Young Frankenstein-Tonys...What Happened? — Page 2

I never saw The Producers on broadway but I saw the movie and I thought it was ok. I saw Young Frankenstein 10 times. I think it's a great musical. It has everything in a musical that you can ask for. I thought it should have got much more nominations than it did. especially best new musical for sure.

No, officially, they likely won't perform. Although there have been rumors and gossip considering how CBS is floundering with ratings, and in a quick attempt to pull them up might turn to both shows for a song. And, I don't blame 'em. With YF snubbed, I seriously am not watching for the first time in 7 years.

---

Updated On: 5/18/08 at 01:42 AM

The reason THE PRODUCERS worked and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN doesn't is that the former had a natural musical-comedy link (and Brooks and company ran with it working in sly references to dozens of other shows.) The musical (on stage at least) was fun, briskly paced and hugely entertaining. It also arrived in the middle of a season with one huge disappointment (SEUSSICAL), a boring and pretentious adaptation of a literary classic (JANE EYRE); an off-Broadway musical bio that really did not belong on Broadway (CLASS ACT) and one certified hit with a weak score (FULL MONTY.) Everyone was hungry for a big hit and the show got great reviews and swept the Tony awards (mainly because it had so little competition.)

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN doesn't lend itself to this style of musical comedy treatment and the score, while clever at times, wears out its welcome with needless repetition and a lot of grade school humour. To me, the idea always reeked of a composer trying to duplicate the same formula. It would be like Rodgers and Hammerstein following OKLAHOMA! with a show called CALIFORNIA and recycling the same basic structure. The one thing Broadway's best writers know is never to try and duplicate a previous success.

---

YF is an ok show. I was mildly entertained, but it really doesn't have a great score. As many on here have said, it's forgettable. The show runs too long for what it is. I do think it should have gotten costume over ITH, but that's about it. As for Roger Bart: I love him, he works hard, but it's not a winning role. I haven't seen South Pacific yet, so I can't speak for Paulo Szotz, but all the other performances (and their respective roles) are much better. I don't think YF was snubbed...it just wasn't one of the best shows this year.

Although there have been rumors and gossip considering how CBS is floundering with ratings, and in a quick attempt to pull them up might turn to both shows for a song.

They say that EVERY year, ratings, blah blah blah. We need to see performances from the eight nominated shows and all the categories. The network barely gives the Tonys a chance. It would be VERY hard for them to squeeze in even more performances from shows that were not even nominated.

---

Are people seriously not watching the Tonys because they actually believe YF was snubbed?

WTF people, it got nominated for 3 times - so because it isn't nominated under Best Book, Score, or Musical is reason not to watch it for the first time in 7 years? 25 years?

People raved about the scenic/set design. YF would have been snubbed if it did not receive a nomination in this category, as well as not receiving a nomination for Christopher Fitzgerald.

It got what it deserved most. Although Cry-Baby was a surprise, YF was not snubbed.

---

If you think YF has a better score than Passing Strange, I think that's more reflective of your personal taste in musical genres than better/worse comparison.

Okay, I understand that you believe YF should have received a best score nomination. But you feeling that the show got "snubbed" in that area is a ridiculous reason to not watch the Tonys.

---

"If you think YF has a better score than Passing Strange, I think that's more reflective of your personal taste in musical genres than better/worse comparison."

Frogs, you are right, and I said that in my posts, it's my opinion only. It's reflective of the type of score I like. But speaking for the catagory of scores I like best, which is the old-fashioned showtune, I think it's a definate winner.

The only reason I might not watch the Tonys this year is I really don't care for the much of the rest of the material. I own the cd for The Little Mermaid and love it, and bought the rest and sold them...and if I tune in it will definately be only to see the scenes from the musical revivals.

Learn to make distinctions...just because YOU like the show does not mean it is award worthy. (This is really just a nice way of saying "It's ok to like junk.")

These cries of vote fixing and politics are way over the top. There are still people who insist that AVENUE Q's polictical-ish campaign to win best musical was sneaky and underhanded and somehow cost WICKED a Best Musical Tony. This is sheer nonsense. Look at the reviews: Q got raves, WICKED received mixed notices and a lot of outright pans. The general consensus was that AVE Q was the season's best musical. Same with RAGTIME over LION KING. Notice how here, the Tonys for book and score went to RAGTIME, but in the end the voters decided that LION KING had more entertainment value.

There's no conspiracy.

---

You are mis-reading me. The comment about junk is - well like a huge chocolate bar. A treat. An indulgence. Something that you enjoy even if it has no nutritional value. We need our "steak" too but nothing wrong with enjoying a candy bar. So long as we don't try o justify it by making it out to be more nutritious than it is.

---

I honestly don't think it deserves any more nominations than it got. I couldn't remember any of the songs after I walked out of the theater,...I got bored to death during the second act, and only about half the jokes were kinda funny.