DANIEL RADCLIFFE SNUBBED!!!!!!- Page 3

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 9:21pm

He can't get a tony if he's naked. He can't get a tony if he sings. Maybe he can get a tony if he sings... naked?

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 9:28pm

I personally was incredibly underwhelmed by Radcliffe, but I know I'm in the minority, so no nomination here is pretty surprising. I do hope he still performs "Brotherhood of Man", though, because that was the one number in the show I absolutely loved.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 10:11pm

Radcliffe was ten times better than Broderick, who won the award.

This was a deliberate, mean, and mean-spirited snub.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 10:52pm

You're right- this all a conspiracy to punish poor Daniel Radcliffe, because he's a movie star and we don't want any of those on Broadway!

Seriously, maybe the nominating community just didn't think his performance warranted a nomination. Radcliffe's reviews weren't exactly stellar- it's not as if he was giving a unanimously praised performance. Also, this category was crowded this year- when Broderick was nominated and won for the same role, the competition was far less.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 11:07pm

"Seriously, maybe the nominating community just didn't think his performance warranted a nomination."


Sure. Yeah. Right. Of course. That's all that was involved here.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 11:27pm

Yeah, just how they didn't give Oscsar winner Frances McDormand a nomination. Or film and television star Edie Falco a nomination. Or Oscar winner Vanessa Redgrave...

Oh, wait. They did get a nomination. Huh.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 11:44pm

None of the people you just mentioned are a film star of the magnitude that Radcliffe is right now. Let's be real.

I have no idea why he wasn't nominated, but let's not pretend Frances McDormand is as popular or well-known as Daniel Radcliffe is.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/3/11 at 11:47pm

Who cares? He wasn't going to win, anyways.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:23am

He can't get a tony if he's naked. He can't get a tony if he sings. Maybe he can get a tony if he sings... naked?

That must be the key. We need to write a musical for him now. How about "Teeth: The Musical"?

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:33am

I don't know that this is true, though, Jordan. I think that were he nominated, he would've had a shot.

[billyboyA]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:47am

Look, with both Radcliffe and Tveit not being nominated, I REALLY think this is a case of the nominating committee making the choice to not nominate two leads that don't have huge character arc's. I honestly think it's more about the roles, than the actors playing them. I suppose a case could be made that these actors could have given the role more of an arc, and actually came out in the end a changed man... but ultimately, both Finch and Abagnale, as they are played/written in these shows, sort of service the journey, as opposed to being changed by taking the journey. Whereas, Butz's character is changed by his journey, both of the Mormon boys are changed by their journey, as are the characters in both Scottsboro and Priscilla.

You can argue how much of a journey, of course, and that would be based on everyone's personal feelings about these shows. But I think this is honestly less about snubbing and more about character arc...

And if you're going to mourn for anyone, mourn for the actor who gave up Glee to play the lead in CMIYC, which was "supposed" to have made him a huge star, not for the mega superstar who has (and will continue to make) MILLIONS for one of the biggest blockbuster film series of all time...

Radcliffe will continue to do theater, and will continue to sell tickets and put butts in seats for many years to come.

Aaron, on the other hand, is going to have to break away from the stigma of being passed over not once, but twice, in roles that people assumed would be Tony nominated. There will be producers out there that may take that into consideration when looking at him for future roles "well, the Tony committee isn't crazy about him..."

Which is sad, because I think Aaron is loaded with talent... and in the case of CMIYC, he was let down by the writers, who chose to make him the "one note" Emcee of his fantasy variety show... If only they had given Aaron a TRUE arc, we might be seeing his name up on that list...

And then he could have been singing that "name up on that list" song from LB in Time Square today...

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:50am

I honestly think it's more about the roles, than the actors playing them

Then how did both of the actors who played Finch in the previous two productions win the Tony for Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical?

Aaron, on the other hand, is going to have to break away from the stigma of being passed over not once, but twice, in roles that people assumed would be Tony nominated.

Technically doesn't Daniel now have the same stigma? He was expected to garner nominations two years in a row but didn't. And if How to Succeed doesn't recoup and is considered a "flop" there could be some trepidation in casting him as well.

Updated On: 5/4/11 at 12:50 AM

[billyboyA]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 1:01am

"Then how did both of the actors who play Finch in the previous two productions win the Tony for Best Lead Actor in a Musical?"

Um, because that was a different YEAR and different nominating committee... I didn't say that was the nomination standard... I said that's what I THINK they decided for this year...

[JP2]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 1:42am

The guy simply did not earn the nomination. It's really that simple. If this was Joe Somebody making his Broadway debut giving the same exact performance as Radcliffe, no one would be upset by the lack of a nomination. No one.


The last several years have been spent by people moaning about these evil, terrible, awful movie stars "stealing" roles from poor Broadway actors, and garnering nominations and wins. It's like they can't win.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 7:13am

"The guy simply did not earn the nomination. It's really that simple."


No it is not that simple. In fact, when it comes to awards, nothing is ever that simple. He didn't "earn" the nomination, you say? Well, people get nominations all the time who haven't "earned" them. And it has happened this year as well. The fact is, it is precisely because Radcliffe is Radcliffe that he wasn't nominated.

