Idina's first missed performance! — Page 2

I do love Idina... but she definitely isn't a "name," no matter how much we'd like her to be. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Kristin is a "name" either, but more people know who Kristin Chenoweth is than know who Idina Menzel is. Idina is well known in the theater community. I think we often forget about those other people out there, who don't know, much less care, about theater. "Names" are people who are much more widely known than in just one group... people who can be huge box office draws spanning many different groups of people: Hugh Jackman, Melanie Griffith, Joey Fatone (as much as I hate to say it), Eric McCormack, etc.

---

wonderful... someone understands what I'm saying! After I clicked "post message" I was worried that someone was going to come along and crucify me for hating Idina or hating Wicked, which I don't at all.

---

Updated On: 3/20/04 at 09:06 PM

emcee, we are on the same page. i loved Wicked.

---

I loved the book. I think they were wise to make the musical into what it is now though. The book was so political and dark, the show would not be as easy as a sell as it is now. The show is definetly only based on the book.

---

I love your new signature. But I'm sure I didn't have to tell you that, lol. Check out Wicked_Elphie's new icon. I helped her pick it out... you'll enjoy it too.

---

well yes, I could... but I meant TheGirlIntheFrock's signature.
I do enjoy yours as well, shermanslave!
and I agree about the book. Probably a bit *too* dark to make a good musical, but I enjoyed the story much more. I liked the depth and politics it had that the musical didn't. I do think that they made good choices as to what to include and what not to include in the musical, though. It's also much more focused on their friendship, whereas the book is focused almost completely on Elphaba... that's one thing I like better about the musical, actually.

---

Updated On: 3/20/04 at 09:23 PM

lol.... as bored as I am?
I edited... scroll up if you please.

---

WICKED is a show where you don't need a name to keep it running. just great talent. I mean now, RENT had no names, but tons of talent, and they've managed to maintain that for 8 years now. A Chorus Line was really the first show to open without any big names in the cast or in the creative team. Some people were recognized but they weren't what drawed people to the box office. Idina is a definately a name now, we've established that. Kristin has been a name ever seinc CHARLIE BROWN, but honestly, Kristin has been missing perfromances lately and yet the show still manages to make overa million a week. True, Idina IS WICKED, but the show will go on without her.

---

emcee, what is your icon? is that you with a dolphin?

---

got it. thanks.

---

Sorry to be so late...

I'm just saying that Idina's preplanned absences should be publicly announced so that people can avoid buying tickets (or for that matter, buy) if that's how they feel. Just as Kristin's absences for Candide are publicly announced.

Actors are expendable, shows endure, at least the well written ones.

Not necessarily true. I happen to think Nine is an extremely clever and well written musical, though it is, at the same time, really deep and difficult to understand. It endured countless replacements in the 80's, when people didn't see shows for names, but in the recent revival, which I thought was stunning, it couldn't run once the majority of the all-star cast had gone.

Actors expendable? Not nowadays, which is horribly unfortunate, because shows that deserve to endure just can't. Hopefully that'll change.

---

After seeing the show last week, I have to agree with the posters who have said that the show does NOT need a name to have a healthy run and be successful. BUT, what the show does need are people to replace the current names who are GOOD. I think the show itself is so strong that with quality performers 99% of the audience would care less WHO was in the roles. I unfortunately sat through most of my performance thinking about Kristin's name, because the woman I saw in the role was not as skilled enough to keep me focussed on the show. I don't think that was because she wasn't a big name. Rather she wasn't a very good singer and wasn't funny. I could have cared less if she was "famous" or not. I just wanted her to land the jokes and sing the beautiful music (I am a fan of the score- even if I am in the minority). I posted most of this in my message last week after seeing the show, so sorry to repeat. As I said, my friend saw the other understudy and thought she was just great and just loved the show. And she was not some famous "name". I think if Broadway in general focussed more on finding talented performers, like they used to, instead of all this focus on "names", we would all be much happier. Then of course the is the issue of selling tickets. But I'd like to think if the quality is there, the audience will come.
My thoughts.