Tony Award for Replacements (potential solution)

binau said: "Could a simple solution be that the Tony nominating committee at their complete discretion allocate up to 1 nomination in each acting category for a replacement performance with no requirement that they see every replacement or anything like that? (and no requirement to actually nominate a replacement actor)."

No, that doesn't sound simple at all. And it would basically come down to productions campaigning nominators to see their replacement actors, when the nominators are busy and already have a hard enough time seeing all the NEW shows.

The larger issue is that replacement/understudy performances should never be judged in the same way as a principal who originated the role in the production. Replacements are stepping into a track that has already been mapped out by someone else, and while some replacements have been allowed to deviate from what the original actor did, that's not always the case. And it starts to be an award for the role, not the actor.

I don't think there's any way to award replacements, understudies, music directors, or stage managers.

You then get into issues of equitability surrounding which people are petitioned or not. The examples you are talking about are not people who NEED Tony Awards to further their careers. And then it would become a giant part of contractual negotiations when someone (of any role size) goes into a production, and a colossal headache when shows like DEH have a revolving door of cast changes. And then the 800 voters have to see them all, not just the nominators. Would probably need to limit it to the "First Replacement" of a specific character (for which Lea would not qualify), with perhaps a cap of how many actors a production could petition.

Regardless, I don't anticipate this conversation will ever get anywhere with the League/Wing after the fiasco of trying to set that up in 2006 with Jonathan Pryce & Harvey Fierstein.

I agree it's a nice idea, but 1) What happens when they decide to nominate no one? (to answer, see 2006 and Jonathan Pryce's reaction). And more importantly 2) This would require voters to not only see additional shows (which seeing 40+ a year is already challenging for a lot of them), but would also require those productions to offer free tickets. And most of the time there's a big-name replacement, it's because the show needs that big name to keep their sales going, so can those shows really afford to give away 1500 seats?

What, precisely, was the issue with the 2006 situation? Was it literally just that Jonathan Pryce got his feelings hurt? Every year there are dozens of actors who are deemed unworthy of a Tony nomination/win. Is it an insult to every single one of them?

The point of an award is to honor excellence where where it's seen, not to be a participation trophy. Honestly, I WISH we had more awards bodies who weren't afraid to abstain from bestowing awards where they don't feel it's deserved. It's partly this fear that's causing the Tony Awards' significance to become diluted. Nothing enhances the prestige of an award than by sending the message that it's not a done deal; that it has to be genuinely earned.

It seems like a question of setting proper expectations: if everyone is on the same page that the award is only given out when the committee REALLY wants to, and that's a special thing, then theoretically no one will be insulted when it doesn't happen. They'd just be glad when it DOES happen. I'm sure there will be some sourpusses still, but too bad for them. They can get over themselves.

So, having said all that: were there any LOGISTICAL issues with the way they had it in 2006? It seemed like the right idea to set up a separate, smaller committee for it (at least that's how I interpreted the thing I read?). Granted, the smaller the group, the less meaningful it really is. So that's something to consider, but it's not a dealbreaker.

If there's a separate committee of 30-50 or even 100 voters for replacements, it wouldn't be so hard to get them to all the shows. And they can impose a limited on the productions that they have to choose one set of replacements per season to invite the voters to see, or something like that. Since they aren't going to the new shows, then they'd only have to see maybe 15 shows a year, which is more manageable.

It's true that these productions/actors don't really NEED these awards, but like, theoretically that shouldn't be the point of an award. I recognize that it often is, in practical terms, but plenty of people/shows win awards despite not "needing" it, because it's not "underdog of the season" it's "BEST [xyz]" of the season. The point of the Tonys, in theory, is to honor the best artistry on Broadway, and replacements are artists on Broadway.

E.S.S., thank you for posting that. Totally forgot about all of that.

I, personally, am not for the award. Leave it to be awarded to the actor who originated the role in the production.

Or we can stop trying to make "fetch" happen.