Trends

[Frank thebellhop]

Trends#1

Posted: 8/22/10 at 6:05am

I was wondering if anyone notices any interesting trends starting to form in musical theatre now?

Examples. The British Era. The stripped down revivals earlier in the 00's.

I think we're seeing a Latin renaissance of sorts with ITH, WSS, ect.

The 60's are also very visible not just in musical theatre with Hair, How to Succeed, and Promises, Promises but just about everywhere now. Fashion, advertising, Mad Men.

Are there any trends you'd like to see come about?

I'd like to see the return of the Revue. Great show's like Sondheim on Sondheim are given a bum deal because the revue as a device is kind of looked at as inferior or insignifigant. I think it's a good chance something like this could happen. The next generation of great american composers have grown up playing their work in the cabaret circut or releasing song cycles both of witch translate well to revues. I also think Everyday Rapture could have really interesting effects to the way revues are approached.

It might be interesting to see Broadway embrace opera.
Wow Thats a really long post. I need to calm the hell down. lol

[dramamama611]

Trends#2

Posted: 8/22/10 at 6:16am

I'm not so sure that 2 or 3 shows constitues a trend.

A Latin renaissance? 1 1/2 shows? (because WSS is only 1/2 Latino -- and a classic)

Really, the only trend I want: Quality theater -- I don't care if it's a revival, an original, an adaptation or a jukebox musical -- as long as it is done beautifully and creatively.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

[Dsiggy15]

Trends#2

Posted: 8/22/10 at 7:26pm

I agree with the revue idea. Sondheim on Sondheim was so beautifully mastered and put together, we need more of that sort.

A trend I would like to see end, is putting American Idol stars into shows. I'm sick of it.

[dramamama611]

Trends#3

Posted: 8/22/10 at 7:36pm

So then an appearance on AI should preclude them from ever doing b'way? That's ridiculous. If they are being cast because they are right for the role/show, then what difference does it make? Clay Aikin is the only one that seemed to be truly 'stunt casting'.

Some of the AI contestants, are actaully, well, talented.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

[CapnHook]

Trends#4

Posted: 8/22/10 at 8:37pm

How about the trend of adapting movies into stage productions, as opposed to the era when it used to be that the majority of musical adaptations were based on literature.

"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

[shrekster224]

Trends#5

Posted: 8/22/10 at 8:54pm

"So then an appearance on AI should preclude them from ever doing b'way? That's ridiculous. If they are being cast because they are right for the role/show, then what difference does it make? Clay Aikin is the only one that seemed to be truly 'stunt casting'. "

I would agree with you, but the fact that Jordan Sparks is in In the Heights for a limited engagement makes it stunt casting. She might be right for the role, but if they REALLY wanted her to be Nina, they wouldn't put an end date on her appearance in the show. But I agree with you on the part about if they are right for the role, than it's okay.

[dramamama611]

Trends#6

Posted: 8/22/10 at 9:24pm

I'm not a big AI junkie or anything -- I just hate lumping a category of people into one lump.

How do we know that Jordin Sparks wasnt' the one that wanted the short contract? The bigger the name, the more flexibility management will be with their contract.

Look at Corbin Bleu (not AI, but still) -- he's extended his contract once, maybe twice. We don't know who is behind those choices.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

[millie_dillmount]

Trends#7

Posted: 8/22/10 at 10:28pm

"I would agree with you, but the fact that Jordan Sparks is in In the Heights for a limited engagement makes it stunt casting. She might be right for the role, but if they REALLY wanted her to be Nina, they wouldn't put an end date on her appearance in the show."

Are you serious? That's ridiculous. Just because she is part of a limited engagement doesn't constitute it as "stunt casting." She has a music career has well and probably has other prior commitments related to it, thus the limited contract.

If they didn't want her to be Nina, well then, they wouldn't have cast her. Besides, you said yourself that she might be right for the role - have you even seen her? Before you deem her as stunt casting, at least see her in the role first. Stunt casting is more putting someone in the role who is obviously wrong for the part just because they are famous.

"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611

[shrekster224]

Trends#8

Posted: 8/22/10 at 10:34pm

Woah there, I'm not trying to start an argument, I was just bringing up another point. No, I have not seen her, but I always thought of stunt casting as casting a famous name to raise sales, whether they are right for the role or not. Sorry if anything was miscommunicated.

[millie_dillmount]

Trends#9

Posted: 8/22/10 at 10:46pm

You are correct in the sense that stunt casting is casting someone famous to raise sales.

I think that the phrase "stunt casting" has such a negative connotation to it that sometimes I don't like to use it for someone famous who is actually talented in the role. I think there are times when producers don't put careful thought into the actual talent of the actor or actress and just care about the big name.

To say that Jordin Sparks is a stunt cast because of her limited engagement I disagreed with.

"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611

[dramamama611]

Trends#10

Posted: 8/22/10 at 10:57pm

I do believe stunt casting is done with ONLY hopes of the name bringing in money with a lack of regard to the "rightness" of the match.

If it's not, then ANY time a KNOWN person is cast would be called STUNT CASTING.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

[Unknown User]

Trends#11

Posted: 8/23/10 at 12:21pm

ANY time a KNOWN person WHO YOU DON'T like is cast, that's STUNT CASTING.

[Calvin]

Trends#12

Posted: 8/23/10 at 12:31pm

Yes, I recall someone even once referred to Charles Kimbrough in "No, No Nanette" as stunt casting.

[ghostlight2]

Trends#13

Posted: 8/23/10 at 12:43pm

Woah. I never heard that. Not only was Kimbrough a last-minute replacement, he was also perfect for the part. If there was a stunt cast in No No Nanette, it was Rosie O'Donnell, who was also well-cast in the small role of the maid (though I could have done without her solo tap-dance number).

[Calvin]

Trends#14

Posted: 8/23/10 at 12:49pm

I thought so too, ghostlight!

I just think a Tony nomination should guarantee someone immunity from a charge of stunt casting. (it's automatically downgraded to the lesser charge of "miscasting")