What are your feelings on putting "stars" on broadway?

[~*Triple Star On Broadway*~]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:05am

I'm having mixed feelings about this. I think that if the person is extremely talented, and fits whatever the part is like a glove, I'm all for it. Like Hugh Jackman for example. But when I hear about Ashley Judd in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, I wonder. Because the reviews have been so awful about her. I think she is a great film actress, but maybe the stage isnt as strong for her. So, then why is she there to begin with? I heard Christina Applegate is going to be playing Sweet Charity, and immediately I wondered, "Can she sing or is she just being put up there because she is in movies?" I have never heard her sing before so I never jumped to the conclusion that she cannot sing and wouldnt be good for Charity. But however, I did wonder about all the other people out there that are extremely talented and may not have been looked at as a movie star, or pop star and then wondered why maybe they would not have a chance before someone who is more well known. Maybe its just me, but I would rather see someone in a role who does a breathtaking job, then see any star put up there just because they were well known.
What are your thoughts?

[Ruffian]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:07am

When it is a "STAR" who has Musical Theater or Stage Work in their past, such as HUGH JACKMAN, I love it

When it was, as it happened, years back, putting Madonna in "Speed-the-Plow"...well....no thanks.

It was a sorry night in the theater

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:10am

I am for it if they are talented. What kills me is if someone is hired just for the name and they can not sing.
Good example- Richard Gere in the film of Chicago.
He has name power but he can't sing nearly as well as Brent Barrett and he is not as attractive.
Why not take a chance on someone more talented and make them a National star?

[~*Triple Star On Broadway*~]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:12am

Corine2 thats exactly what I'm talking about. If they have the talent to make their role a complete success, I think they should go for it. But throwing any old "star" up onto the stage that won't do the part justice, I dont agree with.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:19am

How on God's green earth is anyone going to judge the talent without letting it on the stage.

I mean...if this were the case, an only proven musical theatre stars can take on leads in musicals, then we would have never had Lauren Bacall in APPLAUSE, Kate Hepburn in COCO, Richard Burton in CAMELOT, etc.

Will there always be stars cast inappropriately? Yes. But let me tell you something. There will always be Broadway folk who aren't so hot being cast in roles they can't necessarily do.

[lelemaple]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:20am

I think that Hugh Jackman has set a new standard for this rule. I, for one, had no idea that he had any musical theatre experience until very recently. He has such a wide range of talent, and somebody that can play a comic book superhero, a vampire slayer, a romantic lead, and a flamboyant entertainer live on stage is tops in my book. I assume that because there are others like me, he has gained new respect from some types of audiences. Therefore, in answering your question, I believe that the "star" must have some type of theater/musical talent for he or she to be legitimate, and someone like Hugh Jackman is the perfect example.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:31am

"why not take a chance on someone more talented and make them a national star?"

because hollywood is not in the business of "making stars" anymore. they're in the business of making money and richard gere's draw as compared to brent barrett's as the pacific ocean is to a kiddy pool. when the studios are shelling out $50-75 million on a flick, they want names that have the proven abilility to put butts in the seats. but that's putting broadway commodities into hollywodd vehicles.

on the other hand, i would suggest that christina applegate is not a star by any stretch of the word. she had a nice run playing a featured role on a television series that is 7 years in it's grave. since then she's done a few b-movies and failed pilots and guest appearances. hardly the stuff of stardom. i also don't think that the memory of "kelly bundy" is enough to draw folks to the theatre. perhaps she was chosen because she was the person that the director and producers felt was best for the part. surely it's not name recognition they're going for because she ain't got it.

as far as the concept of stars in roles generally, it's a crapshoot like anything else. producers are in the busines of making money as well, so if they think that a person can pull off a role and have the kind of name that will put butts in the setas they're gonna do it. sometims it works, sometimes it doesn't. usually the stunt casting comes well into the run of a show when they are trying to keep something alive a la "grease" a few years back and "chicago," "aida" and "cabaret" more recently. when it comes later in a run, i am all for it because it means that the producers are trying to keep a show going and that means that the folks who work on that show keep their jobs and it mans that there are that many more jobs available.

[Ruffian]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:33am

The thing is people like Madonna couldn't act very well on film, with take tens to play around with. The night I saw the Mamet play, she was stalling on her lines, laughing to herself. Very unprofessional. They KNEW beforehand from her film roles she was a poor actress, she was the ultimate example in using her as a "STAR" who didnt belong on the stage

She is not alone in that designation, for sure

I am all about giving people a chance. Brendan Fraser in "CAT" in London was a mild surprise, he wasn't too bad.

