The TONYS will open with a montage!- Page 2

[Weez]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 4:21am

While it costs money to perform on the Tonys... honestly now, how much would it cost [title of show]?

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 6:19am

And what could they possibly get for their money? Absolutely nothing. The show is dead. Accept it and move on.

As for "The only reason 9 TO 5 was snubbed out of a Best Musical nomination was to protect BILLY ELLIOT." - you really must be smoking something illegal. Billy Elliot is an exceptional show in every way and doesn't need a snubbing to 'protect' it.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 7:28am

Well, having Dolly sing with the cast will lead the general public to believe that she is in fact, in the show. Smart move on the Producers part. Smarmy, but smart.
This was my first thought, as well. I would be willing to guess that even right now, this is probably happening to some degree amongst tourists.

The only reason 9 TO 5 was snubbed out of a Best Musical nomination was to protect BILLY ELLIOT.

The same way LEGALLY BLONDE was snubbed a few years ago to protect SPRING AWAKENING...

They didn't want the easily tourable bubble gum musical to swipe Best Musical out from the more deserving, artsy show.
You've really got to be kidding me. What an absurd statement. Instead of nominating Legally Blonde in 2007, they nominated Mary Poppins, hardly the bastion of "high art." Nothing was going to beat Spring Awakening in 2008, which is a much more "artsy" show than Billy Elliot. This year's artsy show, along the lines of Grey Gardens or The Light in Piazza, is probably not going to win the big prize.

Are you still bitter about [title of show] not being nominated, after you swore it was going to happen because Joanna Gleason was a nominator, Foster?
Updated On: 5/17/09 at 07:28 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 7:36am

I love me a good conspiracy theory!!!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 9:40am

God, I remember when I used to make statements like this. Here's one of my gems:

"They didn't nominate Chitty Chitty Bang Bang because they didn't want to spend the money to rig up the car at Radio City Music Hall."

Whatever Wanna Be was smokin', I was probably smokin' the same thing. Ha!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 9:58am

Before all of you go around telling Foster that he's smoking something, take a step back to consider that he might be (and in this case most likely is) right. If you remember Legally Blonde was nominated in every creative category EXCEPT Best Musical. Mary Poppins was not. Additionally, Legally Blonde received many many more positive reviews than Mary Poppins, which in general was not received well by the critics. In terms of touring potential, Mary Poppins has that massive set making it a challenge to move from theatre to theatre. Legally Blonde has a very successful tour right now. At the time, it was a fairly accepted idea by New York critics that if Legally Blonde were nominated for Best Musical that it easily could have won over Spring Awakening because of the out of town vote.

That being said, I don't know if I agree that this is what happened with 9 to 5 this year. I LOVED 9 to 5, but it received pretty tepid to cold reviews. The show isn't nearly as bad as the reviews say it is. Rock of Ages got mostly positive reviews (gag me), so I understand that some of the nominating committee may have liked it for it's tongue-in-cheek value with a slice of nostalgia on the side. Shrek, however, received about the same reviews as 9 to 5 did. The difference? Shrek was created by a team with lots of Broadway experience (and a Pulitzer winner). 9 to 5 was created by a "celebrity". I don't believe for a second that 9 to 5 was snubbed fairly. I do believe it was a very political move. BUT, by no means do I think it was in order to protect Billy Elliot. Especially since I really think Next to Normal is catching up with the voters.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 10:01am

And what could they possibly get for their money? Absolutely nothing. The show is dead. Accept it and move on.

[title of show] may have closed on Broadway, but it's hardly dead. The show just had its regional premiere, with more productions on the way. I think it would make a lot of sense to perform on the Tonys (perhaps through income they got from royalties). They are still advertising the show, just not the Broadway production.

Also, it's an opening MONTAGE. With no other non-nominated musicals currently running, what is 9 TO 5 montage-ing with?

I'm not saying that [tos] is definitely performing. I'm just pointing out that it's a lot more likely than some people are saying.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 10:10am

I don't see how [tos] performing as part of the montage would incur any extra costs. Their costumes are their streets, for God's sake.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 11:18am

It's my understanding that show producers pay to actually perform. I don't want to say it with absolute certainty, but that's how I've always understood it to work, especially since those performances are, more or less, huge advertisements.

