Jump to content

Talk:Sutton Foster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion

[edit]

I would like the nationality of Ms Sutton to link to "United States", and for us to have an estimated birth year. Both had been added to the article, but were then reverted out. I think having an approximate date (like c. 1975, or c. 1960 - 1980, or whatever educated guess we might have based on sources) is better than nothing. My personal opinion, -- Infrogmation 19:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per Playbill: "Replacing Dilly is actress Sutton Foster. Foster's Broadway credits include Eponine in Les Miserables, Sandy in Grease!, the Star to Be in the Annie revival and a role in The Scarlet Pimpernel. She performed at San Diego’s Old Globe in What the World Needs Now, toured in The Will Rogers Follies and was a Star Search ’91 teen vocalist winner."

So, if she was 15 in 1991, and her birthday is March 18th...

Discussion moved from personal page

[edit]

I wouldn't trust that article claiming she was 27 when she made her Broadway debut in 2002, since she made her debut well before that. Please check her list of credits in the article. Isn't it better to put nothing than be wrong? TOM 19:39, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I typed the note wrong but it did say she was 27 when Millie started on Broadway with her in it in 2002.--Gbleem 13:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I never saw the above response until now, because you put it on YOUR talk page rather than mine. Unless a message is placed on a user's page - which triggers the "You have new messages" prompt - chances are he or she may never see it. Re: Foster's age, why print an estimate when Foster herself has gone on record as saying it's nobody's business? Since her official website doesn't list one, I think it's somewhat callous to speculate about it. It's not as if this is a column by Liz Smith, right? :) TOM 13:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I just assumed you would put my page on your watchlist if you edited it. I think the estimate of her birth year lets you know that she isn't in her eighties. I could do like we did in my analytical chemistry class and say it's 1975 plus or minus 18 months and then talk about deviations and stuff like that. --Gbleem 13:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't have your facts straight. You added "she was given the part AGAIN" . . . again???? She replaced the leading lady during the pre-Broadway tryout and then took the show to Broadway - so when was she given it "again"???? I'm curious - if you're such a Foster expert, why didn'y you ever create an entry for her instead of waiting to edit mine????? Why are you obsessed with adding data that isn't proven???? It just doesn't make sense! TOM 14:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Why do you persist in adding a sentence that misconstrues the actual chain of events??? The show opened at the LaJolla Playhouse prior to its Broadway opening. The leading lady wasn't working out. She was fired and replaced by Sutton Foster. The show then moved to Broadway and opened with her as the lead. Period, end of story. Your change makes it sound like there was a break between productions or that she was considered a temporary replacement in San Diego and then offered the role permanently when the show reached New York. And if you want to add a link to any articles, please do so at the bottom of the entry under "External Link". Thank you! TOM 14:58, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
The article is an external link and it is quite common to put a link to a source in the main body of an article. The article clearly states that changes were made and another actress was considered for the part. When the California production ended there was no guarantee that she would be kept in any future productions. That is the way I am interpreting the article. --Gbleem 13:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are we reading the same article? I find it difficult to understand your interpretation of it, since there is nothing that even remotely suggests that once Foster got the part, any other actress was considered for the role. Furthermore, the "facts" in this article are misleading. The producers didn't decide to bring the show to Broadway because of its success in San Diego - New York was always its destination, and the LaJolla Playhouse was used for a tryout period, the equivalent to holding previews on Broadway, because it was less costly to work on the show out-of-town. I know this first-hand from someone who was in the chorus, who obviously knows better than the writer of an article which for some reason you believe to be gospel. TOM 13:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently you're interpreting the phrase, "When the producers decided to take the show to Broadway, there was strong pressure to hire a celebrity," to mean that specific individuals were considered for the role over Foster. The producers may have been apprehensive about putting a nearly $10 million production in the hands of an unknown, but expressing their concerns and actually naming and/or auditioning other contenders are two totally different scenarios. The show's creative team insisted on keeping Foster, and nobody else was ever in the running. TOM 14:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


Missing Information

[edit]

Why is the fact that she's won a Tony and been nominated for two others in the article? And her marriage to Christian Borle is anywhere in the article, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingjade (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

[edit]

Hi, Could someone fix the placement of the awards and nominations chart? They currently show up under the External Links, and I'm not sure why. Amelia Paige (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sutton Foster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New feature article on Foster

[edit]

Here is a new Playbill feature article with lots of information about Foster, if anyone wants to use it in the article: "The Rise of Sutton Foster: An Interactive Timeline". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sutton_Foster&oldid=1206861534"