Yeah...I guess I meant cheesy, instead of corney. Well, actually, 8 thought they were the same. Like holding our hands up during the "healing." I don't care really...I liked it.
"The price of love is loss, but still we pay; We love anyway."
Like I said, it almost looks like the Tony committee has something against him....
HOW? That makes no sense? The Tony nominating committee and the Tony voting committee are SEPARATE entities. The Tony nominating committee has nominated him for legitimately more than half of the Broadway shows he's done since Taboo. In fact, his only Broadway shows before that were ones in which he replaced someone else. In terms of the number of shows he's been eligible for a nomination, he hasn't been nominated three times. Once for Arcadia when he was a featured actor in a packed field of plays, once for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang where there were other more deserving actors from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Spamalot to fill the category, and once for Leap of Faith, where he didn't get good reviews and was critically panned by New York's largest newspaper.
If you want to argue that the Tony VOTING committee has something against Raul for not giving him the award in the 4 times he has been nominated, fine. But that's a different, completely unrelated issue to him not scoring a nomination here. Stop with the conspiracy theories already. Sheesh.
Still, why did they nominate the play, which was not good at all?.....
*headdesk*
Did you not read my post on the last page? They nominated it as a placeholder. It doesn't mean they liked it. It just means they had other reasons for not nominating the other shows. They didn't want to nominate Spider-Man after all of the drama. They didn't want to nominate a Frank Wildhorn show, especially one that was long closed. Ghost got equally bad reviews (if not worse). The only reason Ghost received 3 nominations is that those nominees were among the strongest in their respective fields, but the show as a whole still blows. Lysistrata Jones was really the only other option for a Best Musical nomination, but it was also long closed. You can't think of all of the categories as being tied together. Every category is separate. Leap of Faith was beaten out in the other categories because the individual parts of the show suck. But as a whole, it was the best option of the remaining shows (as far as the nominators were concerned). They felt as though they had to fill the 4th spot, and it was a game of picking one bad musical out of a slew of bad musicals. They really should have just nominated 3 and left it at that, but they wanted to nominate 4.
Isn't it in the bylaws that if there are enough eligible shows that they have to fill all of the slots? So assuming that's true, they could not have just nominated three shows.
^Even more reason why Leap of Faith was nominated!
So bad musical can equal best musical?
A best musical NOMINEE? YES! Whether you like it or not, SOMETHING has to take that 4th slot. Leap of Faith was the lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it) slot filler this year. It's not like the show is going to win. It will be lucky if it gets 10 votes.
"He needs to stop giving 110%, that's part of the problem."
I'm in total agreement; but there are a lot of actors I would call awful overacting hams (like Esparza) who appear to have some number of stridently vocal fans (e.g. Norbert Leo Butz, Bobby Steggart).
I thought Raul had a few nice moments in the show (and I'm a big fan), but I really don't think the production was worthy of any Tony nominations. Much of it was painful. All of it, unfortunately, was forgettable.
When I've seen him, he has not looked like he's working too hard. He is hardly Mandy Patinkin. There was nothing overdone or hammy about him in Company or The Homecoming. While I didn't love him in Leap, I never thought he was overdoing it.
