So here's the deal. Every year, a cohort of drama school graduates enter the big wide world of entertainment, CVs full to the brim with amateur dramatics productions, a head full of showbiz dreams and thicker skin than Shrek. They head out, trained with all the knowledge they need to tackle auditions and bag agents, primed with their headshot smile and enough black rehearsal clothing to permanently fill Ozzy Ozbourne's closet.

But, when they finally get their big chance... The spot's been filled by an X Factor reject, or some reality TV star who can just about sing their "do-ray-me"s, but can't act for toffee. The exception to this, of course, is the big-time star, brought in to boost ticket sales and bring the press to what some people may refer to as a "dying art". But the same still applies: It is rare that any of these people possess skills in all three disciplines. I would love to see the director's face in the first read-through with an A-Lister. Likely, hand would hit face before the first scene is done.

Is this the future then? Why bother going to drama school when you can sing 'Defying Gravity' on The Voice and immediately get snapped up by the West End? Are casting directors only looking for star quality and if so, what will happen to the young talent of today?

Theatre is supposed to be a craft, an art form. Just as you wouldn't have Kim K do the next exhibition at the Tate Modern, why put Brendon Urie (Panic! At The Disco) in 'Kinky Boots' heels? Granted, the guy can SING, but Broadway? It is evident that "stars" take priority over drama school graduates and it is simply because casting agents see them as a sure-fire way to get money.

And it's not just on the stage! The same applies on the silver screen. Emma Watson is a prime example of this. As one of the industry's biggest names, she's made Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' the highest grossing live-action movie musical EVER, making over one billion dollars globally. Had this film not have starred Emma Watson, would it have done so well? We will never know. But I'm skeptical as to how much editing was involved in the autotune department and although the film itself was well made (see my full review of it here), I wonder if it was worth the slightly synthesised sound of the soundtrack.

Of course, most celebrities do have their talents. But, it does seem like the easy way in, especially in the case of reality TV stars, who have made the crossover to the stage/screen. Old Andrew Lloyd Webber shows like 'I'd Do Anything', finding the next West End star through a thorough audition process, provided audiences with a more realistic representation of the competitive industry. People like Samantha Barks and Jodie Prenger, contestants from Lloyd Webber's search for Nancy in 'Oliver', have emerged from that show with actual proof of talent, as well as exposure to the public.

To me, a young performer, director and writer, it makes much more sense to source the highest level of talent; a workable, mouldable actor/actress, to do your script justice. Surely, if you want to make the best production, get the best cast. As a desperate plea to filmmakers and casting directors alike: Give the newly-trained a shot. You never know, someday they could "make it" too. Theatre has been labelled as a "dying art" for years and it is for one reason: commercialisation. Stop the dollar-filled eyes and start creating... Really creating. Now that's true art.