So....on a scale of 1 - 10.........- Page 2

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:28am

7.5. I was expecting worse, and overall, I enjoyed myself.

[raphael06]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:37am

5. Spring Awakening's performance was a joke. The way they pieced it together and left out the cuss words made awkward and illogical.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:39am

Eh, I'm not sure.

The performances, as a whole: 7

The show, as a whole: 9

The winners, as a whole: 9

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:44am

This year's telecast (7/10) gained by not having extraneous interpolations and focusing on the current shows. Even THE COLOR PURPLE although from last year is playing now and has a much-touted star performance.

The musical numbers are what count: CHORUS LINE offered a strong opening but there are better numbers in 110 IN THE SHADE than "Raunchy." Raul's "Being Alive" was a highlight. Of the new shows CURTAINS came off not bad. MARY POPPINS a total waste of time. Nothing that was shown captured any of the magic of the show. GREY GARDENS would have benefited from a montage treatment but the number they presented certainly showcased Ebersole. SPRING AWAKENING failed to communicate the darker subtext of the show and the dancing that was shown would leave many wondering how it won the Tony for choreography.

The speeches get longer (and more boring) each year. Again, I plead: DO AWAY WITH THE SPEECHES. Show us more clips of the award winning performances.

Overall not bad, reflecting a good year on Broadway but raising the question WHY do people keep supporting crap (LEAGALLY BLONDE, PIRATE QUUEN, MARY POPPINS) and stay away from quality plays and musicals (GREY GARDENS, COMPANY, JOURNEY'S END.)

[alterego]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:55am

6/10.

The show was well produced but those over long acceptance speeches slow the pace down so by the time you get into the third hour you are longing for it to finish. Maybe the show should be pre recorded and later packaged to fit a one hour format. You'd get the nominees, the announcement of the winners punctuated by the production numbers. The reason this show doesn't rate is that it is overlong and consists mainly of long acceptance speeches from actors (to whom are probably unknown to most viewers) naming a lot of people castmates/family/friends who are of little interest to those watching. Considering the competition this year I'd expect the ratings to be in the toilet (once again). You have to wonder how much longer the network hosting the show will persist with it.

[Blue-Eyed Wonder]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:00am

I'll give it a generous 4.

Boring and I disagreed with 90% of the wins. Lots of lackluster performances too.

[Paulyd]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:06am

I've just finished watching the Tonys from the UK, and on the whole the show was slightly dissapointing, simply because there were no surprises, apart from David winning best actor for Curtains.
5 out of 10

Right i'm off to bed

[mattonstage]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:25am

I give it about an 8.
BSoBW2: When was the last time the Tony's were over 3 hours? The network would never allow it. They consistantly over the past number of years finish on time, every time. It's the main reason they cut "Ain't Nothin' But the Blues" a few years ago, for time. And it's why we get truncated versions of musical numbers, and rarely anything from non-nominated shows. You must be thinking of the Oscars.

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:47am

1...two words constantly said ruined the evening: SPRING AWAKENING!

[ICEcreamAssassin]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:55am

5... mediocre show at best.. it lacked cohesion
they need a host next year!!!

[C is for Company]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 3:01am

I was surprisingly so satisfied with this year. I give it 6.5/10

That compares to last years 4, 2005: 7 and 2004:9.5.

I loved having no host, things moved quickly, the show was fairly predictable, but not so much entirely. Performances were for the most part nice. Just seemed like a nice evening, yet lacked a lot of excitement and care I hope for every year. I wasn't really disappointed like I was last year and this time my expectations were surpassed.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 7:51am

Ergh... 6.

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 7:52am

Since Raul didn't win - 3

[tazber]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 8:15am

as a 3 hour commercial for bway intended to entice people who know nothing about it - 9.5

[thesinger]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 8:17am

I'd say a 7 overall.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 8:24am

The shows seemed to fly by very quickly. So the pacing seemed pretty good. I agree that many of the speeches need to be cut down to a thank you and something more profound than thanking people who no one knows. The best speech of the night hands down was Frank Langella. I agreed with many of the winners. David Hyde Pierce I was pleased to see win.

Overall it was a most enjoyable evening. But the speeches need to either go away or need to be more profound.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 8:28am

5...the first 90 minutes dragged unmercifully although it did pick up towards the end.

Definitely highs for me were John Gallagher and Julie White winning...definite low was Raul losing. Have nothing against David Hyde Pierce and he gave a great, humble speech...but Raul won almost everything else running up to this and it had to sting.

[glimpseofstocking]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:27am

I'd give it a 6.5/7

[mortgageguy79]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:28am

8

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:34am

Good lord, can't you people get over Raul losing?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:47am

I give it an 8. Very little extraneous cheese. I didn't miss a host at all. I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about Raul. Based on his "Being Alive" last night, I would not have given him the award, either.

[tabbynyc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:19am

I give it a 9. I'm getting used to the show without a host and kind of like it. You don't have to sit through those corny routines the host does. Although, I did like Hugh Jackman's opening numbers the last 2 years he hosted.

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:25am

I was there and I'll say I give an 8. I was much more satisfied. (not just because Christine and MLW picked up their Tonys)There was a lot of energy in that room. I was amazed. It was so much better than the last ones I attended. (I did have a terrific seat in the orchestra, where I met Vanessa Redgrave among other people.)
I enjoyed the atmosphere overall much better.
Not overly pleased with some of the results. (Don't think SA is the second coming.)
But, overall, a satisfying evening.

[logan0215]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:30am

They could have just done a montage of the acceptance speeches and accomplished what was done last night and last year.

I am so completely and totally over the host-less format.

I also found the "In Memory" segment a little clunky and disoriented. Tommy Tune could have sang after the list like Jesse L. Martin did for Jerry Orbach rather than during the montage.

I haven't seen Spring Awakening yet but I was very happy with the winnings. I'm just happy my girls won for Grey Gardens, I wouldn't have minded if they won a couple more though (set design possibly?).

Frank Langella's speech was amazing, I give it a 10 just for that. I also enjoyed David Hyde Pierce's as well.

OK TONY Committee, time to get a host and a huge opening number again.

Updated On: 6/11/07 at 11:30 AM

[avab802]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:36am

I give it an 8. I don't mind there not being a host; I actually think a host just wastes time with corny routines & jokes. The majority of the presenters were interesting as well. The musical performances were all entertaining. Most of the wins were predictable, but there were a few surprises thrown in too.

The thing that actually bugged me the most were the constant commercials for that "Viva Laughlin" show. It looks like real crap to me and they played the promo for it during every single commercial break. After 3 times I kept thinking, enough already!