Tim Rice vs. Webber

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 2:59pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Tim-Rice-Opposes-Andrew-Lloyd-Webbers-Tasteless-SUPERSTAR-Reality-Show-20120122

Rice's comments are interesting. I didn't even know the tv show could be done without his approval but apparently he will have final say in who gets cast. Honestly, I find these shows to rarely produce the ideal person for the role. There's a reason we have casting directors/teams specifically designed to cast shows and don't let the public do it. People who cast roles have been in and around the business for a long time and have had lots of experience with casting. I think it's pretty ridiculous to assume the public (in this case the British public) can make an informed, appropriate decision. I think the "You're the One that I Want!" competition was equally inappropriate for casting the show.

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 3:17pm

I don't know, saying that the people can't choose is very 18th century of you broadway. And i agree casting directors often do make the better choice but still sometimes we end up with really talented people i.e Laura Osnes.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 3:20pm

I do find Osnes talented but did you see Grease? I don't think Sandy was the role for her. Regardless what do you mean by "18th century?" I'm not so foolish as to believe that I, with no experience casting any production, could make a better decision than a professional. That doesn't mean the people who are on the competitions aren't talented and it doesn't mean that sometimes the public will make the right choice, I just think it's more about the attention/publicity than it is about actually finding the best person for the role.

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 3:25pm

As in let it be decided by the few and ignore the many. But they do provide very talented people with a chance to be seen by the public, and through this promote what is sometimes a very good show. Not that i enjoy any of lloyd webbers producing works, it can sometimes draw much needed attention to a beloved show.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 3:49pm

I'm with Tim on this one. I think all of the reality casting shows are pretty tacky and casting Jesus on television has got to be one of the most bizarre. I'm hoping this will have no effect on the current Broadway revival. It would be a shame if that brilliant production was somehow sidelined in favor of Webber's ridiculous arena tour.

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 4:22pm

It would, but you know it gives new talent a chance to be seen by the public, and in a way creates some intrest in broadway so, i think we can deal.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 7:37pm

Didn't they have a TV show to cast Joseph a couple of years ago...did Tim have a problem with that?

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 7:52pm

I think it's more the "You can be Jesus!" aspect that Rice is finding tasteless, and I kind of agree.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 7:58pm

Nah...in for a penny, in for a pound.

If you looked at the whole show in that spirit, there wouldn't be a show!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 10:05pm

They've already used this casting method for Sound of Music, Joseph, Oliver and Wizard of Oz. Ad I believe all the productions except Oz, which is still running, have made money. Not sure why Rice is objecting to this one when he didn't seem to raise his voice regarding Joseph.

I don't have a problem with it. There are a series of initial auditions tat occur to get to the finalists and it is open to non-union, which I find refreshing. I also like the idea of allowing the audience a voice in the casting of a single leading role since they are ultimately the ones who will be buying the tickets. It may be unconventional, but it's still an audition process and only for one role for one show. It provides great exposure for performers who may otherwise go unnoticed (Daniel Boys din't even win and has great success) and it raises the profile on musical theatre to a much broader audience.

I watched Consider Yourself (the search for Nancy in Oliver) and Jodie Prenger was my pick from the first episode. She ultimately won the part and when I saw her in the show, she was fantastic (and following the show absolutely led me to buying a ticket). I don't remember harsh criticism for Connie in Sound of Music or Lee for Joseph, so it seems like the process isn't without merit.

The only series I didn't watch was the Wizard of Oz one. The show itself doesn't interest me, no Barrowman and Van Outen and the addition of Charlotte Church as a judge kept me away.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 2:43am

The Joseph they picked was pretty obviously the most experienced performer, so even if another guy was your favorite (as mine was), it was hard to complain.

But if casting discussions at this board are any indication, most people don't understand the difference between being enormously talented and actually being right for a specific role. (YOU'RE THE ONE THAT I WANT was a great case in point.)

Yeah, Kelly Clarkson as Fannie Brice! That's what we need!

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 10:16am

gaveston many noticed and even said that clarkson was wrong for fannie.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 11:06am

I could get behind one of these shows if they weren't such blatant attempts to mimic American Idol and find complete unknowns. It's a sweet Cinderella-story premise, but the ones who rise to the top are usually experienced performers anyway, so I'd rather see a casting team come in and narrow the field to a half dozen people really suited to the part and then let the audience vote (as they later would with their wallets) for the best ones. It would be like letting me watch the Chorus Line documentary and vote for Diaz instead of Damboise. That would be worth watching.

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 11:41am

You what's the weirdest thing Ourtime, that's kinda what happens anyway.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 12:10pm

I'm much more offended by the idea of picking a replacement for Judy Garland than I am by the idea of picking a Jesus.

I mean, really!

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:40pm

gaveston many noticed and even said that clarkson was wrong for fannie.

Of course, random person. I certainly wasn't suggesting that *I* am the only one here who understands suitability for a role. (I wasn't even suggesting that reasonable people can't disagree on the subject.)

My point was that many people apparently do not understand the concept. Since the voters for a reality show aren't screened, we have to assume a good number of them are not really qualified to be casting directors.