But oh dear....when someone really is a poor acting talent & then you see them on a stage.....yuck

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:39am

Brent was on All My Children years ago.
I think Brent is a star and he has the best male voice on Broadway or in the world(My humble opinion)
I want to see him cast in films.
He is a triple threat:
He has a voice to die for
A Face that will make women and gay men swoon
And he can act.
He has it and the world needs to know it.
When Richard Gere sung in Chicago the film my ears bled.
The agony song from Into The Woods went off. Updated On: 3/23/04 at 11:39 AM

[Ruffian]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:40am

LMAO....The AGONY song

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:44am

Yes and Gregg Edelman was a great Prince!
It is pretty funny whenever i see a truly horrid show:
Imaginary Friends, Adult Entertainment, Urban Cowboy and Never Gonna Sing the song pops up.
OH AGONY CUTS LIKE A KNIFE.
Never fails.

Oh it popped up in Drowning Crow and Vincent The Musical most recently. Updated On: 3/23/04 at 11:44 AM

[Ruffian]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:47am

Again....LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:48am

I hope you saw a doctor if yours ears bled. That could be something really serious.

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:51am

Namo i did and it was bad loud music.
They really did bleed.
Ewwwwwww.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:52am

"[i] hope you saw a doctor if yours ears bled. [t]hat could be something really serious."

ok, that friggin' tears it! who are you and what have you done with namo?

Updated On: 3/23/04 at 11:52 AM

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 11:56am

It is Namo and we are glad he is back.
We missed him terribly.
I am part of the Namo fan club.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 12:13pm

"These words enter like daggers in mine ears."

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 12:18pm

For the most part, I'm against it. But then you have the handful of actors who are famous now, but started out in theatre like Hugh so it gets tricky. I just get bitter when they choose b list celebrities for parts just to fill the seats when there is great talent out there.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 12:20pm

"[i] just get bitter when they choose b list celebrities for parts just to fill the seats when there is great talent out there."

what are some examples to you of this type of casting?

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 12:29pm

I wrote that with Cabaret in mind. I was so glad they didn't end that show with Secada. (Just my opinion, I'm not trying to piss anyone off.)

[HunterFosterIsMyGod]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 1:41pm

It usually doesn’t bug me, but then there’s that girl from “Even Stevens” who is in Beauty and the Beast right now…Christy Bell Romano, or something like that…That just bothers me.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 1:48pm

"then we would have never had Lauren Bacall in APPLAUSE, Kate Hepburn in COCO, Richard Burton in CAMELOT, etc"

Never having Hepburn in Coco would not have been a bad thing. Have you heard the cast recording? The score is bad enough, but hearing Hepburn sing-talk-whatever-it-is on top of it just makes it unbearable.

Where's voiceanth? I thought for sure he'd offer up his no-one-on-Broadway-is-a-star-unless-they-are-a-pop-star-or-a-movie-star and no-leads-should-go-to-anyone-other-than-pop-stars-or-movie-stars-no-matter-how-bad-they-are-or-how-wrong-they-are-for-the-role. I'm so disappointed...

[Plum]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 2:19pm

While I agree that Richard Gere was by far the weakest link in the cast of Chicago, there's two things worth remembering about his casting: First of all, he was only Miramax's fourth choice to play Billy. Numbers 1-3 were Hugh Jackman, Kevin Kline, and Kevin Spacey, all of whom rejected the role for reasons of their own. Second, he did have musical theater background, playing Danny in Grease, I believe. He just turned out wrong.

Corine asks why movies can't take a chance and make some unknown theater actor a movie star. It's simple- just making a movie musical in the first place is considered a huge risk. Putting unknowns in it, to boot, is too much for a studio to bear.

On the other hand, Papalovesmambo- Hollywood is willing to make new stars, but only if they have something more stable in the same movie. Hugh Jackman himself rose to movie stardom through X-Men, but no studio would have let him star in such a huge movie if the franchise itself didn't have a built-in fan base. X-Men could afford to have Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as its biggest names because it already had name recognition. The Phantom movie is going to have Patrick Wilson, isn't it?

Yet another factor to keep in mind is that stage presence and camera presence don't necessarily transfer in either direction. Jackman is special in that he's quite charismatic either way. So what to do? I have no idea. There are no hard and fast rules for this or any other casting question. Sometimes people work and sometimes they just...don't. The best we can do is try to stay open-minded. Judge people by their talent and not their names- and that goes both ways. Once in a while you'll get a lovely surprise.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 2:29pm

Richard Gere was far from the weakest link in Chicago. His singing wasn't bad at all and his acting was quite good. He fit the role well. While Queen Latifah is a decent singer, her acting left much to be desired. I think she could be really good if she took some lessons in movement and comedy.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/23/04 at 2:41pm

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. I liked Queen Latifah fine. I didn't even have a problem with Gere's acting- he's a great choice to play a slimeball lawyer. As long as he Rex Harrisoned his way through, he was tolerable. But whenever he held a note in All I Care About, I actually cringed.

It was fine that Zeta-Jones and Zellweger didn't have the strongest singing voices- they were paying marginally talented performers. But Gere had no excuse.