9 to 5 Tony Question

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:13pm

Sorry to waste space on what's already been said a lot, but what was the reason 9 to 5 was snubbed at the Tony's, or doesn't anyone know?

Does everyone hate it that much?

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:14pm

Did you read the reviews, especially Brantley's?

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:15pm

What was the reason for it being snubbed fir Best Set Design, which it REALLY deserved to win?

[gravity87]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:18pm

just because a set is huge and full of bells and whistles it doesn't mean that it is the "best" design, just that the show had a ginormous budget

[blaxx]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:21pm

Because they called them Tony's instead of Tonys.

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:24pm

I must say, the set did come together well and did look amazing. Fair enough , after the first number, it wasn't as impressive. but it's the first time in a long time, both myself and my friend said "that's a great set", my friend saying "thats' the best set i've ever seen" - granted, it's not that, but i thought it was a great set, score, and had some great performances by it's leads.
it deserved the score nomination.

but i thought, compared to billy, it deserved the tony for set.

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:24pm

I must say, the set did come together well and did look amazing. Fair enough , after the first number, it wasn't as impressive. but it's the first time in a long time, both myself and my friend said "that's a great set", my friend saying "thats' the best set i've ever seen" - granted, it's not that, but i thought it was a great set, score, and had some great performances by it's leads.
it deserved the score nomination.

but i thought, compared to billy, it deserved the tony for set.

[Just_John]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:31pm

It wasn't nominated for Best Set Design because had it been it would have won.

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 1:35pm

sorry if i didn't explain: i know it wasn't nominated, but deserved to be. if they didn't nominate it, they sure wouldn't have selected it to win.

again, it deserved the tony over billy. which everyone's obsessed with for some absurd reason.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 8:13pm

9 to 5 was snubbed due to the sort of "insider politics" that dominate things like the Tony's and the Academy Awards (what happened to The Wrestler this year?). The show had a record 15 Drama Desk nominations, was trounced by the supposed arbiter of what theatre is good and what is bad (Ben Brantley) and the Tony's all but ignored it.

9 to 5 probably should have won for the set, it should have had a nomination as Best Musical as well. The audiences continue to jump to their feet enjoying the show for what it is... entertaining.

In my opinion...
Updated On: 7/25/09 at 08:13 PM

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 7/25/09 at 10:39pm

Audiences in NY jump to their feet for EVERYTHING. It's meaningless.

9to5 failed to win anything because it wasn't very good. It was all right - but it wasn't deserving of any awards.

[i am the one]

Posted: 7/26/09 at 9:57am

Honestly, I think the one show that deserved a Best Set nomination at the very least was SHREK THE MUSICAL. 9 to 5's set pulled off ho-hum rather well, but Shrek's was awe-inspiring and creative. A feast for the eyes (if not ridiculously and overly lavish).

[Soliantu]

Posted: 7/26/09 at 10:47am

".which everyone's obsessed with for some absurd reason." (billy elliot)

Thank you so much. I completely agree. I really don't see the big appeal.