Except for the fact that it's probably easier for a woman to sing, I don't think there's anything that inherently hilarious about having the role played by a woman. It's not like there are gags alluding to the fact he's being played by a she.
It's so much funnier that it's a short black woman. Wonder why they made this change in London and now here. Maybe Coleman felt insulted by that part of it. I mean, I know he's not crazy about being in the show at all...
And even if Coleman did try to sue the show it would be a very fast and unsuccessful lawsuit. This is of course due to the fact that satire is legal and that is the reason why Sesame Workshop hasn't sued the producers of Avenue Q as well. You can spoof something or someone all you want without it being against the law.
I have always thought that the role was being played by a woman due to the fact that Coleman himself has a higher speaking voice then the typical male, and that most of us remember him as the little kid on Different Strokes etc. But, i wonder if the role is going to be played by a male when the show moves to New World.
And, just to throw something into the mix, while the role is played by a male actor in London, during the course of the show's run, there have been both male and female understudies for the role.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
I see no problem with it. I was really surprised when I heard this on the news but it makes really good sense to go to New World.
This casting reminds me of a Woody Allen movie & the scene is in a courtroom. They start impaneling the jury when this large african American woman stands up & when asked her name she says "J Edgar Hoover".
I believe the part is male in London because it wasn't going to be Gary Coleman, they didn't think us Brits would know who he was. The character was going to be a random handyman, which turned back into Gary but by then the part was male so it stuck.
Yes the Character was "Gary" Who based off of gary coleman, but was not him.
The producers down there didnt think to many people knew who Gary Coleman was so they switched around the character and lyrics to "it sucks to be me". Similar things have also happend in other productions.
In one there is no Gary Coleman character but Michael Jackson.
*Edit* Theatrefan if that was true both shows would be out of buisness now. Each week they paraodied some of the most richest, famous people in the United States. I dont remember ever hearing them suing either show let alone winning a case.
saveusmike, to be more exact, Mad TV is out of business. The show got canceled awhile ago. However, I do understand what your talking about and where you're coming from.
And, even if shows like SNL have been sued, the cases would easily be dropped due to the fact that satire is protected under the first amendment, and in all the years that SNL has been on the air, not once have they crossed the line from satire to defamation of character.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
"And even if Coleman did try to sue the show it would be a very fast and unsuccessful lawsuit."
Maybe, maybe not. One can argue that the character "Gary Coleman" isn't a PARODY of the real Gary Coleman. There doesn't seem to be any exaggerated characteristics (other than the role being female), and if the character was named Bob Smith the role wouldn't be that funny. So one can argue they are merely "cashing in" on Gary Coleman's name.
"This is of course due to the fact that satire is legal and that is the reason why Sesame Workshop hasn't sued the producers of Avenue Q as well."
While "satire" and "parody" are very similar, they aren't the same. A parody usually takes an existing work and using humor either for a tribute or to ridicule. A satire, on the other hand, uses wit and humour by creating an entirely new work to critique or enlighten. But yes, they are both protected speech.
However, it is not as absolute as you think. There are a number of "tests" legal professionals must employ in determining if it is a legitimate parody or satire. Can it be confused with what it's parodying? Is the fact it is a parody obvious? Can the consumer differentiate between the real version and the parody? While often the answer to those questions may SEEM obvious, they usually aren't.
"You can spoof something or someone all you want without it being against the law."
Not true. There is, unfortunately, no blanket determination of when parody is or isn't protected. It's always a case-by-case basis.
tking001, they did say exact same production, not the exact same cast. Production and cast are two totally different things.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
The Australian one. I believe that one started out in Melbourne and then moved to Sydney or it could be the other way around.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll