JSquared2 said: "Rainah said: "I call it stunt casting if an actor got the role at least in part because of their celebrity status, whether or not they got it ONLY based on their celebrity status.
So then you would consider Denzel Washington in ICEMAN COMETH (or anything else for that matter), and Nathan Lane inANGELS stunt casting"? Patti Lupone in WAR PAINT? Bette Midler in DOLLY? Bryan Cranstonin NETWORK? etc etc"
Someone like Lupone I may not because she is known for being a theatre actress, but yeah, most of 'em I would.
The issue with differentiating between "stunt" and "star" casting is that the difference rests in how much you personally like the performance.
What if I hated Bette Midler in Dolly, I thought she was a terrible actress and couldn't see why she would get the part beyond the fact that she's famous? I'd call it stunt casting. Someone who liked it and was blown away would call it star casting. I don't find definitions useful when they're that subjective.
So to me, stunt casting is when a person gets the role because they want to sell tickets on the name. Their casting is a stunt. "Come and see NAME for THREE MONTHS ONLY". When it's not about seeing the show itself with talented and capable actors, the show is marketed as seeing a star.
So by that definition, I don't remember any "SEE PATTI LUPONE" banners hanging in times square, so I'd not count her. Comet was basically marketed as The Josh Groban Show, to its detriment, so I would count that. Hello Dolly wouldn't have happened had Bette not been lined up to star, and an enormous deal was made out of her performance (to its benefit).
By this definition then, stunt casting isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bette, Josh, Jake in SITPWG, Sara Bareilles, Neil Patrick Harris, the list of top notch and acclaimed stunt casting is a long one. But it does mean that tickets are being sold on the name, not the show.