Tony Awards Committee Decides CINDERELLA is a Revival & More After Latest Meeting- Page 2

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 3/21/13 at 6:51pm

When 'Little Shop of Horrors' played on Broadway for the first time, it was considered for Best Revival of a Musical since it ran Off-Broadway for quite a while.



Updated On: 3/21/13 at 06:51 PM

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 3/21/13 at 10:05pm

Yeah, Beauty: This is why I knew that CINDERELLA will be nominated as a revical. The same thing happend to LSOH. But, the nomination of the book confuses me :|

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/21/13 at 10:26pm

The book is new, the show is old.

Any questions?

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 3/21/13 at 11:11pm

Same thing with Pal Joey, Clear Day, Flower Drum, and other revisals. The book is eligible.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:27am

Howardbf, I agree that the Tonys have made some really wrongheaded decisions, but to set the record straight, 'State Fair' didn't get a Best Score nomination because half of its songs were new. The Tonys ruled that only 4 of its 15 songs were Tony-eligible (basically, these were trunk songs). David Merrick sued to have ALL the songs eligible, but he lost. 1996 was a very skimpy year for new scores; 'State Fair' was probably only there to fill out the category. (The Tonys could've nominated the score from 'Victor/Victoria,' but chose to snub it.)

[winston89]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 3:19am

SamIAm2.

You're kidding me right. Even if a show is being revived, a performer can qualify for their respective best acting awards.


I think that this was a clear cut choice from the get go. I feel that this is a show that, although has never been on Broadway before, it is still a classic one. The fact that it has a new book should mean nothing. There have been plenty of revivals on Broadway with a new book.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 10:51am

To whoever said Rebecca has played London, it hasnt.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 11:00am

There should really be a banner across the top of the forum explaining the classics rule.

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 1:12pm

Winston89, my question wasn't whether the leads qualify for best actor Tonys. Clearly they do. It was weather the performers can take credit for ORIGINATING their roles. As it has an entirely new book with new or modified characters, one would think that they should get credit for originating their roles. And yet, I'm wondering if the fact that the show has now been ruled to be a revival would invalidate any credit for having originated their roles. Any insight, anyone?

[newintown]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 1:57pm

I'm not sure I see the value in boasting about originating roles. It's often a fuzzy claim anyway. Rob McClure originated the role of Chaplin in Chaplin in LaJolla and on Broadway, but the role had been played in earlier versions of the show already by other actors (as well as in other shows). What's the actual merit of claiming he "originated" the role, just because he played it first on Broadway?

As for the "new" roles in Cinderella - they're not particularly good (or really "new") roles, mere variations on old clichés - who really cares about who "originated" them?

Actors can always claim that they "originated" a role - Hunter Foster can say he was the original Seymour in the revival of Little Shop of Horrors, right?

I guess I don't see much point to the question being posed...

Updated On: 3/22/13 at 01:57 PM

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:11pm

Well this sort of kills the "first time on Broadway" thing they were going after doesn't it?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:27pm

I agree with Newintown. The thing about originating the roles is just semantics, anyway. It has nothing to do with a Tony ruling.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:28pm

Nope! Watch: "The current revival of Rodgers + Hammerstein's beloved musical CINDERELLA, seen around the world and three times on Television, is now being produced for the first time on the Great White Way with an expanded score and revised book to make it a full-length Broadway musical!"

How people are surprised by (or disagree with) this baffles me.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:36pm

Well, it was "produced" just down the street at the MSG Theatre a few years back with the same basic story and score.

It's been seen. It's been done. And done. And done. Every time, there may be some differences, but the essence remains the same.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 2:52pm

The condescension and snobbery on this thread is a bit much. You know, it is possible to KNOW the classics rules and still have reservations about deeming this a "revival".

I have no dog in this fight but to act like there aren't valid points to be made on both sides is silly.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 3:12pm

Oh, I don't think anyone is saying anyone else's opinion isn't valid. At least, that's not what I'm reading. Then again, I agree with the ruling that this isn't a new show.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 3:15pm

Newintown, I get what you're saying, just some of the snark seems unnecessary to me. Then again, it is BroadwayWorld.

I think I'd fall more on the side of it being a revival, all things considered. On a Clear Day You Can See Forever is a great comparison to make actually since it also inserted new songs and completely reworked the book and was deemed a revival. And Little Shop. The logic being, I assume, that these shows that have had ample time to work the material and try it out on a large-scale over the years and thus have a bit of a "leg-up" on new shows if they were considered for "Best Musical".

[SamIAm2]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 5:38pm

Yeah, you've got to expect some people's insecurities to pop out all over the place when you post on this board. I do appreciate those willing to engage in mature, respectful discussion. From you I learn a lot.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 6:01pm

I think the committee made the right decision. For all we know, the producers could have been petitioning for the production to be a revival all this time.

I've posted this in another thread, but it seems the R&H estate always knew it was a "classic." They claim the first stage production was in 1958. R&H currently licenses three different stage versions of Cinderella and also post this on their website:

Stage productions of CINDERELLA continue to thrive as well, including an acclaimed version presented by the New York City Opera in 1993, 1995, and 2003. In the Fall of 2000 Rodgers & Hammerstein's CINDERELLA stepped down from the screen and onto the stage once again in an enchanting revival on U.S. National Tour, starring Eartha Kitt as The Fairy Godmother.

CINDERELLA remains one of the most popularly performed musicals: more than 250 productions of Rodgers & Hammerstein's CINDERELLA are presented in the United States every year.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 9:29pm

We all understand the classics rule, right?

Now consider the fact that every production of Anything Goes, or even Cabaret, tends to have a completely different book, with a different set of songs. And yet they were still revivals.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 11:10am

"We all understand the classics rule, right?"

This is the kind of attitude I'm referring to. Cabaret and Anything Goes have both been on Broadway before when they were revived. This had not been. So those aren't great examples.

It makes more sense for it to be in revival but the condescension here is really gross.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:44pm

I think the classics rule, which most of us have been aware of for quite some time, is perfectly clear. I believe there is plenty of precedents set to make the case. I also believe that the examples of Cabaret and Anything Goes count as examples. As well as Little Shop. True, Cabaret and Anything Goes have been on Broadway before and Cinderella has not, but Cinderella has had a few major New York productions over the years as well major National tours. This musical has, in some essence for over 5 decades now. The new book here is really no different than the new books for Cabaret, Anything Goes, or Pal Joey.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:56pm

"I think the classics rule, which most of us have been aware of for quite some time, is perfectly clear."

People who were aware of the rule can still find room to debate this ruling. Have I, at any point, said I disagree with the decision? No. I just find it rude to cut off all discussion about an interesting topic because a few know-it-alls want to show off their knowledge of "obscure" minutiae on a message board.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 1:49pm

Then why engage those few?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 2:24pm

Same thing with Pal Joey, Clear Day, Flower Drum, and other revisals. The book is eligible.

And same thing as with those: The new book stinks.