QUOTE(stitcher @ Jun 4 2008, 12:27 AM)
Do you think that this is because most board posters are regular theatre goers, and to some extent our opinions of a stand out moment are formed by the stage performances we have seen? As we are used to seeing trained performers, does this influence our opinion of a good performance, which translated onto a TV screen may come across as overblown and mannered?
How can it not affect our opinions? Experience matters just as much when watching something as it does when doing it, and if you've been to the theatre a thousand times you're going to notice aspects of a performance that someone who's been to the theatre twice will never see. I know that I'm far more discerning now than I was when I'd been to the theatre only a handful of times, and things that I loved then would probably fall flat if I could go back and watch them again. I don't think it's that good performances come across as overblown, but more that people with plenty of theatre experience will be more perceptive.
A performer such as Jessie, for example, has generated very polarized opinions - is she a casualty of using TV to cast a theatre show? Indeed, how useful is stunt casting in a reality show, apart from generating interest for that production's box office - if it brings in new audiences, are the really likely to want to see anything else?
I'd say that Jessie is a beneficiary of TV casting, given that she'd managed to get absolutely nowhere on her own merits but now has the TV exposure that will allow her to find work for no other reason than because she's been on TV. In a situation like this I don't think any of the final twelve can be described as casualties, even if they lasted only a week or two. They'll all do well out of it for a few months and if they work hard they may be able to turn it into more enduring success.
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.