Do you think the 2009-2010 season was lackluster due to the financial crisis?
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
I agree with the years already mentioned but I also think that the 2001 year was pretty weak with the exception of The Producers, one of the reasons it took all the awards. The only show other than that worth seeing that year was The Full Monty.
The only review of a show that matters is your own.
Whatever year contact won in. That must've been a lackluster year.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I didn't care for the 2004-2005 season. I HATED Spamalot, disliked Spelling Bee, but I did enjoy Pizza and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I also loved Doubt. It just wasn't the most exciting season.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
The 2004-05 season is probably the strongest recent crop of best musical nominees.
The 2009-10 season was pretty meh, especially the lack of original scores. I really loved American Idiot and Everyday Rapture that year, but nothing else was particularly exciting (and I saw every new musical that year except Million Dollar Quartet).
I enjoyed the mother and daughter characters Philadelphia and Cheddar. And Matthew Morrison was such a sexy Mozzarella. The side characters of Pepperoni and Basil rounded up the perfect synergy of flavours, I mean, cast.
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
Yeah, I don't think 04-05 was a weak season whatsoever. All four best musical nominees were deserving and solid shows.
2000, the year that Contact won was fairly dreadful. As was 2003, where Hairspray swept everything because the competition was so weak. 2010 like previously said was fairly bad, as was 2012 (Any year where Leap of Faith gets a best musical nod is not a good year)
There have also been a few years with two big powerhouse shows and not much else, 2001 (The Producers vs The Full Monty), 2008 (In The Heights vs Passing Strange), 2013 (Kinky Boots vs Matilda)
Ken Mandelbaum on the '84-'85 season: "Things get bad enough musically to require the elimination of the Best Musical Actor and Actress categories, as well as the choreography prize." Also, the Featured Actress/Musical award went to Leilani Jones for GRIND, one of the shows from Hal Prince's awful run in the 80's.
The current season seems like the most exciting one in a long time. Yeah Hamilton may be the juggernaut, but there are so many shows that might be coming in to take many of the awards.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
Are we judging the season based solely on the Tony nominees for Best Musical or on the entire season as a whole? Because if it's just the nominees, or the number of nominees, then there are numerous seasons to mention going all the way back to 1958-59. So, what constitutes a "worst musical season"? Personally, my pick would be 1994-95 because it included a mere five musicals, three of which were revivals (not that I have anything against revivals). One of which closed in three weeks (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes).
Personally, I don't think Contact winning Best Musical is indicative of a "worst season". It's just a show people resent because it didn't fit neatly into one of two boxes or because the Tony committee didn't create a special bone to toss to a surprise critical and financial hit.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Highly disagree, I thought last season was very good.
I agree 1984-85 seems like it was not so good (I wasn't alive at the time however). I think 8 musicals opened (new/revived) and the only ones which received recordings were Grind, Big River and Leader of the Pack (the last of which is a guilty pleasure of mine).
"Contentment, it seems, simply happens. It appears accompanied by no bravos and no tears."
In the entirety of Broadway history, how is that the "worst" season? It had a little bit of everything. Original books and scores, adaptations, classics, conventional, unconventional, dramatic, comedic, jukebox, dance, and composers ranging from entirely new to beloved legends and a new iconic award winner that managed to shatter the glass ceiling and bring new originality to Broadway (facts that have nothing to do with whether or not one likes the show).
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian