pop-stars,,,ick!!! — Page 4

hmm.. well Im new here and this is my first post..but I have to say, in all honesty, i believe that to say a "pop star" is good or bad on broadway isnt quite fair. That would be like saying that someone with black hair isnt as good as someone with red hair. I believe it should be based on talent and passion for the role. People connect to certain roles and it doesnt matter who they are or what they do, something just clicks. Its you opinion how you feel and thats respectable, but id have to say my opinion would be its unfair to lable.



-Jayna Mariie

one more kristin reference and ill explode. you see. she has...TALENT
like IIIIIIIIII said nathan lane..TALENT....if someone of fame actually has some skill it is a completely different issue however many of the pop-stars we see in the theatre today are names to draw in a non-typical crowd. its a pile of horse sh*t is what it is.

plum, werent you originally on my side? what happened?

johnpopa, you'd seem so much more intelligent if you didnt personally attack people who also tend to know a thing or two.

I'm on the side of...well, I don't know what side I'm on.

I'm on the side of taking it case by case instead of making broad proclamations like "pop stars suck!" Because life's just more complicated than that. Always.

If I am repeating something already said, my apologies, I tried to read every post!!

Just my opinion.....

I really don't want to see pop stars in shows that I see unless they are up to the task. I cringe that they changed the key of "As Long as You're Mine" just so Joe Mac could sing it. I am sure there are a lot of stage actors that could sing it in the key it was written in. I think I saw a few posts defending these singers saying that if they can handle the part they should get it. I just wonder if they seek the part out or if the producers and casting people of these shows seek them out. And is Joe Mac's name above George Hearn's on the marquee? If so, that's pretty much a crime!

And just a comment about what AlDente said. I agree. What a slap in the face to a community that was good to her. And then the gull, even though I think it was for charity, to come back and call your concert on B'way "Home"!!

I keep an eye out here for updates on the shows and it seems you all see these shows many times and know what's going on. I really want to see RENT when back in NY but based on what I have been reading, I won't. And I love the show and have seen it.

So back on topic......give the starving actors and actresses a chance!! I would rather see people trained to do 8 shows a week then pop stars who aren't.
My ramble for the day!

---

Updated On: 9/14/04 at 05:27 PM

This will really upset you Xlucky, but Chenoweth and Menzel are far from being household names, even now and most definitely were not, when Wicked began, especially Menzel. No one, other than shills and rabid Wicked fans know who Espinosa is, so they hardly ever stunt cast when a show first goes up, it's after the fact, when a show has been running forever and they've exhausted all the ways to make money, that's when the stunt casting takes place. Sometimes it works, as was the case with Reba in Annie, sometimes, it's a disaster, as with Michelle Williams in Aida. It's usually when their careers are in decline that people like Taylor Dayne, Lachey and McIntyre come to the boards. It's highly unlikely that Aguilera and Beyonce' will be on B'way anytime soon. But I'm thinking that as soon as Headley realizes that her recording career is going nowhere fast, she'll be back to her "happy detour", as well.

Yup!

I saw Little Shop and was prepared to rip on Joey Fatone as a pop star, but was actually pleasantly surprised with his acting and voice.

Regardless, I guess it goes beyond pop star with me, to include anyone who is given the lead role in a musical on the strength of fame earned elsewhere. We all know that every ensemble member of every show has earned many lead roles on the way to NYC, yet it seems many of Broadway's best opportunities to shine are held out of reach due to the "business considerations" that have been thoroughly discussed. Truly I understand, but in my world of "how things should be" I see Bway as being more like the Louvre than Hollywood Squares.

Remember Michael Jordan's baseball adventure? That was life as it should be. A meritocracy. He was good enough to play minor league ball pretty well, but they didn't replace a golden glover in the bigs just because he had a name he earned in a different branch of athletics. Never will we see a celebrity playing an ensemble role on Bway because that's where their talent landed them. Maybe it's too easy to impress audience members like me, and/or maybe producers are so pressed for hot seat cushions that they take that route, but giving away the plums of Broadway to outsiders would seem to be stealing from the grassroots dreams of the musical theatre strivers.

Updated On: 9/15/04 at 01:27 AM

Plum, I think you've hit on something there!! Perhaps theater SHOULD have those things...

---

I only hate celebrity casting when it's done with someone who has no talent. People like Mel Brown.

Wait a minute, Plum-
Maybe baseball has some objective measures, but BWay auditors have no trouble judging talent, and yet often cast for other reasons. Back to my example, if a MLB team owner, say, for the Cubs (or any team that wasn't selling out games)- had put His Airness into Right Field, lots more tickets would have been sold, plus everything else that goes with it. To their credit, they didn't do it. But that's the business decision being rationalized for Bway producers by some of the posters here. I believe there are significant similarities in the situations, and granted- some differences, but I believe a pure meritocracy is in the best long term interest of Broadway. The problem, though, is akin to urging Third Worlders to practice conservation. When a show is fighting to stay open, the high road is the first casualty.