Riedel on Tony Nominations

[10086sunset]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:14pm

http://nypost.com/2016/05/03/hamilton-breaks-tony-award-nominations-record/

Claims Tuck could close this week.

 

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:33pm

That's not just a claim, it's an actual possibility.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:43pm

I feel like both "Tuck" and "Psycho" will try to hang on a little longer, having just opened in the past 2 weeks. But I fully expect both of them to be gone within a month. 

[Valentina3]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:50pm

His description - 

"The nominees for Best Actor in a Play are Frank Langella as a dementia sufferer in “The Father”; Jeff Daniels as a sexual predator in “Blackbird”; Gabriel Byrne as the tyrannical father in “Long Day’s Journey”; Mark Strong as the lustful uncle in “A View From the Bridge”; and Tim Pigott-Smith as Prince Charles in “King Charles III.”"

It's as if being the Prince is an insult somehow.

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:54pm

"Arthur Miller, dead since 2005, received two revival nominations for his American classics “The Crucible” and “A View From the Bridge.”"

 

I positively snorted when I read that. Gotta love Riedel.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 4:56pm

Broadway61004 said: "I feel like both "Tuck" and "Psycho" will try to hang on a little longer, having just opened in the past 2 weeks. But I fully expect both of them to be gone within a month. "

 

Psycho has been doing much better than Tuck has, it's not really a comparable situation.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 7:43pm

Broadway61004 said: "I feel like both "Tuck" and "Psycho" will try to hang on a little longer, having just opened in the past 2 weeks. But I fully expect both of them to be gone within a month. "

Psycho is not doing that badly, and it has a shot (I'd call it 50/50) at building a following. Tuck has bupkis. If I had to guess, I'd say Tuck will waste money for a month or so and then close, and that Psycho will last longer than Bright Star, Tonys notwithstanding. 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 9:11pm

Psycho's been filling the house decently, but they're still below 60% of their gross potential.  Tuck is obviously struggling more, but I really don't see how either one lasts that much longer, unless their producers are willing to lose money for a while.  I hope I'm wrong, though, because I enjoyed both shows.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/3/16 at 9:38pm

again, ignore the gross potential, focus on how much they are losing each week. For Psycho, a 5 digit number, for Tuck well into 6 figures. If they built the reserve properly, Psycho can weather the storm and focus on building an audience. Tuck doesn't really have a path to viability. 

[Caitiecait92]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 12:34am

I think all of those shows need to do some serious advertising. I was debating between seeing Tuck or American Psycho over the weekend. I was able to get tickets to TUCK. A LOT of people I spoke to has no idea TUCK was on broadway! It was a favorite book for quite a few people. American Psycho same thing. Nobody new it was a musical.

 

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 12:45am

Caitiecait92 said: "I think all of those shows need to do some serious advertising. I was debating between seeing Tuck or American Psycho over the weekend. I was able to get tickets to TUCK. A LOT of people I spoke to has no idea TUCK was on broadway! It was a favorite book for quite a few people. American Psycho same thing. Nobody new it was a musical."

Agreed. They were probably waiting to see what nominations today would bring but without much free Tony press, they'll need to pay for for it. 

I was across the street from the Schoenfeld tonight and there's just no life to the theatre. The signs are minimal and it barely looks like there is a show there. 

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 1:59am

Really? I was there like a few days ago to a packed house and a very responsive crowd. I'm by no means a cheerleader for the show, but, as others have said, I think it's something new and different, and if we can look past Shuffle Along's meandering story, etc, then why not applaud this show for being something different and new? It, by all means, has its qualms, but it's anchored by an exceptional performance in Walker, and some lovely design and direction. The fact that that show basically opens with a spoken word song is kind of brilliant and weird. 

I think the nominating committee is just very old school. They didn't nominate Bridges, which, c'mon, is a gorgeous show, because of its subject matter. They didn't nominate this show because of its subject matter. We need to get some new blood on the committee or the art form can never move forward. 

[jbird5]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 4:04am

It's weird the show doesn't resonate with middle-aged white guys. PB would be in his mid-fifties if he were real. 

