#76
Posted: 8/30/04 at 7:30am
Okay, I'm gonna toss my 2 pennies in on this. First, I have no experience whatsoever in the entertainment or music biz. Second, I am in no way affliated with Ms. Romano - I'm merely a fan. Third, I'm not going to get into the whole voice argument as everyone has differing opinions on that, besides which I have never seen the show so it would be unfair of me to critique it. And lastly, this is just my personal opinion on what I've read here.
To say that she doesn't belong there because she's a "celebrity" is wrong. There are a bunch of other celebs that are lending their talent to Broadway in hopes to draw people in to see the play. Yes, it is possible that her Disney work was taken into consideration when they cast her, but she still had to audition for the role which meant it wasn't just given to her. Also, I can't believe that the producers/directors would allow her to continue in the role if she were as god-awful as some feel. Nor do I believe her run as Belle would have been extended if she consistently gave less than stellar performances - I'm positive they would have replaced her should that have been the case.
Also, keep in mind that it is a DISNEY production based on the Disney rendition of the fairy tale - that means you are going to get a higher percentage of kids and teeny boppers, regardless of who's in the cast. That's a fact that can't be avoided. If you can't stomach the little ones, attend an evening show as was suggested or perhaps see an adult-oriented show.
She was never "pushed" on Disney like her counter-parts (Hilary and Raven). Yes, she's a self-proclaimed "Disney chick," but that's only her respect showing for an employer that has been good to her. She was never exploited like Hilary nor made out to be just a commodity.
Again, this was just my op on the issue at hand - nothing more, nothing less.
To say that she doesn't belong there because she's a "celebrity" is wrong. There are a bunch of other celebs that are lending their talent to Broadway in hopes to draw people in to see the play. Yes, it is possible that her Disney work was taken into consideration when they cast her, but she still had to audition for the role which meant it wasn't just given to her. Also, I can't believe that the producers/directors would allow her to continue in the role if she were as god-awful as some feel. Nor do I believe her run as Belle would have been extended if she consistently gave less than stellar performances - I'm positive they would have replaced her should that have been the case.
Also, keep in mind that it is a DISNEY production based on the Disney rendition of the fairy tale - that means you are going to get a higher percentage of kids and teeny boppers, regardless of who's in the cast. That's a fact that can't be avoided. If you can't stomach the little ones, attend an evening show as was suggested or perhaps see an adult-oriented show.
She was never "pushed" on Disney like her counter-parts (Hilary and Raven). Yes, she's a self-proclaimed "Disney chick," but that's only her respect showing for an employer that has been good to her. She was never exploited like Hilary nor made out to be just a commodity.
Again, this was just my op on the issue at hand - nothing more, nothing less.