Your suggesting that her vocals will never improve.... she is 18 with the right guidance she can completely overcome her vocal issues..... as for the decision made long before in IDA i don't have a clue what your on about because the judges were clearly pissed off that got jodie instead of jessie............


and everyone keeps highlighting Danielle's weaknesses (ok i suppose as the winner she is under scrutiny) but Danielle's singing needed equally as much work and sophie's acting.... actually sophie's acting was very bad she needed even more work..... had she won I am sure they could have helped her fix that......

The role of Dorothy is just that...more about the acting than singing. OTR in the film is not sung like a money note show stopper.

As for the decision being made long before...lazy excuse for someone winning other than your own particular fav.

If you take the trouble to read my post, you'll find I didn't say that Danielle's version of OTR was actually the very worst in the entire competition: I said her version was one of the worst, and I happily concur that Emilie's was also among the worst.

Over the Rainbow is a beautiful and vocally stretching song, and it doesn't need to be enacted to be appreciated. I have said that I think Danielle will make a very good Dorothy (as would quite a few of the others have done). However, I think her singing needs to improve otherwise her rendition of that iconic song will be a disappointment. Since ALW has wisely given himself 10 months to prepare his winner, I have no doubt she will be much improved by then.

Hmmm... maybe so, maybe not. She's already beaten out 1,000s of MT types in her very first professional audition. Surely it's about more than being able to stand there and belt out a vocal - she moves extremely well with the music, has very good comedy chops and really inhabits the part she's playing. Compare her performances in Popular and 76 Trombones with Just A Little Girl and Red. Something about her puts me in mind of Hannah Waddingham, I think she's got enormous potential given how accomplished she is already in so many ways at just turned 18.

Nonsense and nonsense. She's already been through trials far more strenuous than a walk-in audition, namely a month and a half of nationally televised solo appearances with her every move scrutinised.

The conspiracy nuts are good for a laugh. If Danielle is a clearly superior choice (of the producer/judges, not me) how, exactly, is that a bad or sinister thing?

Rather defeats the point of the show though because in 10 months everything else could change too and we could find ourselves with a new outcome if things were rerun. Its odder than any of the other shows when it was at least arguable that with only a short time to prepare someone had a clear advantage. Dani and Stephanie would be older and more experienced too , Sophie could have the acting off pat, Jenny would have been taught how to adjust to perform for a musical, Bronte and Lauren could finesse their acting and change their hairstyle, Jessica's voice might be stronger and Steph might have more power and not look too much older. If you argue Danielle can do somethings better now but needs work then you can equally argue that each of them can do somethings better than her too and improving the vocal or sustaining it over 8 shows a week may be as hard as learning how to act to the rear stalls.

Thats even if the image we have been given now reflects reality at all and some people don't change drastically in months. You couldn't predict that Rachel could act one of the biggest roles around from what we saw on IDA, you wouldn't see Siobhan doing cabaret well or Sam even being in the running for Eponine and you wouldn't have had a hope of guessing which IDA girl has an offer for RADA. If you listened to the comments you wouldn't know who could do 8 shows a week and who couldn't, who could hang in with the belters or indeed who, apart from one obvious case (Abi), can do comedy.

I completely agree.

I take it you didn't actually watch IDA then ?

All these what ifs.... the reality is that Danielle's performances convinced enough of the voting public throughout the show that she had the required talents to do the job. She is 'the people's Dorothy' (to use a cliched phrase), and I for one can't wait to see her in the role.

But I'm even more excited to see what she does afterwards because I firmly believe she has natural talent and versatility way beyond what The Wizard of Oz will allow her to demonstrate.

And just to get back on topic, I don't think Sophie or any of the other girls could have commanded the stage as well as Danielle did in Mambo Italiano or 76 Trombones (or even Popular, though Lauren did a great job too). Not to say they're not talented, just that they wouldn't have been as convincing IMHO.

Exactly! I can't picture any of the others pulling off these songs the way Danielle did, and with as much charm, wit and personality. There are a few who I think could have done them decently, but none who could have done them better.

Exactly why would the producers and ALW want the weakest singer for the part of Dorothy. I actualy thought her version was one of the best, I also liked Lauren's. I don't really like Sophie's voice all that much, as much as I tryed. But's just a personal prefference really.

It begs the question what the point of the show is, doesn't it?
ALW clearly could not be certain which of the 20 girls who made it to the first show would be Dorothy (that wild card could have proved dangerously popular). Last time he did a show like this he ended up with someone who clearly wasn't what he or the producer wanted at all, but the public loved her from early on and she was never in danger of being voted off.
In fact, as all the past winners in these shows have never been in the danger zone, he would be sensible to assume he would not get his first choice and might well need time for "work" on his new star, so building in 10 months of rehearsals seems like a good safety net. As it turned out, it looks like he got the Dorothy he most wanted, so lucky him.

I think the point of the shows is to get the public interested in - and buying tickets for - ALW's next venture specifically, and musical theatre generally. I think he probably sees his strange marriage with the BBC as helping to boost the theatre business by generating a steady stream of young stars the public will recognise and pay to see. If that's his motivation, job done, I'd say.

Frankly, if I was in Danielles' shoes I'd be glad of that. There is always going to be a call for actors, who can sing, in theatre. The current vogue for MT is not going to last you know. The amount of MT that was around 10 years ago before ALW started his quested was pretty limited. Now you can't move in the West End for it.

But its musical theatre. Imo it does have to be acted.

Um...Jessica could of easily pulled off these songs..

