Tony Awards Scrap Best Replacement Award- Page 2

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 11:26am

"My feeling is, if they were so great for the role and gave such a wonderful performance...then why didn't they originate the role?"

Well, THAT makes no sense. It's no secret that producers seek out bigger stars to originate roles, and as others have said, in a long-running show, age comes into play. The people in RENT now were, for the most part, 10 years too young to originate the roles when the show opened.

"The nominees this year all had such diffent roles that it was almost impossible to compare them to each other. Seriously, how do you compare John Lloyd Young to Michael Cerveris? (I'm using that as an example. Not looking to start a "he wuz robbed" debate.)

I don't know...I kind of like how the Golden Globes do it...they seperate out Comedy and Drama. "

I agree, but the amount of new theatre (ESPECIALLY when you're only looking at Broadway) that surfaces every year is miniscule compared to the number of films that are releases every year to the point where IF comedies and dramas were separated, Michael Cerveris really wouldn't have HAD any competition for the award.


Anyway, I wish this award in some way existed. I DON'T think it should have been given out every year, but there DEFINITELY are some first-rate replacements worthy of getting recognition.


Updated On: 6/23/06 at 11:26 AM

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 11:44am

I really think this is not the solution because I like the idea of allowing actors recreating roles to get recognized. I think they should have changed the way it was handled - either making it like another award (though they were probably pressured not to do that because of the length it would add to the telecast) or allowing actors recreating roles to be eligble for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, etc.

I wish they had kept this award around because too often it seems replacements are just taught the lines, thrown into roles, and told to do what the original actor did. I thought this award would honor actors who took the role and made it their own and inspire others to do the same. That's why I hoped they would keep it around. To be quite honest it just seems like the Tony Committee is just being lazy and pissy: "Well, fine, you all don't like how it works, we'll just get rid of it then!"

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 11:46am

I don’t get how people think is shouldn’t be handed out ever year. I understand the argument is that it should only be handed out when there is a very strong performance that deserves it, but I completely disagree. If you were going to use this logic then why wouldn’t it be applied every Tony Award. If they are going to say this award should only be given to someone exceptional deserving, why would every category not be judged in the same fashion? To me, that sends incredibly mixed messages. The argument could be certainly made that some years have not been very strong in competition, but the awards are still handed out to avoid dramatic situations like this. I think the award was a good idea, but if they are going to hand it out, they should have at least treated it like any other award.

Updated On: 6/23/06 at 11:46 AM

[pauL5Y]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 12:05pm

Ticket to see a Broadway show: $100

Seeing a performance that wins a Tony: Unforgettable

Seeing a performance that wins a Replacement Tony: Pryceless

[SirLiir]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 12:13pm

How does Mr. Pyrce come off as boorish? He never took the role to win awards and saying he did so is just ridiculous. This award was announced during his run and who wouldn't want to win a first time award? He made very good points in his argument. The people who were supposed to vote NEVER showed up to see him. That told him (and me) that they just did not care and when you are on a VOTING commitee (which I hope means you have special qualifications), it is your job and obligation to follow though on your assigments. He is perfectly right to be upset at being shafted. Saying he comes off as having sour grapes is not fair. Anyone would feel the same. Some people just stay quiet.

Updated On: 6/23/06 at 12:13 PM

[faithanytwo]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 12:21pm

what a complete disaster, it had a lot of potential too.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 1:28pm

I thought that the idea for this award was a great one. However, I don't think that they should have ever maybe the nominees public, so to speak, especially if this wasn't really a competitive category to begin with.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 1:29pm

What idiot's, you know it's really a shame.

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 2:10pm

Its bulls***! They create an award and it gets hyped. Then theres no winner and they cancel it saying that a wonderful actor should have won and didnt and they are sorry? No! They should have made it a normal catagory and Im just super pissed becuase Pryce should have won, they say he would have and now it no longer exsists. It basically wasted a s*** load of time!

-done venting-

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 2:25pm

I actually found this rather interesting:

A person on the committee said: "Jonathan's unhappiness certainly had something to do with our decision. His performance was highly valued, and the award should have been presented to him. It was our mistake that it was not."

Okay, so the committee didn't all go to Jonathan's show. That should have been amended. But regardless, wouldn't saying this make Harvey undoubtedly angry? When I read this, I sort of thought, gee... that kind of sucks. :)

[Mama Mo]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 2:46pm

I'll go further than this. I'd like to see all the performance categories dumped and replaced with a new set. BEST PERFORMANCE by an actor/actress in a leading role during the past season (musical/comedy/drama or any other way you care to break it down.) Whether the show is new or old or a revival is immaterial - just award the PERFORMANCE. Do the same for those in the featured roles. Again, I don't care how many ways you break it down, just don't let the SHOW determine the award. Leave that to the show awards themselves. Then it doesn't matter if the actor is replaceing someone else. If they've turned in the absolute best performance of the year - over all other contenders - then let them have it. And don't disqualify them if they happened to have won it the year before. If they're still better than anyone else, award them for it.

The problem here of course is getting the Tony nominators to go SEE the performances. They couldn't bother going to see two performers this year, what makes me think they'd bother to see what's actually going on on-stage for all the shows?
Updated On: 6/23/06 at 02:46 PM

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:10pm

Mama Mo said:

"I'll go further than this. I'd like to see all the performance categories dumped and replaced with a new set. BEST PERFORMANCE by an actor/actress in a leading role during the past season"

Lumping the categories together might seem like a good idea to some but it certainly would shut out people like Idina Menzel and Stephen Lynch from ever even getting a nomination unless they increased the number of nominations to 25 for each award. Damn few musical theatre performers would ever win.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:19pm

How do you scrap something that never happened?

