What are your feelings on putting "stars" on broadway? — Page 2

But Brent has been on tv and in film and his singing.
OH THAT VOICE THAT WONDERFUL VOICE.
And that face, that everything. He is a star.
Jones was good and she does have a theater background.
Gere was great at the acting wish he was dubbed with Brent's voice!
I liked the rest of the cast. Oh but Kline would have been great.
Wonder why he turned it down.

Whatever puts a butt in the seat.

---

When I think about this topic Aida comes to mind. I really love this show and the character of Aida. It's such a stong role and the actor who plays it must be able to convey this depth. Recently they have picked people who are in it just to bring in $$ and not keep up the standard of the show. I haven't seen her but I've heard that Deborah Cox is the best from the "pop star invasion". I don't mind stars in shows but they need to be able to play role.

---

i luv the idea.

---

I think that if the show has been running for a number of years and suddenly there are celebrities being put in. It is clearly a sign that the show is slowing down and going down the tubes. So celebrities are used as a last resort or a bit extra mileage.

I agree! It isn't fair to the other first-rate actors in the show who have worked their butts off to be where they are.

---

If they have the talent...why not? Sell tickets and have a good performance.

---

Hugh Jackman is a very interesting case.

He initially trained as an actor, but not for musical theatre at all. His dream was to play at the Royal National Theatre in a serious straight play... That it turned out to be OKLAHOMA! was a happy coincidence. He was cast in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST as Gaston in Australia, even without musical training ( only his actor's training to back him up) and later on discovered by Trevor Nunn for the Australian production of SUNSET BOULEVARD ( for which he won the euivalent of the TONY in Australia).

It was the noises he was getting in the RNT OKLAHOMA! that led to the interest in his being cast in XMEN and also SWORDFISH (apparently Harvey Weinstein also saw his stage performance). True, the fanboy interest in XMEN made it the big hit that it was - but Hugh made the character his own. If you had seen the INSIDE THE ACTORS STUDIO interview with Hugh, you would have known his mentioning how the "animal work" technique taught in acting courses led him to a strong stamp on the role of Wolverine.

He has said he turned down the role of Billy Flynn because he felt he was too young for the role. He also turned down the role of Peter Allen when it was originally produced in Australia. He did it because he had the chance to do OKLAHOMA!...which led to Hollywood...which led ironically to his being cast as Peter Allen on Broadway. I doubt that he would have been cast on Broadway had he not been a Hollywood big draw, as stories say that he was turned down by Actors Equity for the transfer of the RNT OKLAHOMA! to Broadway because he was not an international star...Now, they can't get over the fact that a big Hollywood draw is willing to stay a year on Broadway and that he is giving his best every night at the Imperial ( to which many critics have added, the best in many a year!)...

It almost sounds like a fictional story.

Jo

Updated On: 3/23/04 at 10:40 PM

Obviously if a star can't really make the cut talent wise, but they're cast in the show anyway, it's because they're a big name and meant to bring in patrons.

IE: Melanie Griffith. Enough said lol

There are some big names who border on the talent really needed.... like I enjoyed Patrick Swayze as Billy, but there was a lot he could have improved upon and a lot I disliked. He was definitely not the worst I've seen though. *cough*GeorgeHamilton*cough*

~Heather

---

i try not to ever hold any opinion that even leans towards the idea of disregaurding the artistic merit of the show for the sake of financial sucess. such ideas are evil, i tell you, EVIL.
not to say that that is not the way things are, producers, after all, have to make money in order to keep the show running, but i do not agree the the principal of an untalented name hogging the spotlight which should be filled by real talent, whether or not a "name" is attached.

...we all agree that if the star has talent and is good for the role (a la The Hugh), then it's good.

But on the flip side, face it. A lot of quality shows aren't getting the numbers that they deserve. And bringing in even a B list celeb will boost ticket sales, at least for a while, in a way that, unfortunately, no name (albeit talented) actors cannot. But if this brings attention to Broadway and encourages people who would otherwise not see a show to come out, does that override the fact that other lesser-known actors aren't being cast? Because, such as the case of Rent or Aida, a crappy "star" may diminish the show, but the rest of the hardworking cast, crew, band, etc. deserve to play to audiences of >64% capacity, which this "star" can bring.

I don't know if that rambling made any sense. I'm not saying I agree with this, but hey, I'm a Libra. It's in my sign to look at both sides. :) Any thoughts?

---

I think "stars" going to Broadway is cool. Its better when they are singers.

---

Alright, here I go. I know I always say how much I HATE stunt-casting, and I'm finally going to explain myself. I think that my feelings are partly a product of seeing a few too many with "stars" in them who are miscast, or simply do not do a good job. Some examples: David Hasselhoff in Jekyll and Hyde, Jon Secada in Cabaret, Joey Fatone in Rent. There are a few more, but I'm short on time, and this is going to be long no matter what...so, IMO, none of those, and the others that I saw gave particuluarly good performances. Luckily, they didn't really ruin the show for me, but the performances were just poor. Think of the others that I, thankfully, did not see: Toni Braxton, Melanie Griffith.... *shudders* - my appologies to anyone who thought otherwise, but that's my opinion.

I think what it basically comes down to is this: Do I have a problem with stars being cast on Broadway? Yes, because of the way it is being done. If done the right way, and for better reasons than simply box office draw, I see nothing wrong with it. Take Hugh Jackman, for example - a big name, clearly a HUGE box office draw, and a man with some serious talent. Assuming that Hugh was cast with his talent in mind in addition to his star status, I'd say this is stunt-casting for the right reasons. So, do I have a problem with it being done for the right reasons? No. The unfortunate part is that that seems to be rare, and becoming more and more so. To be completely honest, I would rather see a show close than have its integrity sacrificed for some extra mileage and some extra money. Am I being naive? Perhaps, I mean.... you know what they say: "A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound... it's all that makes the world go 'round," and unfortunately I, in my naivety, must accept this.

I also like to believe that there is an acceptable gap between theater and mainstream media, whether it be pop music or movies. To me, theater is a much truer, more pure art form than anything in mainstream media, and to a certain degree I don't think their paths should cross. I'd like to think that theater takes more talent than something like pop music seems to, and that it certainly deserves more respect.

I think I've rambled enough, and I've got many, many things to do.... but there's my two cents.

---

Updated On: 3/24/04 at 07:22 PM