Why do some view unknown actors as superior to celebrities ?

Because many times the unknown actor is more talented than the celebrity.

Would you arther see Kylie Jenner in the role of Christine than a wonderfulm unknown actress/singer?

I hope not.

Dave19 said: "Because many times the unknown actor is more talented than the celebrity.

Would you arther see Kylie Jenner in the role of Christine than a wonderfulm unknown actress/singer?

I hope not.

"

This is the one time I have ever agreed with you Dave19. But he's right, a lot of times people are cast for the name, and not for the talent, and I would much rather see someone with talent than someone who is famous.

Yes it's sad that often celebrities get the roles that more talented unknowns should be getting.

That said, I think celebrities often get bad press as being terrible simply because they are celebrities...and that's not fair either. The...."he/she is just a celebrity"...doesn't always find critics giving them a fair shot, going in with negative reviews even before they see them.

Some unknown actors ARE superior to some celebrities - and some celebrities ARE superior to some unknown actors. Generalizing is the obvious problem......celebrity is not necessarily the issue.

Updated On: 2/28/16 at 09:45 AM

I sometimes feel bad when actors from film/tv are prejudged before they even step on the stage because they a lot of the time are very good. Sure you may have a Willis or a Roberts every so often, but that's not neccessarily all the time. Especially when we're talking about great film actors, they could do a very good job. Some recent examples I can think of are:

Bradley Cooper in The Elephant Man

Emma Stone in Cabaret

Denzel Washington in A Raisin in the Sun/Fences

Daniel Radcliffe in pretty much every Broadway endeavor he's done recently

My point was generally that people should be cast because they are the most talented and the best for that role. I saw Emma Stone in Cabaret, and she was fantastic. I just think that big names should not be prized over talent.

In general, I am very for this whole Celebrities on Broadway trend for several reasons, one of which being that most of the celebrities I've seen on Broadway have actually been quite good. Another being that it gives shows more financial security which ultimately allows them to be produced, when they most likely wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. And yet another being that I am a bit of a sucker and enjoy seeing famous people in person.

I can understand how it might be frustrating to see a celebrity give a bad performance when a lesser-known actor might have done better, but when it really comes down to it, that's just show business. People who are famous have a leg up on the competition. It's just how this tough business works.

And to add on to what I said before, the financial security of having a celebrity can also give more opportunities to unknowns. If they hadn't cast celebrities in The Color Purple, it's possible that this production wouldn't have made it to Broadway and we would never have seen Errivo's wonderful performance here in the states.

BTW I also feel like mentioning that I've seen PLENTY of mediocre performances from non-celebrities. It goes both ways.

Updated On: 2/28/16 at 10:55 AM

Reba McEntire in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN.

Brooke Shields in WONDERFUL TOWN

Vanessa Williams in KISS OF THE SPIDERWOMAN

"99.99% of the time" is hyperbolic. It varies on the celebrity in question. You'll find few complaints here if Hugh Jackman is cast, because Jackman has a great deal of experience on stage. Same goes for Daniel Craig, or Meryl Streep, or Al Pacino, or Cate Blanchett. Josh Radnor and Zachary Levi are two guys who made their name in TV who are finding continued work on stage. All are celebrities who have proven they are very capable stage actors.

The majority of pop stars do not have stage acting backgrounds - or acting backgrounds at all. Many TV or film stars lack stage acting backgrounds, too. Why wouldn't someone be wary? Doing a musical isn't the same as doing a concert. Doing a TV show isn't the same as doing a play. There are plenty of screen stars I like very much who would be lousy onstage, just as there are many stage stars who I like very much who would be lousy on screen.

Makes me wonder how today's crowd would react to casting Angela Lansbury as "Mame" in Jerry Herman's new show, following his smash "Hello, Dolly!"

You know Angela, that "movie star" from MGM with three Oscar nominations? Total stunt casting, right?

PThespian said: "Did you see Bruce Willis in Misery? Madonna is Speed the Plow? Julia Roberts in Three Days of Rain? Nicole Kidman in The Blue Room?"

Unfortunately, the other problem related to this kind of reaction is basing one's perception of an actor's stage talent on one performance.

You may have thought that The Blue Room confirmed Nicole Kidman to be a substandard stage actress, but Photograph 51 has proved otherwise to me.

Updated On: 2/28/16 at 01:17 PM

PThespian said: "Did you see Bruce Willis in Misery? Madonna is Speed the Plow? Julia Roberts in Three Days of Rain? Nicole Kidman in The Blue Room?

I promise you, had you seen any of the performances listed above, you would not be asking that question. Working in film or television is a completely different style of acting than stage acting is. Some people are good at both, some are not so good.

It would be like hiring an orthopedic surgeon with thirty years experience and a great success rate to treat your child's heart condition. He may be a great doctor, but not when it comes to dealing with hearts. The two are vastly different things.

"

Kidman had worked it out by the time she did Photograph 51. Very good performance in a very good play

I have to add that Eric McCormack was absolutely brilliant when he took over the music man a few years ago