Should the 3 Billys Have Won the Tony Award?- Page 3

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 1:56am

So, there's really no argument that the Billy boys worked hard, are sublimely talented, seem like nice fellas, etc. But ... should they have won a competitive Tony award? I still think NO.

I think that the Lead Actor/ Musical category was somewhat underwhelming this year - with no solid frontrunner - and I think that contributed to the voters decision to ultimately reward the Billys - there was no serious competition.

In another season, would they have won against Lane in The Producers or Stokes in Kiss Me Kate or Fierstein in Hairspray? Unlikely.

I do feel that the boys should have been given a special award (what they are doing as 14 year old boys is special), and I admit that I was touched by their reactions/speeches at the awards, but if I had been a voter I simply could not have justified choosing them over the other nominees.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 4:41pm

"If a voter saw a bad Billy, they wouldn't have voted for the boys."

You summed it up perfectly. I think I made this point in a thread a few weeks ago, that all the Billy's, quality-wise, give the same type of performance. So it really didn't matter which one you saw because it wouldn't be less than seeing it with a different boy. As I said above, if either of those three boys were the only Billy, he still would have won the Tony.

"I think that the Lead Actor/ Musical category was somewhat underwhelming this year - with no solid frontrunner - and I think that contributed to the voters decision to ultimately reward the Billys - there was no serious competition."

I'll agree here. Billy is a great Leading role though, and from what I here the lead male role in Next to Normal is great as well. The others shouldn't have even been considered.

"In another season, would they have won against Lane in The Producers or Stokes in Kiss Me Kate or Fierstein in Hairspray? Unlikely."

This is where I disagree. They may not have been able to win against Lane due to the hype surrounding The Producers, but I think they could have possibly beaten Fierstein or Stokes.

[minicko88]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 4:51pm

Kiril, Trent, and David are astonishing... They really are! I have only seen Kiril, but looking at the others stuff online they make it look effortless... With that being said... No they did not deserve the tony. They are not leading actors, they are leading dancers! Brian D'arcy James should have easily won this category with J. Robert Spencer coming in 2nd. I honestly think James Barbour deserved the nod over both the Billy's and Contantine... BUT MAYBE THATS JUST ME? If he would have been nominated then he would have been the clear favorite... Im sorry if you didn't like Shrek or Tale of Two Cities, but these two guys really exceeded my expectations.
Updated On: 6/11/09 at 04:51 PM

[sking]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 7:13pm

Yes!

[Sauja]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 7:26pm

No. Am I fine with them having been nominated together? Yep. Do I think they deserved it? Nope. I don't want to name the one I saw because it seems cruel as they're so young, but I can say I was underwhelmed. His dancing was effortless, but his acting was labored and his singing lackluster. I spent much of the show wishing I had seen a different Billy. Maybe an off night. Maybe I would have loved the other two. But based on what I saw? I would have voted for three of the other nominees over them. The real stunner to me, though, was Gregory Jbara's win. What the huh? He's a trouper, and I've loved him in other things, but there were much, much better performances in that category.

Most deserved Tonys this year? Alice Ripley and Roger Robinson. If only the Tony looked like an Oscar, so Bynum could have found his shiny man (I'm corny--yes).

[Bwayfan39]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 8:14pm

Absolutely NO! First off, when I saw the show with Trent, I was not impressed, it seemed as though the boys were worked up to be the most amazing thing ever on Broadway. When I watched the show, I was bored almost the whole time Trent was on the stage. Although he is a great dancer, the acting and singing portions were week and because of that the story-telling aspect of the show was lost. I have also heard similar things about the other two boys. I belive that if the award was title BEST DANCER, they would deserve it, but it is BEST ACTOR and the other nominees were much better actors (and singers).

[Bwayfan39]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 8:14pm

Absolutely NO! First off, when I saw the show with Trent, I was not impressed, it seemed as though the boys were worked up to be the most amazing thing ever on Broadway. When I watched the show, I was bored almost the whole time Trent was on the stage. Although he is a great dancer, the acting and singing portions were week and because of that the story-telling aspect of the show was lost. I have also heard similar things about the other two boys. I belive that if the award was title BEST DANCER, they would deserve it, but it is BEST ACTOR and the other nominees were much better actors (and singers).