Jordan says he wasn't going to win anyway. I disagree. I think he was going to win, if nominated, and the committee made sure that wouldn't happen by not nominating him at all.

Yuck.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 7:13am

Updated On: 5/4/11 at 07:13 AM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 8:56am

There will be producers out there that may take that into consideration when looking at him for future roles "well, the Tony committee isn't crazy about him..."

What producers? Where? If anything, producers will want to cast him because a Tony nomination and/or win almost always means a salary raise. And most producers I have spoken to agree that most of the time, the only Tonys that make a difference in ticket sales are Best Musical/Play or Best Revival.

Producers won't hire him because he doesn't get nominated for Tonys. That's absurd.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 10:01am

I think everyone just needs to accept the fact that the nominating committee didn't think Radcliffe and Tveitt created performances that were as good as those of the nominees.

It's really very simple - no hidden agendas, conspiracies, or grudges.

Not that it matters, but I agree with the committee on this one - I found both Tveitt and Radcliffe to be hard-working, but only serviceable in their roles this season.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 10:16am

"I think everyone just needs to accept the fact that the nominating committee didn't think Radcliffe and Tveitt created performances that were as good as those of the nominees. "

Actually, no one need accept anything that they don't believe is the case.

"It's really very simple - no hidden agendas, conspiracies, or grudges. "

How can you tell if an agenda or grudge is or isn't hidden if it's hidden?

I think when assessing these or any awards, it's best to check one's naiveté at the door.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 10:24am

Has the guy playing Finch shown his long-form résumé to the nominating committee? Because I'm not totally convinced that's Daniel Radcliffe up on that stage, either.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 10:33am

For Radcliffe, I do believe there was stigma against him because he is a "name", but he was also the victim of the outpouring of love for Scottsboro. He was an easy name to leave off the list. And that allowed Joshua Henry to sneak in.

For Tveit- well, no matter what everyone here thinks, his performance was not well-received by industry professionals. That's not the fault of the writers entirely- there are many actors who are consistently able to transcend written material. Does Tveit need strong material to look good? Does he need a certain directorial style to excel? Maybe, but I think that would reflect rather poorly on him as an actor.
Some of you are acting like it's the end of his career. It's not. The guy's not even 30- he has plenty of time. He will continue to be cast and will, in all likeliness, be nominated some day- and perhaps win.

Honestly? I don't think he's ready for a Tony win yet.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 11:27am

And if you're going to mourn for anyone, mourn for the actor who gave up Glee to play the lead in CMIYC, which was "supposed" to have made him a huge star

Aaron Tveit was never offered a role on Glee, therefore he never "gave up Glee." He auditioned, and was in fact, a finalist, but he was never offered anything.

There will be producers out there that may take that into consideration when looking at him for future roles "well, the Tony committee isn't crazy about him..."

Are you kidding? Based on how well he's sold How to Succeed, he can pick any show he wants, and producers will happily mount it with him.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 11:30am

"I think when assessing these or any awards, it's best to check one's naiveté at the door."

Oh, After Eight, your crackpottery is delightful!

And I see your call on my grammar, but of course, I meant "hidden agendas," "conspiracies," and "grudges."

And honestly - do you really believe that an entire committee can (or would) hold grudges against two actors? Or are you just pretending to be one of those wacky, unbathed, loud conspiracy theorists we all try to avoid on the street?

Your fandom for Radcliffe & Tveitt is fine, but don't let it cloud your common sense. They just weren't as good as the nominees (to the people who get to make that call for the Tonys).

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:19pm

It's been said like three thousand times, but the Tonys are increasingly about creating marketing opportunities for future productions and tours than they are about celebrating what's going on this season (i.e., "SUNday, SUNday, SUNday: Come see the show that won 43 TONYS!!! on tour at the Robert E Lee Civic Aquarium and Tractor Arts Centre in Podunk, Tennessee!" or "Come check out brand-new and untested musical ABC starring Tony Award-winning (and therefore tested and familiar) performer XYZ!").

With this in mind, what purpose would nominating Mr. Radcliffe serve? He is likely not going to tour with How to Succeed, and if he did, or if he returned to Broadway in another vehicle, he wouldn't need the "Tony Award Winner" epaulette to put asses in the seats -- he's Harry Potter. Why would the nominating committee waste the nomination?

All of this assumes that I think Daniel Radcliffe is worthy of a nomination, and I do not. I do think it's amazing that this perceived snub has triggered the exact same wounded, maternalistic breast-beating that his bad How to Succeed reviews did. Some people seem to be taking it so personally. It's a little disturbing.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/4/11 at 12:23pm

"Oh, After Eight, your crackpottery is delightful! "

Thanks. Maybe you'd like my crockpottery as well.


"And honestly - do you really believe that an entire committee can (or would) hold grudges against two actors? "


It needn't be an entire committee.


"Or are you just pretending to be one of those wacky, unbathed, loud conspiracy theorists we all try to avoid on the street? "


I bathe. You'd still probably try to avoid me on the street, though.


"Your fandom for Radcliffe & Tveitt is fine, but don't let it cloud your common sense."

I wouldn't call myself a great fan of either, though I like them both.

I don't like when people in a position of power use their power to stick it to others.They stuck it but good to Radcliffe, and I feel bad that he had to experience this.