wicked is already set. A new performer can come in and make the character his or her own in context with a character already defined in the play by somebody else. If Wicked were closed for 8 years and a reimagined revival was to be put into place Iam sure someone like Patti Lapone would consider it and probably do very well in redifining the character.

---

Updated On: 5/22/13 at 09:19 PM

Being involved in the creative process and getting to create a character is a big deal for a lot of actors. When you're coming in as a replacement you're more or less just copying what the original did.

Oh Please. Wicked wouldn't look twice at a has-been like Patti.

Probably couldn't get a ticket- the show has been consistently selling out for 9 1/2 years. So it's good you refer Patti. You can ALWAYS get a ticket to one of her shows!

When a replacement is put into an already-running show, they get 2 weeks of rehearsals with the dance captains, stage managers, and understudies. They will not normally get to work with the regular cast until they have a put-in rehearsal (a full show run with only the new person in costume)- and unless it's for a major role, the put-in leads will probably be understudies as well.

I have seen incredibly talented actors beaten down by stage managers/resident directors who want them to copy the original's exact performance- obviously, 'names' will have a bit more leeway, but for most there isn't much chance to put your own mark on a role. The SM & dance captain's jobs are to maintain the show as it was when it opened- and not to change things. That is why many actors are leery of replacing.

---

It also has a lot to do with status. Many actors themselves are the ones that draw the line in the sand: I want to create roles. They feel they have paid their dues, and can afford to hold out.

Are there many actors just happy to be replacements? Sure, and they do.

Personally, I could care less. I just want a great performance -- whether I am seeing the OBC or the replacements 3 years later.


HOWEVER, there is little leeway for massive changes within a production for replacements. There are expectations....as well as how well it fits in with: the rest of the cast, the intent of the director (they aren't going to change what they created) and the audience's perception.

---

Didn't Patti LuPone REPLACE Zoe Caldwell in Master Class back 1996?

Yes, Pattil did replace Zoe Caldwell, and if I remember correctly she wanted to be the replacement for the Night Music revival, but Bernadette got it instead. Didn't she say in an interview that she "called Trevor" but he never called back? Or was that in reference to when the revival was getting off the ground, before Zeta-Jones was cast?

---

Updated On: 5/23/13 at 12:30 AM

I feel like I remember something about Sierra Boggess turning down Glinda a few times.

The thing about Wicked is that a lot of those actors end up doing it several times, and for whatever reason, I don't see them finding much work outside of Wicked as frequently as leads from other shows do.

Yes, I am aware.

I think it can be reasonably inferred that she has a special relationship with that show. The few times that Sierra has replaced have had seemingly more meaning than going into Wicked just because.

Who would be some fabulously talented replacements for Madame Morrible? Mary Testa?

---

Y'all got two different conversations going on here. When a star replaces someone in a show, it's an entirely different thing than when an unknown goes in as a replacement.

The star generally gets to reinterpret the role and make it their own; the unknown is more or less asked to mostly duplicate the performance of their predecessor (as much as they can). It's a well-paying job, but much harder to demonstrate your unique talents (if you have any).

If you want to be a star, you need to originate a role somewhere (stage, film, tv); but if you're content to be a lesser-known but working actor, it's a different ballgame.