No more Tony Medallions?- Page 3

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/15/14 at 11:48pm

I think the notion is that there is a limit of two. How much contribution a producer makes artistically varies greatly, but at a minimum, the lead producers have brought all of the disparate elements together and headed toward a common goal, have put out many fires and have sold the show to the public. Some producers are very hands on artistically, and some are not, but it is not an easy job.

[CukorLover]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 12:23am

For example:

Take a show like PIPPIN. It has two lead producers Barry & Fran Weissler and Howard and Janet Kagan. They are billed on the top line of the program. They're the ones who have optioned the rights for the show and have to raise the 13 or so million for its capitalization. They're the only ones who have creative control.

They are normally dependent on other producers to bring in that 13 million in a variety of increments. In the current program you'll see the next paragraph of producers names. In that "section" those particular producers are listed as they raised a certain amount to be there. For arguments sake, lets say they have to raise 500K to get that billing. They can raise that amount in as little as 25K increments from individual investors. So Lets say Jane Doe has her name soley listed in that paragraph as a producer. She might get 25K from grandma, 50K from Uncle Arthur, 150K from her Ford dealership, and so on. Once she reaches that 500K, she is now a Producer with above the title credit, and eligible for a TONY Award credit for her troubles in gathering that amount of money. If you see Jim Johnson/Mary Parker listed in that same paragraph, thats known as a split credit, which means between the two of them, they raised 500K and are both eligible. There is also a three person split credit available .

In the 3rd paragraph on the Pippin title page, those producers most likely had to raise only 250 or 300K, but are still eligible for TONY Award credit as they are above the title as well.

It's all about how much money you can raise to get better placement on the page.

So, the Weisslers and Kagans actually GET the Award, and all those others under current rules, can purchase them for $2,500.00 if the show wins. There is nothing creative about it all, they are simply there to raise money for the lead producer. They get invited to meetings, but normally have no creative input. They do get invited to parties, and are allowed access to house seats, and other small perks.

I know one producer that got a split credit to raise 300K with his partner. The partner was able to raise 200K, and my friend only had to raise 100K. He was able to get 75K from a family member and put the other 25K in himself. He now has a TONY Award ( which he purchased) as a producer from just those two sources.

So, in short, the people giving the 25K or more to these producers are investors only, and not eligible for a TONY Award.

Hope this helps.

Updated On: 5/16/14 at 12:23 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 1:09am

Take a show like PIPPIN. It has two lead producers Barry & Fran Weissler and Howard and Janet Kagan.

I'm not math expert, but that seems like four.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 1:18am

Cukor-just to follow up...One can also become a producer by investing the entire required increment and there are also other ways to become a producer without raising or investing (and you may even have some input depending on what you're doing). Thus, sometimes a rights holder, theatre owner, tour producer or various other people will get credit (and points) in exchange for some consideration.

And on the other question--when you are a couple 1+1=1 but actually most substantial producers function through corporate entities, and some of them (e.g. the Dodgers) have multiple unrelated "partners."

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 7:28am

But the issue as it has been presented by Hwang isn't "should we change what we consider a producer?" - it's "should we stop allowing them to purchase an award if their production has won?" and "does allowing the purchase of the award devalue the award?"

The investor/producer thing is something that was concocted in this thread and the Wing has given no indication they see a need to differentiate.

As it stands: only producers of a winning production can purchase them. Which, to me, answers the devalue question with a resounding, "No, it doesn't devalue a thing, if you're worried about devaluing the award why not re-examine what productions you're actually nominating and awarding, you idiots."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 7:33am

^^^This.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 9:42am

Kad-obviously, as I said earlier in this thread, that's one opinion. Others, with more say in the matter than either of us, feel strongly to the contrary. Re the definition of producer, I agree, that is something that was invented here.

Just curious: if you NYTimes wins a Pulitzer, do you think Carlos Slim should get a medallion?

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 10:08am

The Pulitzer does not specifically honor everyone at a publication, though - it either honors specific journalists OR the overall publication.

The Tonys DO name EVERY producer attached to a nominated production as nominees/winners.

Before they wonder if they should be allowing awards to be sold and fretting if the Tony that Zelda Rosenbach has sitting on her mantle because she put $100k toward a play is somehow "devaluing" the award, they should consider changing THAT first.

Otherwise, why should specifically named winners of an award be given an also-ran award if they decide to pay for a physical prize of their own?

Honorary Tonys don't look any different than the competition Tonys.

At the end of the day, I just don't see how these purchased awards devalue anything. The general public doesn't know about them or who has them. The producers are already going to say "Tony-award winner producer of..." on their resume or website or whatever- because that's the truth.