Agreed. But talented though Jessica undoubtedly is, she is not Dorothy for other reasons.

In musical theatre, scenes have to be acted, songs primarily have to be sung. There is no crucial plot development being explained in Over The Rainbow, it is a beautiful musical moment best delivered by an excellent singer, rather than an indifferent singer who can act a bit.
If the acting out of this particular song is so terribly important, there seems little point downloading it to play on an iPod.

I am surprised we are stiil arguing over the merits of who is the best at what and who or would have been better at performing this that or the other.

Lets simply state the facts,which almost everyone would agree on.
Danielle was the best choice for Dorothy.Vocally the WOZ is not challenging and even OTR is not in fact to demanding if sang in the right context of the story.Its actually a dreamy kind of a song.To sing it the way it was presented in the show on stage would be silly.
Listen to Judy Garland's version and you'll know what I mean.
Danielle's real ability is how she can interpret her inner feeling's or in common parlance how she acts.She also knows how to puctuate her acting with natural wit and humour.As someone said thats just part of her personality.

What finally convinced me that she was going to win,was her performance in Popular.I think it is generally accepted that both Lauren ( I am a Lauren Fan) and Danielle were both brilliant.It was'nt a vocally demanding routine,it was all interpretation and interaction.Both girls performed at a high level,but Danielle came across better,always remembering that this was a duet of the highest calibre.
ALW made it quite clear he was looking for an actress who could sing and dance .Given that Danielle was a natural actress,that she could interpret a dance routine very well ,could sing and was of the right age,finally convinced me that Lauren was not going to be Dorothy.
To repeat Danielle can sing,and sing to a high enough level to be more than successful enough in MT.
Sophie had natural qualities to be Dorothy after Danielle.She,had that innocent appeal,was photgenic, could sing and act well enough.Her dance needed work however.
She could not sing as well as Lauren,neither could Danielle.
No one's acting was as good as Danielle's.Lauren was the only one who came close because she was the all round polished performer

Well said

Nope that's an opinion not a fact. The Lord wanted Danielle and made the correct manipulations to get rid of her best competition - Jenny, Jessica, Stephanie and Steph. Danielle will be a great Dorothy but I'd say 9 of the top 11 could play her (I don't think Amy or Emilie could).

I think Danielle's a bit of a safe, boring choice. She is like Lee Mead, he was the safe, boring choice for Joseph. They're not boring performers but you know what you'll get, whereas with a lot of the other it would have been something a bit different.

and colour, and subtlety YAWN. I'm fed up of the Sheila-isms.

And I'm fed up of the 'X-Factor-isms'! Of course this show should be about more than singing ability - very few musicals are sung-through anyway. If the performers can't portray a convincing character then they are unlikely to convince audiences that breaking into song is appropriate. You can't isolate the song from the scene it's set in and say vocal delivery is the only thing that matters. Of course it's VERY important, but it's not the over-riding factor in Musical Theatre.

I often wonder if many people on this forum even go to the theatre that often?

Lee was safe but he could also turn on some wow factor and play a leadership role and his acting competition had gone by the final 3. It didn't really matter so much if he didn't bring anything novel to the role because he looked right, could act on stage and could nail the big numbers. Danielle kept on getting praise for acting ability that was summed up for me by Sheila's telling us to interpret it as we wished.She wasn't in my top 3 vocalists or actors or for wow factor/stage presence. The show I thought needed an angle which was either a young Dorothy who would demand support, a fun(ny?) Dorothy who would keep them awake or a vocalist who could really do an Eva Cassidy wow moment on the big numbers - its got none of those things.

I totally disagree with your opinions on these counts. I also felt Danielle displayed far and away the best comedic ability of all the finalists (as evidenced by Popular). I'd be interested to hear which 3 girls you think bested her in acting terms - and why?

Not sure how you can sing a song well without interpreting it? Interpreting it requires the words to reflect their meaning and underlying emotions with the movements and expressions going on at the same time to fit the character. That seems to me to be acting. In the best cases (certainly with the best people we have seen on these shows if you see them singing live ) that means living the emotions.

It is possible to sing without acting or interpreting much at all and even be successful at it (someone posted an article that compared Leona Lewis to the better OTR girls) but if you wanted that you would have a tape of Leona Lewis ready to go and belt every big song in the show .Its going to look odd though when the song stands alone from the story.

It is possible to have really good singers that can't act the character well or interpret a song well cast in a musical. There's a few cases around at the moment and even a few definitive versions that on second thoughts don't sound anything like the story or the character dictates. You can get away with it when enough people don't get the characters or the story on seeing it once but some people will notice. In some musicals there's not much story to convey so it won't notice much. Some people will even moan that they didn't get the version they have heard before or if the emotions challenge a few notes, On the whole though most musicals work better when you have someone acting the story when singng without any flip or loss of character - Legally Blonde or Chicago or Bloodbrothers without a great actress singing the first scene in role would both die in the first 5 minutes. Some people may want to see Les Mis sung by Subo, Leona and Beyonce but it doesn't appeal to me.

The Wizard of Oz seemed to me to need someone who can either find a new interpretation/character that engages (and we never saw anyone fully allowed to do that) or it needs to copy the Judy Garland character so the singing involves the audience (which no one managed or was allowed to for me) or it needs a striking vocal performance (with intrepretation) that people say wow to - like they did when Eva Cassidy sang Judy Garland's big number. The show showed me Danielle doing best with 76 Trombones and Mambo Italiano and only Jenny actually had a (successful) go at being Eva - I am not that convinced.