Tony Awards to Add New Category for Best Performance by an Actor/Actress Recreating a Role- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 8:12pm

True, but you see.. that will be the new lure for the big names. Stay with the show for six months and you too might win a prize!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 8:13pm

But now they have the motivation to stay there for 6 months (and the producers profit from 6 months worth of big-name-star ticket sales). I don't think that's the reason they're starting this category, but I do think it's a large part of the reason they have a 6-month minimum, as opposed to longer. Most non-stars would have at least a year-long contract, so why couldn't they make it a year?

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 08:13 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 8:52pm

Finally! Too bad it's not retroactive.

[jasonf]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:02pm

I think there should be a category for best SONG in a given year. THink of the debates that would stir up!

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:26pm

My question is how are out of town Tony voters going to have time to go revist other shows? Coundn't this techincally mean having to see eight extra shows?

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:27pm

jasonf- Sondheim and Herman would kill each other.

I don't get all the negativity. Think of it this way- all the lesser known actors who are truly talented that take over the roles will have a chance to be recognized and given a little publicity. I think it's a great idea.

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:31pm

i'm still a tad confused about this category....

[JACXR71]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:40pm

I agree, TabooPhan. Nowadays it seems that the general consensus, especially on this board, is that there is no artistic merit in recreating a role. Oftentimes when big names are brought up as suggestions for a replacement, these suggestions are met with replies such as "why would such-and-such want to waste his/her time replacing that role when (s)he could create new roles? If (s)he ever did it, it would obviously be for the money." This category could give both unknowns as well as veterans more opportunities to showcase their talent and versatility. After all, being cast in that role means the casting directors consider these people to be as good as the originals (before the rebuttals begin, I am aware that this is not always the case).

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 09:40 PM

[Unmasked05]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 9:49pm

Well what does that mean for people like Hugh Panaro...I know he will be in LESTAT by then but does that mean he would also be eligible for The Phantom?

Also could people like Sandra Joseph also be nominated?

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 10:25pm

Wow. This is huge. Very exciting!! It will be interesting to see the nominees.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:28pm

*scratches head*

WHAAAAAAAAAT?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 12:30am

I think the Weisslers are behind this award to lure star replacements, and I am only half kidding by saying that.

Absolutely, this award is being added for profit, and I think its going to make things on Broadway a lot more interesting over the next couple of seasons. All of a sudden you might get a star like Sarah Jessica Parker seriously considering replacing Christina Applegate in CHARITY, or Judi Dench replacing Cherry Jones in DOUBT. And Kelsey Grammer has an incentive to actually join SPAMALOT.

Intersting, because it is clearly the producers behind LONG RUNNING shows that will beneift from this Tony. And its only fitting considering how long even mediocre successes run these days.

Ironic in a time, when Producers are fighting over theatres because so many long running shows refuse to close.

A lot of details aren't very clear though. Is Charlotte D'Amboise eligible for CHICAGO, even though she joined the show 8 years ago? How about Harvey in FIDDLER? And what about shows that are traditionally double cast like PHANTOM and MOVIN OUT. Are the matinee casts now eligible too?

Updated On: 9/23/05 at 12:30 AM

[silent]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 2:36am

How nice of them to create this award one year after AIDA's closing.

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 9:34am

In the past, special awards have been given to the likes of Richard Burton and Mary Tyler Moore for "recreating" roles in established productions. Those instances seemed special. Looking at this in conjunction with last year's doubling of awards for the design categories, it just seems they want to give out as many medallions as possible, enhancing the marketing opportunities for those shows still running.

Questions will arise - so-and-so was contracted for 6 months and was AMAZING, but nobody came to see the show in its 3rd year and it closed in the 4th month of the contract.

I also wonder if replacements might have been found for certain irreplacable stars (say, Hugh Jackman, for example) if this award had been in place a couple of years ago.

Posted: 9/23/05 at 9:36am

As much as I said "seriously?!?!?" when I first read it, it seems like there might be one good thing out of it for audiences.

Right now, being a Broadway snob, if I don't catch a show within the first year of its run I'm likely to not see it (or, if I plan to see a show more than once, I make sure it's all within the first year of its run). Producers, Hairspray, The Nine Revival, I'm sure there are others... I tended to suggest them as "must-sees" while the original leads are there; after that I don't suggest them quite as much. So much focus on picking the perfect person to originate the part, which falls away when they just try to get someone to replace afterward (and yeah, I know sometimes they're just as good).

Some long-running shows have casts and performances that are getting stale. If the show is going to continue running long, this new away may help it not be quite as stale anymore...

And good for the 6 month minimum! I would have suggested a 9, but good that they put that much in!

[Pink]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 9:42am

Question about eligibility. So this award will have to be for the previous season which started when? And lets say for example, JLT left Wicked in May, will she be eligible for a nomination?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 9:42am

6 months is still 3 months longer then a lot of "stars" sign on for -- so it seems fair, even an incentive to me.

He may not really know better then anyone of us, the details yet, but Michael Riedel mentions in passing in his column today, that Harvey is not eligible for this new Tony, but Rosie O'Donnell is (assuming the show is extended a couple of months if she's a hit?).

Anyway, he makes it sound like the award is only for performers who join a Broadway musical during the past season -- which would mean D'Amboise, Panaro, et. all wouldn't be eligible.

[cserannie]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:01am

finally, I think this is a brilliant idea

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:16am

"I really hate the 6-month rule. I would love to see Rosie O'Donnell win a Tony. "

That's why there is a six-month rule. It isn't fair to hand out a Tony for one month's worth of performances (or in Rosie's case, 4 months). Cast members who originate roles on Broadway are usually involved with the show for a year or more. I totally agree that the actor should be required to be in the show for six months, though I would have said they must have finished the contract by nomination time.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:36am

Despite the marketing opportunities, I don't think I like this. When the idea was first proposed, I was all for it because I was like, "WOOOO! Jen can get one!" But as I thought about it more, I think that it takes away from the trying task of creating a role. Yes, great replacements deserve recognition for their work, but I don't think a Tony is warrented. Their recognition comes in the form of an expanded fan base and, if they really ARE good (like Jen ) then producers/casting directors/whoever will seek them out for the creation of a new role. Thus, in a roundabout fashion, the best replacements DO get thier Tony's.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:45am

With regards to Panaro, D'Amboise and Fierstein, the eligibilty summary didn't say they had to join that season, only that they must be currently in the role and contracted for at least six months. Maybe the official eligibility requirements state that they must join during that season, but I haven't read anything to suggest this is the case.

[gymman]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:52am

I don't see why length of contract should matter--actors have won the Tony for shows that lasted less than a week (Delores Grey, for example).

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 2:01pm

This is TERRIFIC news.

FINALLY phenominally talented people like Charlotte D'Amboise, Rachel York, Brent Barrent, Alice Ripley, Shoshana Bean, and Stephanie Block who just "don't have the star name" to open up a show before it becomes a hit are so close to finally overcoming that obstacle.

This is great!

I am a bit confused as to who will be eliglble, though.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 2:12pm

But even if the Weisslers get a big star to replace Christina in January. By the time the Tonys come it will only be 5 months, not 6.

But hopefully the Weisslers will use this as an incentive to keep the show open after Christina leaves! woo!

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 2:14pm

So if Julia Roberts does THREE DAYS OF RAIN, will she be "originating" the role or "re-creating" it?