Its not an an analogy that stands up though. People in films are watched by hundreds of millions, on TV by multiple millions - wheras a Westend cast might get seen by a million tops - its inevitable the people seen as great actors come from films. That doesn't mean either that Westend musicals are not populated by really good actors,or that some of them could be in plays, films or on TV (many are) Its true that some stunt casting and mistakes produce people who can't act or sing or who can sing but can't act convincingly - but that doesn't make it a good idea.

But I didn't say you only need to act in a straight play. I was responding to someone who said that if they wanted singing and spectacle they would go to a concert.

Musical theatre is clearly a pretty unique mixture of a number of things - including acting. My point was that acting is arguably a less important part of the mix. It appears that not too many people agree!

I still would suggest that the world's best actors are not reknowned for musical theatre (although some may well have done the odd musical), but I'll probably withdraw now since it appears this view is not too well supported!

I would much rather see a well-acted musical that is adequately sung than a well-sung one that is poorly acted.

I'm I the only person who thinks Danielle's a fantastic singer. I guess so. lol

^No I agree that Danielle is a great singer, too. On pure vocal ability right now, I would rank her after Lauren and Steph, but she's an excellent singer, and she's still young and will only get better.

I was just saying that if it's a question of average singing and great acting vs. great singing and average acting, I'll take the first option every time, unless it's an opera.

A great example for me of making your own version of the song is Red...if you listen to the original and then compare to what Danielle did you might see what I mean...

Danielle's was better than the original IMO!!!

I think she is a fantastic singer too! Lauren and Steph are amazing too. And Stephanie. they all have very different voices though so it might be down to personal preference - personally I prefer Danielle and Stephanie's voices. But technically the other two are amazing, just people will naturally have a preference.

^Oh yeah, I forgot Stephanie. I like Stephanie's voice as well, and I guess technically she's up there too. I just like Danielle's, Lauren's and Steph's voices better than Stephanie's, and those three all IMO act their songs better than Stephanie does. Stephanie is still my second choice for Dorothy, though, because I don't think Lauren and Steph are quite right for it.

This is a really interesting question, henman. The easy answer is, of course, that a good musical theatre star will combine all the skills necessary for that role. As others have pointed out, some roles will require more acting ability, some a good voice, etc.

I am something of a Hollywood musical film buff (rather than musical theatre) and I think it's interesting to see how the Oscar ceremonies have rewarded actors in musical films over the years. The bald answer is - not a lot. Very few musical actors and actresses have triumphed at the Oscars. Now, of course, this might be comparing apples with pears. James Cagney won in 1942 for Yankee Doodle Dandy and he has, frankly, a dreadful voice and 'spoke' his songs in that film. Although he started his professional life as a hoofer, he clearly won for his acting, not his singing. Ditto Yul Brynner in 1956 for The King and I; I don't think he actually sings at all in that film. Incidentally, that was the last time the Best Actor award was won for a musical performance.

The picture (forgive the pun) is slightly less clear with the Best Actress award, however. Just think Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins, Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl, Liza Minelli in Cabaret, Sissy Spacek in Coal Miner's Daughter, Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line or Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose. Yes, these were great acting performances but, wow, wasn't the singing great?!

I don't know if you can draw any conclusion from this. The roles that won Oscars needed good actors - other musical films may not necessarily have needed that depth of emotion.

As others have already said, much will depend on ALW's vision of how complex a character his Dorothy will be. I get the feeling that he has more licence to make his Dorothy rather different from the Dorothy portrayed by Judy Garland, in which case this way of casting poses much more of a risk for him than HDYSAPLM, ADWD or IDA.

How important is acting to Musical Theatre? Very Important.

Which I suppose is why so many people known generally as actors appear in musical theatre and why so many performers in musical theatre are later seen acting.

How good a singer do you have to be.Someone hit the nail on the head earlier.It depends on the character.

Dorothy must be a technically good singer.We are talking relatives here.It is arguable ( if OTR is not a complete sham)that any of the Dorothy's we started with could have succeded in the role.ALW would have had to have made it work,thats the deal.

But, as is traditional we are looking for the best of the bunch to play "Dorothy".The question of whether Danielle is the best singer,dancer,actor is really beside the point.
She might be,but enough of us here have reservations about her being the ideal choice for this particular role.

Yes, the acting is vital!

But is it acting or over-acting that is needed for musical theatre?

Going by some of the panels' comments, this has to be debateable.

The acting is really important. A musical is a theatrical performance first and foremost but one which requires an additional skill - singing. The winning Dorothy has to be able to do both.

I always feel with these shows that we don't see enough of their acting abilities as everything seems to revolve around the singing.