On one hand, why would anyone care? If my neighbor put $ in a show, would I, IN ANY WAY, be affected by him/her shelling out more money so commemorate that event? Nope, not at all.
On the other hand, is ANYONE that has invested money currently eligible? That's a lot of people. Did they REALLY have that much to do with the success of the show, or is it more like the stock market?
I guess, that overall, I don't see how it makes a hill of beans of difference. Maybe they just add a line on the engraving that states: Investor's Commemorative Award and let it be.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
For those who only read the headline, the actual story says the group "is proposing to stop selling Tony medallion trophies to investors who back Broadway shows." Nothing official yet.
If you participated and invested - why not. I do not think it dilutes it. Consider shows that need a collection of smaller investors to pool their resources to stand behind a show they believe in. Why should only the 2 who put in that extra $1 be eligible to get one? It is not like these are floating all over eBay to easily purchase.
"There is a real desire within the Wing to make sure the Tony medallion remains prestigious," playwright David Henry Hwang, board member for the Wing, told the Times. "It's important -- certainly to those of us who are artists -- that the Tony not be diluted by its widespread sale.
Maintaining the integrity of the award is not silly (a) to folks who have the trophy on their mantle, or (b) to the Wing, which is the steward of the award's legitimacy against the League's more corrupt interests. I can't be much clearer than that. It is easy to find things silly from the vantage point of having nothing at stake.
What's silly is suggesting that selling medallions to people who have won the awards is in any way damaging the integrity of the award.
If I were one of a dozen producers of a show that won the award and they gave the lead producers only two actual awards, I'm sure I would be delighted to give them $2,500 so that I could have one for my own mantlepiece. (If I had a mantlepiece...)
And you know what? I think you would be delighted too.
And you know what else? Our Tony awards would IN NO WAY diminish Audra McDonald's achievements.
Paljoey, that is your opinion. Inherent in what I said is that you have nothing at stake. Obviously, there are those who feel strongly to the contrary (as evidenced by the move that is afoot), and they DO have something at stake. I do not want an award for doing nothing worthy of it, whether free or for $2500.
The $2500 option is open ONLY to producers of WINNING shows in these categories:
Best Play Best Musical Best Play Revival Best Musical Revival
Granted a show like Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder can have something like 28 producers, but that's just the nature of the theater today. Minus one of those 28, and the show might not have made it to Broadway.
The Jeremy Gerard article linked below explains the background of this ridiculous battle, although he calls them "Phony Tonys."
Real producers do lots worthy. Phony producers don't. That's what this is about. the Tonys should not be pay to play. You don't have to agree. That's why there is a debate going on. But Mr. Long and Mr. Hwang are not raising something that is silly.
They should just stop calling every backer with no creative input to a show a producer, then there would be no controversy/issue.
If people got the same financial benefit from a hit show, without the title of producer, would they still invest? I'd imagine so. Or is there some cachet in saying you're a producer that is really what loosens the purse strings, moreso than the dream of seeing your money ever again?
I don't think he is insinuating that the producers do nothing, I think he is insinuating that the investors do nothing other than put up the money. I have noticed in the past that the words producer and investor get used interchangeably a lot around here, and that should not be.
That being said, if I put up money for a show and it won a Tony award, I would want something acknowledging my contribution to the award winning piece.
Jimmy-you're right of course. The lax use of the term producer here, however, is a function of how it is used in the credits on productions. Those advocating limiting the trophies agree that there should be some recognition of these investor/producers, but that it should be something other than the mantle-gracing trophies that they now buy. The current scheme is essentially the equivalent of giving a composer's parents a Tony for best score because they paid for his or her musical education.
The current scheme is essentially the equivalent of giving a composer's parents a Tony for best score because they paid for his or her musical education.