Do you think replacements should be eligible for Tony Awards consideration? - Page 2

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 9:34am

No...the Tony voters would only need to see those who were nominated. If it was in the same category as new productions it could be only a couple if any.

That wouldn't work. As would be the case currently, all Tony voters need to see ALL eligible shows before they close. If they waited for nominations, Tony voters could never see Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf, Golden Boy, Scandalous, etc. that closed before nominations came out. Similarly, since replacements come and go all the time and many would leave before the nominations deadline, all voters would have to see them all since they're Tony eligible.

[binau]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 9:40am

I think there is a difference between the Tony voters and the nominating committee, who are much smaller. The Tony voters only need to see the shows that are nominated. That's why Bette Midler's show and Macbeth cancelled all the tickets for Tony voters - because they weren't nominated.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 9:54am

Shows open past the nominations date often hold tickets for voters. In other cases, some voters have already seen the show, I'm not sure which is the case for Bette, whether they pulled all tickets or just voters who hadn't yet seen the show.

Again, I ask, how would 700+ voters VOTE for Virginia Woolf to win three awards without having seen the show. All voters must see ALL eligible shows that open in a Broadway show. Perhaps some don't but they all need to be offered comps in order for shows to be Tony eligible.

[AC126748]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 10:21am

Replacements have been eligible to compete against new performances at the Olivier Awards for years. It doesn't always happen, but it does happen. (Recently, I can think of Melanie (Sporty Spice) Chisholm being nominated when she played Mrs. Johnstone in BLOOD BROTHERS) It doesn't seem to hurt anyone or anything to have replacements eligible over there.

As to the person who asked about TIME STANDS STILL: The production was eligible when it played during the 2009-10 season in all relevant categories. When it reopened during the 2010-11 season, Christina Ricci was the only new element, and thus the only eligible element that season. This goes along with the Tony rule that actors and designers cannot be nominated multiple times for the same work--for example, Judd Hirsch wasn't eligible for nomination when he did I'M NOT RAPPAPORT on Broadway in 2002 because he'd already been nominated (and won) for that role in the 80s.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 10:41am

^Except they DON'T "have" to see every eligible show. That's why its always suprising when a closed show is able to get any wins. In fact, they don't even HAVE to see all the nominees to vote. We've heard plenty of stories about voters casting votes based on word of mouth.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 10:51am

I understand the technicalities of the matter, but I think it's way simpler than it appears to be. It's a special award, given to high profile replacements that have brought new life to an already running show. They don't need to review every single Roxie, Christine and Elphaba, but someone like Sierra should be awarded.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:11am

And who decides who's a good enough, high enough profile replacement to warrant being considered? It's ridiculous. Just because you found one performance extraordinary doesn't mean others did, and just because you didn't see or notice another one, doesn't mean some people weren't wow'd by it.

The logistics of this are a nightmare, which is why it's not a real award.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:21am

I'm guessing this wasn't a problem when they awarded Pearl Bailey.

It's fairly easy to determine which is a high profile replacement For example Tila Tequila becoming the 823,678th Roxie it's not a high profile replacement, while Patti LuPone replacing Donna Murphy on a Mame revival is.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:24am

But what if hypothetical Tila Tequila is giving a better performance than Patti LuPone? Someone's name value or the "high profile" nature of their replacement doesn't automatically guarantee the performance being better or more award-worthy. The idea of an award would be to find the BEST replacement. How can you fairly do that without considering all contenders?

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:31am

Because it shouldn't be a competitive award, it should be a special one.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:31am

Wait, so only "high profile" established stars should be able to be considered? That's even more ridiculous than the original idea. Just because they are alrady high profile, doesn't mean they are going to be outstanding. Just because one can boost the box office receipts, doesn't mean their work is outstanding, either.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:37am

High profile doesn't imply a star. Say for example Sutton Foster replaced Erin Dilly instead of originating the role, and she still caused the same media frenzy, that would've been a high profile replacement.

What I mean by high profile performance is a performance that is truly extraordinary, and has the whole community buzzing.

Updated On: 6/15/13 at 11:37 AM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:44am

Your argument holds no water. There need to be hard and fast rules about who is eligible to be considered, special award or not. And, to me, you can't have a Best Replacement Tony unless every replacement is considered. Sure, it'll be the same as the normal Tonys, half the voters won't see half of them, but you can't discount someone or their performance just because they haven't drummed up sufficient "buzz". That's not indicative of the quality of anything.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 11:57am

Kelly2 is right, the "justifications" I'm seeing proposed here for determining which replacements should or shouldn't be eligible are so completely arbitrary that it shows just why this category has not been implemented. Basically with what is being proposed here it would turn into a star essentially buying themselves a nomination and/or win.