[Mama Mo]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:28pm

I think you're missing my point (or I'm missing yours).

I'm saying have categories like Best performance by an actor in a leading role in a musical, and the same for an actor in a leading role in a play. Just like today if you want. Just don't limit those awards to the new shows that opened this season. The only limitation would be that they performed at some time during the season being honored. They may want to put a minimum number of performances limit on the award as well. (I wouldn't want to see this go too far though. Maybe 3 months max) You'd have the same awards for actresses. You may even want more awards - by having a set for musicals, dramatic plays, and comedies if you want. Just don't restrict the actors qualifying for those awards by the particular show they are in. If actor "Joe Blow" goes into "Phantom" next week and absolutely knocks the socks off of everyone with his performance, and that performance is better than any being given in any other musical this season, then let him win an award for it. Frankly I think it would make a lot of performers think about working extra hard if they knew they stood as much chance of being honored as the TV star appearing in her first Broadway show down the block.
Updated On: 6/23/06 at 03:28 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:31pm

"Lumping the categories together might seem like a good idea to some but it certainly would shut out people like Idina Menzel and Stephen Lynch from ever even getting a nomination unless they increased the number of nominations to 25 for each award. Damn few musical theatre performers would ever win."

First of all, why you lumped Idina Menzel and Stephen Lynch together is BEYOND me, and it's making my poor head hurt. Idina won a Tony...somehow I don't think lumping categories would leave her out.


ANYway, I do agree that that's a big BIG no-no. Straight plays are demanding in a very different way that most musical theatre roles, and it's just more than likely that most awards would end up going to actors in straight plays.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:33pm

If Harvey really did say that, I agree with him.

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:34pm

Mama Mo, that's exactly what I would like to see happen. Have every actor new to a role be eligible for "Best Actor in a Play" or "Best Supporting Actor in Musical", etc. Not just people creating roles.

I understand that creating a role and recreating a role are two different beasts but since it seems unlikely they'll add another regular award and since this plan obviously failed, this seems like the fairest way to recognize all actors... not just actors who originate the role.

[Mama Mo]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:40pm

Obviously I am not expressing myself well at all. Maybe I can do better with a possible list:

Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Play.
Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play
Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play
Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Play
Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical
Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical
Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Musical
Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Musical

Sound familiar? If you want, break the plays down into two categories - drama and comedy.

So how is my suggestion different? Let ALL THE ACTORS WHO APPEARED AS THE LEADING ACTOR IN A PLAY QUALIFY FOR THE AWARD! That's it. Don't discriminate based on the show they were in. If they had the leading role and they performed this year THEY QUALIFY.

Make them truly BEST performance awards. NO originals, no replacements, no revivals, no nothing except BEST all round PERFORMANCE.

(I will now retire and go tear my hair out.)


Updated On: 6/23/06 at 03:40 PM

[singtopher]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:43pm

I think it's a shame. Why couldn't they have learned from their mistakes and tried again next year? I thought this was a wonderful idea. Replacements are an integral part of the Broadway theatre scene. You'd think the Theatre Wing would want to recognize that.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 3:46pm

No, Mama Mo, I get what you're saying. I guess I was just typing up my post before I saw your follow-up up. Which is why it seems like I missed your point, when I do understand.

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Posted: 6/23/06 at 5:10pm

Mamo Mo said:

"Frankly I think it would make a lot of performers think about working extra hard if they knew they stood as much chance of being honored as the TV star appearing in her first Broadway show down the block."

So you're saying the acting profession is all about the awards? You think performers who know they're not eligible slack off? I don't think most people would agree with you on this issue.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 5:14pm

I think if you have sat through performances of replacements, its seems as though they are more likely to slack off more than those who originate roles. And yes, and award might be some sort of incentive to the slackers. SHOULD it be that way? No. But it is sometimes, and I don't think it could actually HURT the situation.

[Mama Mo]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 5:39pm

I never said the acting profession was all about awards. But getting that particular award can help raise a performers esteem among their peers and value within the business. That latter part alone will likely bring more job offers and better pay. Don't say it doesn't matter. If that were true you wouldn't see all the jockeying among performers (and shows and technical staffs and everyone else involved) to get one - or at least get a nomination. You also wouldn't see all the threads on the subject of the Tony award at this and other theatre web sites.

I've seen some incredible performances by understudies who were looking to attract attention of casting agents. But I'm not talking about understudies. I'm only talking about people who are actually cast in the role. I've also seen many, MANY, phoned-in performances from people who had the job and just didn't care anymore. If something like this might make them care a little more, than why not?

Again - it won't happen because Tony nominators and (to a lesser extent perhaps) Tony voters won't bother seeing all the performances.
Updated On: 6/23/06 at 05:39 PM

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 6/23/06 at 8:57pm

I think actors who are replacements don't "slack off" so much as they are thrown into the role by producers who honestly just want someone who will do what the person before them did. And a lot of them do just that. I've seen MANY productions of shows where instead of playing the character the actor is playing the person who famously played the character before them playing the character.

It's obviously going to happen in shows that have had big names in them: The Producers, etc. Read "Making it on Broadway" and you'll hear many stories of actors being told to just "Do what Matthew Broderick did" (not specifically Matthew Broderick of course, but you get what I'm saying.)

Fact of the matter is that with replacements the producers normally don't care enough for one reason or another to bring the direcor back in to tighten things up, to let the replacement maybe go in a different direction with a line or a scene... once the show is running it often seems to me that it's like a machine and the actors are fed in, each just doing what the one before them did. Allowing actors recreating a role to be elgible for recognition is not going to change that altogether. But it may discourage it a little bit. If a producer knows that an actor may be eligible for an award that could boost sales a little bit, he or she may be willing to give the actor more freedom. And that's a start, right?