Let me start by saying that Jen is an absolute doll and she is kick-ass in Avenue Q. She's worked--and continues to work--her butt off and would make the perfect Kate. But, misto625, on Broadway it's not about what's "fair" or who "deserves" it. The average theatergoer who's going to spend 100 bucks to see Avenue Q for the first time are the ones who are going to keep the show running, and they're not going to know Jen from a hole in the wall. All they're going to know is their opinion on the actors they see and the show overall. The only people (most everyone on this board) who care about what any cast member deserves are the ones who have seen Q before and try the lottery every day of their life (trust me, I've been there too) and once in a blue moon spend $26.25 on the show. Those people (us) aren't going to keep the show running. That said, while I think Jen would be the perfect Kate, the problem at this moment is that she would be playing opposite Barrett, who is and looks significantly younger than she is. I mean, Steph was 4-5 years older than John, Barrett was 3-4 years younger than John, and Jen was 2-3 years older than Steph (now don't go whipping out your calculators...I'm just making an estimation and I'm not trying to start an argument). Bottom line, Jen and Barrett don't look as believable together to the common theatergoer as say, Barrett, and someone like Mary Faber. It comes down to money and what will keep the show running. It sucks to be Jen, but who knows, maybe once Barrett leaves, they'll hire a Princeton/Rod that could more believably play opposite Jen.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
Updated On: 11/22/05 at 10:03 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
