If so, how would he be able to take a role in Dreamworks' Shrek? I'd assume Disney isn't overjoyed about Dreamworks coming to Broadway with one of their stars.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
I've read a lot of bitchy post that have nothing to do with my question. I was not making comment on Disney or Shrek, just asking a freaking question. And where did I say it was a movie?
Foster, did you swallow a bitter pill? You seem very angry lately.
He is going to be under the contract of Broadway producers for a Broadway musical. Not a movie studio. That was my point.
Why would the fact that he is under contract with Disney to work on a TV show make a difference in his ability to work for Broadway producers on a Broadway musical?
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
He said "Fuk you guys, I'm going back to Broadway."
He's a faker, and you've been taken in by his con. And in doing so, you are enabling him. He is doing more damage to aspergers than papa's words ever could. -Chane/Liverpool on me having asperger syndrome.
Foster it does not matter what the question was you don't need to be an asshole. Does putting other people down make you feel better about yourself? You must be a very sad and angry individual. Your posts do certainly make you appear that way.
I'm more shocked they let him do something that isn't in keeping with his "sparkling" image.
His most famous work so far has been Avenue Q. You can't get much more un-sparkling than that.
Where exactly in there do you see me displaying a bitter, angry sensibility, and who was I putting down?
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
He is going to be under the contract of Broadway producers for a Broadway musical. Not a movie studio. That was my point.
Why would the fact that he is under contract with Disney to work on a TV show make a difference in his ability to work for Broadway producers on a Broadway musical?
The entire way that you phrased that was condescending and you know it.
Foster, Dreamworks is producing Shrek on Broadway so it is conceivable that Disney could see a conflict of interest there. But of course they don't since Tartaglia is doing the show.
Indeed I did start March Madness, Neddy. (I just posted the final game tonight, btw.)
Foster was annoyed with what he perceived as board overrun, expressed his annoyance in an amusing way, and got on with his life. Terse? Sure. Bitter, angry, or worse? Nah.
Also note: BobbyBubby asked, "Foster, did you swallow a bitter pill? You seem very angry lately." Sure, Foster can get unhappy from time to time, but "lately"? The posts "lately" are the ones that show up on the profile. Those posts are filled with words like "excellent," "inspiring," "Congrats," "Welcome," and "YAY!" Do those sound bitter or angry?
I didn't ask for you to put your newly bitter boots on and stomp all over my question.
TV and film contracts keep actors from doing other projects all the time; many years after the MGM system ended.
I'm sure there are famous actors who have contracts, 3 picture deals, that keep them from working with other producers.
I just found it interesting that Tartaglia is working for Disney and Dreamworks; two rival companies that target the same markets. That's all.
And the "actors aren't owned by anyone" line is false, a grand over-statement.
You people spend far too much energy in your life being angry on these boards. Spend your free time with a dictionary and some therapy to control your anger.
Well, your original question does imply another question ("Is it possible for John Tartaglia to have some sort of contract with Disney and still be allowed to do work in a Dreamworks project?"), and that's the question others (including Foster) tried to answer. In this instance, I do think that's a relevant take on your post.
We did all duck your original question, though. Maybe we should become press spokesmen for politicians. We've got the skillz.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
Why are you so angry? Seriously. Your negative energy has been a constant here lately. If someone doesn't like or say what you want you freak out. I'm worried and I don't even know you.
"Is John Tartaglia Under Contract for Disney? If so, how would he be able to take a role in Dreamworks' Shrek?"
I'll try to answer the question for you. They've announced that John will be in the show. It's official. He's doing it. So the simple answer to your question is either, no he's not under contract with Disney, OR his contract doesn't include theatrical endeavors. That's all you wanted to know, right?