[Albin]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 8:16pm

Just curious...how was it determined who would perform during the BE section of the Tonys?

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 8:26pm

The Tony's policy that voters needed to see only one of them go on made the decision jaded, as then the decision was based on assumption. Yes, collectively they may have all deserved it for their shared work on the role (which is why they were given the same slot, of course), but not when the voters didn't see all three's contributions with their own eyes.

This goes on into a longer spiel on how much I despise Tony politics and voter-practices, but that's for another thread.

[Brick]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 9:53pm

Has there been another performance by a male actor this season that has captured the public's imagination? The 3 Billy's are all everywhere is talking about.

They received for taking their seats after the opening number at the Tony's.

Simply, yes.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 6/12/09 at 3:32am

Being skeptical for a long time, after watching the excerpt performance at the Tonys (ok, do I ended up watching them, for reasons my own ={...even though I said I would boycut them), I understand the intricateness of their performance (of course, mostly the dance aspects, but the facial motivation was also showing).

So...yes

[TBD2]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 8:15am

Perhaps the thread title should be "Should Alice Ripley Have Won the Tony Award" or "Should Karen Olivo Have Won the Tony Award".

The facts are that (just like those mentioned above) these three met the criteria as determined by the nominating committee and voters. The results were not unanimous (are they ever?) but they are final. According to the people who count the answer to all three is YES. End of story, move on, quit complaining about it...

[wickedfan11]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 8:48am

I think that they shouldn't have, although I have not seen the show. They are talented, but it's not very hard to perform 2 shows a week. The other nominees were working four times as hard as each of the Billys and were just as good.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 8:59am

Yes...the Tony voters had their say. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it and have our say. After all, TBD2, this is a discussion board.

No one is bashing the boys, in fact all are saying the boys are amazing dancers. We are allowed our opinions.

Why is it, when we have an ACTUAL discussion where folks ACTUALLY are respectful and give reasons for their thoughts...someone wants to shut the whole thing down. Arg.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 9:23am

Here here MAMA!
Well said!

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 12:08pm

I agree with dramamama611. I started this thread and although a handful of potshots were posted, most everyone has offered repsectful opinions to the discussion. As a matter of fact, I think this discussion has shown appreciation for the 3 Bs as well as their co-nominees and, for the most part, has been thoughtful and informative. That's what these threads are for.
Updated On: 6/13/09 at 12:08 PM

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:25pm

Yes. Moving on..

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:30pm

"I think that they shouldn't have, although I have not seen the show. They are talented, but it's not very hard to perform 2 shows a week."

You didn't need to say that you hadn't seen the show. Based on the comment you made it's OBVIOUS that you haven't seen the show.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:33pm

Oh, please, TaylorPHENOM2...

EDIT: Sorry about the mix up with posts, Tom.

Updated On: 6/13/09 at 02:33 PM

[Hiram]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:48pm

Yes.

[CyCoSpAz2]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:51pm

James Barbour!

"The other nominees were working four times as hard as each of the Billys and were just as good."

How do you know the others were 'just as good' when you didn't see Billy? Updated On: 6/13/09 at 02:51 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/13/09 at 2:51pm

They are talented, but it's not very hard to perform 2 shows a week."

Then YOU do it.

[Salene]

Posted: 6/14/09 at 6:46am

They are talented, but it's not very hard to perform 2 shows a week.

Tell that to Stephen Daldry, who feels that "performing the role of Billy is like playing Hamlet whilst running an Olympic marathon."

Do you do those things twice a week?

[TBD2]

Posted: 6/14/09 at 9:04am

"Why is it, when we have an ACTUAL discussion where folks ACTUALLY are respectful..."

My point is that by definition, having this discussion AFTER the awards is NOT respectful and that's why you don't see the same topic about other award winners!

End the charade.

[Kaykohl]

Posted: 6/14/09 at 9:31am

Because the other shows don't have the issue of two shows per week being as taxing as eight shows per week.

All of the nominees have physically taxing roles.

Updated On: 6/14/09 at 09:31 AM