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 6:09am

RentBoy86 said: "I think the nominating committee is just very old school. They didn't nominate Bridges, which, c'mon, is a gorgeous show, because of its subject matter. They didn't nominate this show because of its subject matter. We need to get some new blood on the committee or the art form can never move forward."

What are you talking about? This is the same institution that nominated THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, CAROLINE OR CHANGE, FUN HOME, SHUFFLE ALONG, THE VISIT, PASSING STRANGE, SPRING AWAKENING and many other shows that are not traditional musicals or commercial or "old school." The art form HAS moved forward--just look at HAMILTON, which is one of the most brilliant musicals ever written and it could only have been written in the 2000s. Look at FUN HOME--a show that deconstructs history, identity, family, and the musical theatre form itself in a way that shows that the future of the art form is alive and well. FUN HOME actually won the Tony for Best Musical and HAMILTON has already won a Pulitzer and is the likely winner this year. History is happening right in front of you while you sit down making a baseless argument about the nominating committee being old and white (the nominating committee changes constantly, by the way, and is composed of quite a diverse group of folks from different segments of the industry) simply because a show you liked--which many people didn't--didn't get nominated. The idea that BRIDGES didn't get in because of its subject matter makes no sense to me, what about the subject matter would have turned off voters?

 

[newintown]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 8:11am

"I think the nominating committee is just very old school. They didn't nominate Bridges, which, c'mon, is a gorgeous show, because of its subject matter. They didn't nominate this show because of its subject matter."

Actually (and I've heard this directly from nominating committee members), those shows weren't nominated because the majority of the committee thought they just weren't good enough to merit an award.

The simplest explanation is generally the true one.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 8:33am

I am a bit baffled by the statement that Bridges' subject matter put off the nominators (after all, the Best Musical that year is a lighthearted romp about a serial murderer). They nominated the show's undeniably greatest assets- its music and its leading lady. The show itself is a mixed bag, overlong and not focused enough on the central story. 

Updated On: 5/4/16 at 08:33 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 9:28am

"Psycho's been filling the house decently, but they're still below 60% of their gross potential. "

 

I love when people show up and act like they know what they're talking about!

[JM226]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 9:44am

^ i would be careful with what you say to others. you have clearly shown a bias in favor of AMERICAN PSYCHO so I'm not sure you could objectively analyze their box office numbers either. it seems you're only capable of interpreting them, which is much different and much more subjective. 

Updated On: 5/4/16 at 09:44 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 9:53am

And you for some reason seem to find every comment I make and attempt to dispute it. Why are you so obsessed with me?

For the record, I'm more capable of analyzing box office than most of the people on this board. Hogan's post agrees with what I said previously.

[JM226]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 10:46am

i said AMERICAN PSYCHO, not "box office" in general. an analyst must be fair, balanced, neutral and objective.  you clearly show you cannot do that as an AMERICAN PSYCHO fanatic  

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 10:52am

As opposed to other "fanatics" ? The poster likes the show .Give them a break.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 11:02am

I'm not an American Psycho fanatic, but I like the show. And I'm blocking you, because I don't have conversations with insane people.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 11:14am

JM226 said: "i said AMERICAN PSYCHO, not "box office" in general. an analyst must be fair, balanced, neutral and objective.  you clearly show you cannot do that as an AMERICAN PSYCHO fanatic  "

The missing link in your kvetch is that you have not expended the slightest bit of energy marshalling any evidence that the post is not "fair, balanced, neutral and objective."  It is possible to have an opinion and still be objective-I do it all the time. In your world, it seems the definition of "objective" is agreeing with you subjectively. 

[JM226]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 11:47am

neonlightsxo said: "I'm not an American Psycho fanatic, but I like the show. And I'm blocking you, because I don't have conversations with insane people.

 

"

 

thank you for proving my point. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/4/16 at 12:04pm

To Neo

 

I cannot believe you thought I was calling you a fanatic or that AP was the show I was referring to.The show I was talking about should be quite obvious. Of course, you than have a knee jerk reaction by calling me insane and saying you are blocking me.  Never assume - you know the rest

By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed AP

Updated On: 5/4/16 at 12:04 PM