Posted: 4/27/15 at 8:16am
People seem to be predicting "Finding Neverland" will get zero Tony nominations. That made me wonder what Broadway show had the longest run ever that received no Tony nominations. Anybody know, I tried to do search but could not find information.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:01am
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:06am
^And Spider-Man
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:11am
I do think Finding Neverland will get some form of a nomination...although I am starting to wonder if any will be in the major categories. The Addams Family at least got a Featured Actor and Score nominations but then again that was the dreadful year that MEMPHIS actually seemed like the most viable contender because it was the only true original musical in the mix.
I do think Finding Neverland will follow a similar path as Addams Family in terms of box office and will run for perhaps another year or two.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:13am
I agree that it is unlikely to be ENTIRELY shut out.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:42am
What a great question. I would think revivals really don't count since they are automatically shut out from some of the major categories (best musical, score, book)
Back in 1968 technically "Hair" ran virtually a whole year with zero Tony noms because there was some misunderstanding when it had to have previews/opening to qualify for the 1968 Tony Awards. I think I read the producers even sued the Tony Awards but were not able to get included in that year's nominations. The next year after it had been on BW for over a year it received a couple of nominations for best musical and director.
Sort of related:
Now for "minor" Tony nominations only, the infamous "Spider Man" ran officially for over 2 1/2 years after it's opening. I seem to recall it got something like costume design and set design nominations so I wonder if it's the longest running musical shut out of all the major Tony categories (musical/score/acting nominations).
I'm guessing Mama Mia is the longest running musical with zero Tony wins (of course with nominations) and that Grease is the longest running original musical with zero Tony wins.
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 10:42 AM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 10:49am
Oh! Calcutta! is the seventh longest running show in Broadway history. For one brief moment the revival was the longest running show in Broadway history. The original production ran betwen 2/17/71 tand 8/12/72 at the Belasco.
The revival ran at the Edison between 9/24/76 and closed on 8/6/89 after 5,959 performances. It remains the second longest running Broadway revival (Chicago, of course, is #1).
It had no tony nominations, either as an original production or a revival.
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 10:49 AM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:25am
Jekyll & Hyde did not receive a Best Musical nomination and ran 1550 performances (it had 4 nominations for Book, Costume, Lighting and Robert Cuccioli, who won every other NY Award). Ironically, every new musical from the 96-97 season flopped.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:42am
"Oh! Calcutta! is the seventh longest running show in Broadway history. For one brief moment the revival was the longest running show in Broadway history. The original production ran betwen 2/17/71 tand 8/12/72 at the Belasco."
Thanks for the information, that is pretty impressive run. I was trying to get idea if any show could run a long time without any critical acclaim (Tony nominations).
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 11:42 AM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:45am
IMO - Robert Cuccioli was robbed, should have won over James Naughton (Chicago)
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:47am
I agree yankee - a dynamic performance that was praised around the country (he won countless other theatre awards around the country as well).
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:48am
"Back in 1968 technically "Hair" ran virtually a whole year with zero Tony noms because there was some misunderstanding when it had to have previews/opening to qualify for the 1968 Tony Awards. I think I read the producers even sued the Tony Awards but were not able to get included in that year's nominations. The next year after it had been on BW for over a year it received a couple of nominations for best musical and director."
Thanks for your response and information about "Hair". I was trying to see if shows could run a long period without being able to advertise that it received Tony nominations. If a show is not getting Tony nominations than obviously it was probably not well received by the critics. Nice to see that some shows can actually survive without any nominations.
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 11:48 AM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:49am
"Ironically, every new musical from the 96-97 season flopped. "
That was one of the first seasons where I saw the bulk of new musicals, so I can't say if it's because I was young and extremely enthusiastic or whether they were actually good, but I really loved a lot of those shows: The Life, Steel Pier, Titanic, Play On!... If nothing else, it's the year that I had my first chance to see a number performers I now love so much like Lillias White, Brian D'Arcy James, Victoria Clark, Kristin Chenoweth, Tonya Pinkins... And speaking of that season and performers I love, isn't it beyond time Debra Monk was back in a musical???
Posted: 4/27/15 at 11:51am
Agree with Yankee & Philly re Cuccioli.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 12:20pm
"Ironically, every new musical from the 96-97 season flopped. "
Wait, wasn't RENT from that season?
Posted: 4/27/15 at 12:27pm
""Ironically, every new musical from the 96-97 season flopped. "
Wait, wasn't RENT from that season?"
I believe RENT was from the season before, 95-96.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 12:52pm
The Addams Family at least got a Featured Actor and Score nominations but then again that was the dreadful year that MEMPHIS actually seemed like the most viable contender because it was the only true original musical in the mix.
When did being original make any show more viable for a Tony? Most shows with both an original book and original score do NOT win Best Musical. Most shows have books from adapted sources and Best Musicals with jukebox/adapted scores date back to Kismet (1954). Memphis was considered more viable because it was pretty safe and commercial. I liked it, but I felt American Idiot deserved the win.
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 12:52 PM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 1:20pm
Neverland will NOT get zero nominations. Who are these "people" saying that?
Posted: 4/27/15 at 1:28pm
"The Addams Family at least got a Featured Actor and Score nominations but then again that was the dreadful year that MEMPHIS actually seemed like the most viable contender because it was the only true original musical in the mix.
When did being original make any show more viable for a Tony? Most shows with both an original book and original score do NOT win Best Musical. Most shows have books from adapted sources and Best Musicals with jukebox/adapted scores date back to Kismet (1954). Memphis was considered more viable because it was pretty safe and commercial. I liked it, but I felt American Idiot deserved the win.
I just remember a lot of people saying MEMPHIS was going to win because it was the only musical to have an original book and score. I don't necessarily agree that it deserved to win or that it was the best. My two favorite shows from that season were Everyday Rapture and to a lesser extent American Idiot.
Memphis certainly came out at the right time because I personally don't think it would've managed to win in any other year.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 2:08pm
I just remember a lot of people saying MEMPHIS was going to win because it was the only musical to have an original book and score.
I don't remember that, but it wouldn't surprise me. We have a lot of fans of revisionist history here. Looking at the roster of Best Musical winners, having both an original book and original score should have made Memphis the least likely contender. Funny thing is, those who oddly profess that any musical with original material should be given bonus points and automatic nominations, etc. often conveniently omit Memphis from the conversation (or qualify it as not being original enough). Now, if the argument was that Memphis won because it was the most conventional of the nominees, that would at least be more logical.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 2:13pm
"When did being original make any show more viable for a Tony?"
Being original makes a show more viable for a Tony because a show can't win a tony unless it's first nominated and a show is not eligible to be nominated in three major tony categories (best musical, book and score) unless it's an original show or, alternatively (i.e., to give a rule of thumb of the flexible Tony rules), a show that has not had a significant (which is to say, generally speaking, a major production of the work that was not simply prefatory to a Broadway premier) prior production history before eventually reaching Broadway.
Updated On: 4/27/15 at 02:13 PM
Posted: 4/27/15 at 3:13pm
Most of Broadway was gunning (including the cast!) for the Addams Family from the minute its try-out tanked in Chicago with the critics. Andrew Lippa's lousy score was a nomination by default (Memphis was the only other musical eligible!), and they even nominated "Ragtime"'s costumes over the Addams Family (which I was surprised by the lack of design nominations) which was ruled ineligible.
Posted: 4/27/15 at 4:30pm
AJ
Correction is called for. Many on this board were calling Memphis the biggest turd imaginable and wondered how it ever made it to Broadway. They had to eat a large order of crow when it won
