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

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

---

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?

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?

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

---

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.