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 01:40 PM

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:48pm

We can also assume by the same token many arn't qualified to vote for president. The board you referenced was even a joke thread but merely made so that people would see Clarksons performance. (Which i found bland but whatever.) My position is if it's getting people interested in Broadway, and promoting new talent, why not?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:56pm

The voters for these Lloyd Webber casting shows certainly have done a better job than the voters for Dancing With the Stars. I guess what I like about these casting shows is that from the start, the audience is keyed in on the preliminary casting that leads the candidates to the competition with the judges providing feedback and insight into their decisions. They do a fairly decent job of prepping the audience as to what they look for in casting a part. And as with other talent competitions, the audience shares control of the outcome with the judges. I was certainly skeptical when they first introduced this casting concept, but when I saw it unfold, it really seemed to work out well. I don't think it's appropriate for every show, but for a revival of a show that is such a major standard the general public is familiar with the characters, it's a great way to get the public enthused about something they may have seen time and time again and may not be enthused about spending a lot of money to see otherwise.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 2:06pm

Random person - your comparisons to voting for a role to voting for president are tenuous, at best. When I vote for President (or any democratically-elected official for that matter) I am choosing someone to REPRESENT me and my interests. Under this system, every individual gets one vote to represent them, because, at least in theory, all people are considered equal in the U.S. (If only that were true...)

When I'm voting for someone to fill a role in a show, they aren't representing me or my interests or beliefs, I'm simply voting for someone I like who will in turn earn a job. Under this system, people have an unlimited number of votes (or in some cases arbitrary cut-offs on voting limits). By your logic, the public should vote for who should get a job at an accounting firm, which candidate should be hired as the next custodian at my office, and who should be hired by the government as a nuclear physicist.

By the very nature of the theatre business (or really any business for that matter), there are certain individuals who have more training, knowledge, and experience who have the JOB of hiring people for a particular line of work. I'm not saying these reality competitions can't be fun to watch (though I find the sheer volume of them unnecessary and boring) but I just think it's naive to think we deserve to make a decision or that we can always make a better decision than trained professionals.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 2:16pm

We can also assume by the same token many arn't qualified to vote for president.

Yes, we can assume that and have our assumptions confirmed every November. But qualification isn't why we allow the people to elect their own representatives. We do so because every other system is worse. (And even so, you might notice that our system is full of checks and balances to keep those unqualified voters from running amok.)

The board you referenced was even a joke thread but merely made so that people would see Clarksons performance. (Which i found bland but whatever.) My position is if it's getting people interested in Broadway, and promoting new talent, why not?

I referenced Clarkson entirely because it was obviously wrong casting, joke or not. And FWIW I don't think everyone applauding the idea of Clarkson as Brice was kidding.

I don't think talent shows are the end of civilization, but as American Idol proves almost every year, there's a big difference between free voting and shelling out money for a play or CD. Yes, Broadway and West End talent shows provide free publicity, but as with Grease, they may do so at the ultimate expense of the show.

Speaking of which, if I were a professional actor, I would hate these extended casting calls. Telegeneity (which should be a word if it isn't) is not the same thing as stage talent. It's already hard enough to get a role when the process isn't rigged against you.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 2:35pm

I'd prefer to hear them say "You can be a Superstar" over "You can be Jesus"

[Scripps2]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 3:01pm

The previous reality casting shows for ALW were done by the non-commercial BBC. This is being done by its major commercial rival ITV. Rice is obviously concerned that the whole process will be dumbed down for the sake of commercialism.

As Mister Matt observes, the BBC shows did pretty good jobs in finding appropriate talent for the roles. ITV's talent competitions have given us Susan Boyle.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 3:11pm

Legendary producer David Merrick cast ALL his shows through television reality contests. Didn't he? I think it was very common back in the Golden Age.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 3:20pm

I also loved the School Musicals on Sky1. That is something I'd love to see picked up in the US.

For those not familiar, it is a series that documents a high school production of a musical from the auditions and rehearsals through a performance at a West End theatre. The first series featured a production of Hairspray and was hosted by Denise Van Outen. The second featured Grease and was hosted by Duncan James. I don't remember how the school was chosen for Hairspray, but for Grease, several schools competed to be awarded the production. Showbiz professionals come in to assist and mentor the students throughout the process. It's really remarkable and inspiring to see these kids engage in such a fantastic opportunity.
Grease: The School Musical

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 1:08am

"I don't think talent shows are the end of civilization, but as American Idol proves almost every year, there's a big difference between free voting and shelling out money for a play or CD. Yes, Broadway and West End talent shows provide free publicity, but as with Grease, they may do so at the ultimate expense of the show. "

While I kinda agree with you (i'm very mixed or maybe apathetic on the whole subject--and yet here I am posting), in the UK it seems undeniable that so far for ALW they *have* raised at least some level of interest in the show that wouldn't have existed otherwise. So I guess from his perspective so far it's been a win/win situation.

The US Grease show was different IMHO and didn't seem to raise any real interest in Grease itself but it is a different situation I think trying to get Americans (well North Americans--I think us Canadians could vote too but can't remember) interested in a show they'd have to travel all the way to New York to see unlike a UK London production (being a much smaller country land wise) or in this case a touring one.

Canada hs had a couple of seasons of "Triple Threat" which awards the winner with a huge scholarship (I think anyway) for theatre, and has parts devoted to acting scene work, choreography and singing by a number of Canadian, American and British professionals (ALW has been on a couple of times). I've never been too invested partly as I've never found the contestants all that interesting--they have mostly reminded me of the people I found slightly annoying back when I studied theatre, but I think it does rely much more on the judge's voting and seemed to be a better system--although it also had a lot less interest for regular viewers it seemed.

(I believe we also got a Canuck version of How Do you Solve a Problem Like Maria but it was completely off my radar at the time).