This is a case of the people in charge COMPLETELY missing the forest for the trees.

This is, after all, a ceremony that once featured NON-EQUITY CRUISE SHIP PERFORMANCES.

Updated On: 5/16/14 at 10:08 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 11:57am

I don't disagree with the other items on your to-do list, or even the notion that they have prioritized wrong. But as I have said before, they get to decide what matters to them, and I do believe only real producers should have trophies. I also absolutely hate people who are not real producers telling me they produced some show.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 12:10pm

But again, whether they get the hardware or not, they're still going to tell you they produced the show. Because as things currently stand, they did.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 12:19pm

What truly devalues a Tony are things like Christopher Durang only getting to utter a sentence after winning his first Tony after three decades of prolific work because Daryl Roth hogs the speech time, because playwrights are equivalent with the lead producer when it comes to the Tony and therefore win the same award.

What devalues a Tony is a nominating committee that ignores truly interesting work in shows that may not work as a whole, or shows that vanish in the first half of the season.

What devalues a Tony are rosters of Best Musical nominees in which only 1 show has an original score, and the option to include an additional nominee goes un-utilized.

It's hard for me to feel like a winning producer buying a Tony devalues something that already so often seems like it gets bought.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 12:30pm

I don't disagree with much you say other than the last paragraph and the incorrect statement that "the option to include an additional nominee goes un-utilized." (There was no such option under the rules, because the voting did not authorize the additional nominee.)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 4:24pm

I think the prejudice against investors being called producers is misplaced. It may have made more sense in the old days of charismatic, creative individual producers like Hal Prince or David Merrick or Cheryl Crawford. And even nowadays there are visionary producers on Broadway who may be unknown to most of the people posting on this thread. For instance, Scott Sanders, the producer of After Midnight, The Color Purple and the recent Evita revival, played an enormously creative role in turning a concert version of old Cotton Club numbers with dances into an enormously exciting theatrical event that may very well win the Tony as Best Musical.

But I would argue that his 20 co-producers deserve better than to be sneered at as mere investors. I suggest that it was a CREATIVE act to say that a great show could be made by putting together an odd collection of old songs, relatively unknown performers, a revolving star, and Wynton Marsalis's magnificent Jazz at Lincoln Center All-Stars. Conventional wisdom would say those elements would combine to make something that would last a few evenings, not something greater or grander. The same might be said for the multiple producers of Gentleman's Guide...not to mention every non-musical on Broadway this season...perhaps everything this season with the possible exception of Aladdin, which could be said to be a Disney commercial formula.

It's never been an act of "good business sense" to invest in the theater. Theatrical producers and investors have always operated on a different kind of act: a leap of faith.

And I would like to suggest that those very leaps of faith--those moments when they say, "You know, this could be really good"--those are creative sparks and acting on those leaps of faith is an act of creativity.

Everyone else in this thread may not agree but I think that envisioning and empowering someone else's creative act is a creative act itself.

Updated On: 5/16/14 at 04:24 PM

[Up In One]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 4:51pm

The short and possible long term affect of not rewarding those smaller producers with a statue will be to take away an incentive for future investments and or future involvement. Especially to those who have "purchased" one in the past.

Those smaller producers are not "just" investors, they also get a portion of the lead producer's share of the profits. They are in the the thick of it. They may one day be a lead producer who will need smaller producers beneath them.

Hwang is obviously a trouble maker, didn't he just admit to lying to the producer of Miss Saigon? He should leave well enough alone and tend to making the awards more legit from a nomination and voting perspective.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 5:20pm

This is unrelated to the matter of Tony medallions but I read in Riedel's column a few years back that they wanted to limit the number of people who can go onstage if their show won a Tony.

I don't see the problem for producers/investors purchasing an award if their show has won, at $2500 each, even if only ten producers purchased them, its still $25,000 that is going to the League.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 6:05pm

The biggest thing I have learned from this thread is that HogansHero should never be a Miller's Analogy Test tutor.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 6:08pm

It's not just Hwang.

I understand all about raising money, and that bling and ego gratification have become unfortunate aspects of this. It is no less offensive in the nonprofit world where philanthropists hire lawyers to negotiate the size of the plaque they get for different naming opportunities.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 6:09pm

That offends you?

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/16/14 at 6:49pm

Seems simple: If you invested in the show, which contributed it to becoming a Tony winner, you should be allowed to get a Tony. Today's marketplace prevents one person from financing a show; if the lead producers don't object a person should be allowed to display their contribution in the form of a Tony.

It doesn't "diminish" the awards. Why would Audra care?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 2:39pm

So much for the silly idea that this was "diminishing the brand."



NY TIMES: Price of a Tony Won’t Go Up for Prize Winners