The Kristin/Kelli/Chita competition... — Page 13

The Outer Critics Circle awards are voted on by critics that review non-NYC productions. Many if not all of them don't even see the nominated shows. The award is basically a buzz-meter. No surprise Kristin won it since they were voted on and given before both The King and I and The Visit even opened (and I believe The Visit had just started previews).

Why these awards are or ever were considered a viable precursor is beyond me.

The screen shots speak for themselves. Honestly if Kelli wins she'll probably get a standing ovation like Audra last year.

Somebody in the Goldderby message boards articulated it better than I ever could:

"Precursors matter for the Oscars (and to a lesser extent the Emmys) because many of the voters who vote for BAFTA and guild awards also vote for the Oscars and Emmys.

The Tony voters have absolutely zero overlap with the Drama Desk voters. There is also zero overlap with the Outer Critics Circle

The only logical way that a precursor can mean anything is if there is voter overlap. It's unrealistic and laughable to think that Tony voters will look at a list of Drama Desk winners and make their decisions based on that. In the end, they're going to vote based on what they liked the best.

Yes, many OCC+Drama Desk winners go on to win the Tony, but this is more of a sign of an industry consensus (i.e. winners that won the award the day their shows opened - Audra McDonald, Patti Lupone) and we know that is not the case this year. Additionally, there are many OCC+Drama Desk winners that DON'T go on to win (Jefferson Mays last year, Donna Murphy twice, Laura Benanti, Antonio Banderas).

Last year, Anika Larsen and Lauren Worsham tied for Best Featured Actress in a Musical. Both lost at the Tony Awards to Lena Hall, who wasn't even nominated by the Drama Desks."

Those are all great points. I just wonder if it's totally meritless to the point where it's not worth it to at least look at what other orgs have chosen just to get an idea of what people are thinking. If the 90% Tony success rate after winning the OCC and Drama Desk is true, then it could be somewhat useful since that's a high rate. Though like you said, you have to look at other factors like whether most of those winners were from years where they were a sure thing, etc.

Updated On: 6/2/15 at 07:34 PM

And now someone needs to post all the examples across all 4 acting categories where it did happen, and then we can count.

Nobody said "Once the other 2 are won it's a sealed deal". But it becomes more likely. Because it does show some sort of consensus among the community, even if the voters pool doesn't necessarily overlap.

I would explode with happiness if they canceled each other out and Chita Rivera won for actually giving the best performance of the year.

I mean, watch Cheno go here! She makes it look like a walk in the park

https://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.php?colid=1023563#.VW7kmetUB6k

"a lot of tony voters I've talked to said they voted for Kristin."

Because all of us believe you have Tony voter connections. Don't you have a play date you need to get to with the other kids on your street?

Just a couple of points about the race in general:

1) The award is for the best performance of an actress in a musical this year. So, to me, if you believe KC's performance is similar to how she has performed in the past, or if you believe KO's performance is vastly different than what she has taken on previously, it matters not - because all that matters is what they've done this year. Voters should, in my opinion, try to stay in the tunnel of the year the awards are happening. I would think getting a "pity tony" would be KO's worst nightmare.

2) Roundabout has been running a much stronger tony campaign. I've been surprised at how tame Lincoln Center has been in promoting KO when compared to Roundabout. Campaign performance, while not a deciding factor, certainly matters.

3) Hosting the Tonys does naturally give you bonus points. Not because voters want to see the host win, but because it gives more press to the candidate. More positive press never hurt anyone in a Tony race.

4) It's important to remember that the entire performance should be considered. It's not the Best singing award, or the best acting award - it's the "Best Performance by an Actress in a Musical." While KO's performance is more nuanced than KC's, that doesn't automatically mean it was a better overall performance. I would hope that the objective voter would consider the entire work of the nominee when casting their vote.

Just a couple of thoughts after catching up on this thread... #notthatmytwocentsmattermuch

Philly: How many voters voted for Kelli?

That Kelli O'Hara prediction came with a pretty subdued write-up. Words like "due" and "respectable" seem to be the running narrative for a lot of the predictors.

Updated On: 6/4/15 at 08:23 PM

"I wouldn't consider in any way , shape or form a Kelli win as some sort of "Tony pity award". She would be a contender this or any year for her take on Ana."

THIS.