And, for the record, the Tony voters don't have to see every show, but for the production to b eligible they have to give those voters a chance to see the show. The voters can, and do, skip shows they feel might not be worth their time. Of course, in theory, of they did skip something that closed and then receives a nomination they are supposed to abstain from voting in that category, but I'm sure a good number of voters will still vote based on either the shows they did see or from the word of mouth they heard about.

[rorschach37]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 12:23pm

I think it'd be nice to have a "Best Replacement" category, but as far as nominating actors in the best actor/actress category for their performance in a show that's been running for years? Eh...

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 2:17pm

I think make it one Best Replacement category, regardless of play or musical and regardless of gender.

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:06am

I think this is how it could be done:

* There is no separate category for replacements

* The show's producers petition to the Tony awards to consider their replacement for an award

* The nominating committee sees every show that is petitioned (only 40 people), and decide whether to nominate them

* The Tony voters (700+) see nominated replacement performances [where possible] and vote accordingly.

This way, shows can choose whether they want to give away free tickets or not, and the process of being considered for a nomination is clear.

No longer should performances such as Bernadette's Desiree or Marin's Diana have to be overlooked again.

Updated On: 6/16/13 at 01:06 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:11am

I think make it one Best Replacement category, regardless of play or musical and regardless of gender.

I agree. This is how they were going to do it, and it's the only way I really see it working. Acting categories can be very crowded with a lot of competition from new shows, why throw in a replacement with all of that competition?

[binau]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:18am

It would be even more exciting in terms of competition (with that much competition perhaps it would be very difficult to predict who will win the award), and not considered a lesser award I feel, if it were the same category. Also, if there weren't very exciting replacements that season then they could easily not nominate anyone. But a separate category would work well. I don't see why they don't do it.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:24am

I'm just looking at it this way

For example, 2010: Best Performance By a Male in a Leading Role (Musical)

Kelsey Grammer
Douglas Hodge
Chad Kimball
Sahr Ngaujah
Sean Hayes

With Nathan Lane and Alexander Hanson noticeably overlooked, would a replacement REALLY have been able to sneak in there?

[jackieoh]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:25am

I feel like this is a good idea in theory but it really would be a difficult and tedious thing to carry out. Also, imagine if two people won Tony awards for playing the same role in the same production? Like Bernadette and Zeta-Jones for A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC or Mazzie and Ripley for NEXT TO NORMAL. It's hard to wrap my head around I feel like it's just a strange thing to do.

[Playbilly]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:33pm

Yes. Producers petition as they do with Lead/Feature. One for Males, one for Females. Let Darwin do the rest.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 3:41pm

Don't you think MOST producers would petition for one M and one F from each show? They aren't going to sit back and let other shows possibly rack up more Tony Awards.

And what about shows that bring in a replacement for only 6 months? Or less? Do you think the nominators (or the voters) are going to see the same show 3 times a year...while they already neeed to see all the eligible (nominators) or nominated (voters) shows? Many voters don't LIVE in Manhattan and have lives/jobs that would prevent them from jaunting back and forth to NYC.

[jwsel]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 4:48pm

People make some good logistical arguments, but they could all be addressed in setting rules for replacements.

Leaving it to the show to petition for an actor to be considered solves the concern about shows being hit with the cost for multiple years worth of tickets to voters. If the producers want to incur the cost, it is their choice. Producers can weight those costs against the odds of winning a Tony award and whether or not it will help ticket sales for Broadway or a tour.

The rules committee also could limit the number of replacements who could be subject to petitioning to one female and male actor per year so the nominating members are not forced to constantly revisit the same shows. They could even require that if two actors are the subject of petitions, they must be in the roles at the same time so that the pre-nomination voters only have to go once per year.

On the issue of how do you get the full voting membership to see replacement performers, they could make it a rule that to be eligible for the replacement Tony, the actor must be in the role from the time of the nominations through the close of voting so that voters have a chance to see the performances. I suspect if that were the rule, there would be an influx of known actors taking on roles for runs in April and May, which would probably be great for Broadway ticket sales. If you had a situation with a phenomenal replacement who was unknown, but received great reviews outside that period, producers could try to bring back the actor for a few weeks during the period when the full membership would vote.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 5:45pm

^Doesn't that just push the idea that actors would be strategically taking roles for the possibility of getting an award?