Updated On: 5/17/09 at 11:18 AM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 11:29am

Em, I believe you are right. But I think in this case producers would be willing to pay, as I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that they get royalties for regional productions, too.

And it's the same producers behind IN THE HEIGHTS and WEST SIDE STORY, so I'm pretty sure they can afford it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 11:32am

Oh, yeah, I'm not suggesting they wouldn't be willing to, because you're right, it could have an impact on the show's future even if it isn't still on Broadway.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 11:50am

Not saying it will happen, but The Story of My Life certainly has incentive to perform. They spent the money to produce a cast recording that probably won't recoup in its own sales but will lead to increased regional productions. Performing at the Tonys, which would only require paying 2 (available) performers and a minimal set, would be a similar investment. And who doesn't believe one minute of "Butterfly" wouldn't be a great advertisement for the show to regional producers and amateur performers?
Updated On: 5/17/09 at 11:50 AM

[WestVillage]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 12:07pm

"The only reason 9 TO 5 was snubbed out of a Best Musical nomination was to protect BILLY ELLIOT."

WBAF ... you're really coming up with some doozies lately. First, the British have no taste because they didn't flock to Spring Awakening, and now this. Even if 9 to 5 had been nominated, it wouldn't stand a chance against BE anyway.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 12:34pm

Not saying it will happen, but The Story of My Life certainly has incentive to perform.

Yes, but not only was STORY OF MY LIFE not nominated for anything (unlike [tos] and 9 TO 5), but I seem to remember it wasn't even eligible.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 12:35pm

It was eligible.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 12:41pm

Was it? Somebody on this board said that it wasn't.

That makes it even sadder that it didn't get a nomination.

[Ole Chum]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 1:08pm

i would also like to know how this is going to be a "montage" if its just 9 to 5 performing by themselves?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 2:29pm

Story of My Life was NOT eligible for the Tonys, Piragua. It was eligible for Drama Desks and other awards, but not the Tonys.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 2:34pm

It's a shame that it wasn't eligible. I really liked that show to the point that I was almost bitter at N2N for moving into the Booth. Of course, that all changed when I actually SAW N2N..

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 2:34pm

Yep, STORY OF MY LIFE was definitely not eligible for any nominations.

And if anyone needs a laugh, read this thread.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=989088&boardid=1

Hilarious in SO many ways.
Updated On: 5/17/09 at 02:34 PM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 5:21pm

I'm glad 9 to 5 gets to perform...I think it was snubbed for Best Musical. With that said, I think the fact that Hilty and Block weren't nominated was partly because they were all in Leading...

Anyway, I also hope [tos] is in there somewhere. I bet there will be something they do, though, since they always seem to have something up their sleeve.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 5:40pm

I have to say I am happy that I correctly predicted that the show would open with 9 to 5.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 5:54pm

Wow! Thanks for all of you attacking me.

LEGALLY BLONDE was nominated for seven Tony Awards, including Book and Score, but excluding Best Musical.

That seems like a pretty intentional snub to me.

To say that the show had one of the best scripts and the best music, but was NOT among the best productions is certainly making a statement.

The touring house voters would have eaten up LEGALLY BLONDE as a Best Musical contender, over SPRING AWAKENING, just as they would have selected 9 TO 5 over BILLY ELLIOT in a heartbeat, for its money making potential on the road.

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 5:56pm

Not quite sure why everyone attacked WannaBe. His points are valid, and are supported.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 6:31pm

valid? his points are valid? The nominating committee conspired to keep Legally Blonde out of the top prize so that it wouldn't steal the award for the "smaller more artsy musical"?

First, for that to be valid you'd have to say that Spring Awakening was a "artsy" show. I maintain it was a steaming pile of elephant feces. the music was nice and the lyrics were sounded pretty if you weren't paying attention to their meaning (which was non-existant), and the direction was a scattershot amalgamation of whatever is considered "cool" and "edgy" in modern american musical theatre.

Second, you would have to believe that the nominating committee CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD THE CREATORS OF LEGALLY BLONDE.


the whole premise is ridiculous.

Then, this year, you would ahve to believe that Billy Elliott is the "small" and "artsy" show. Which it isn't. It is a big budget schmaltz fest.

Foster is deluded, as usual.