| re: that's not what i said | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:00 pm EST 01/26/18 | |
| In reply to: re: that's not what i said - Michael_Portantiere 02:22 pm EST 01/26/18 | |
|
|
|
| To be clear, I thought you missed my key point because of stuff like the 50s pop song example, which confused your point because you were making a point about an actual thing but then used a non-actual thing to make the point. I thought you didn't get it because I was never suggesting that a movie (musical or not) that takes a song not written for the property the film is being made from, (be it the play it's adapted from or the fully original screenplay) and puts it in the movie, should be eligible for nominations. I definitely don't think that. And I don't know how you can with one breath object to how the book writers/playwrights whose material is largely just taken word for word (not to mention the full creation that is being "adapted") can be excluded from awards for the writing of the movie, and that song writers of the musical being made don't get anything unless they've written a new song specific for the movie version of the musical they wrote get excluded from awards for the writing of the movie... but in another breath you say that you do not think a song written for the stage musical being made into a film should be eligible for best song. I just don't get this logic one bit. And as for your LADY IN THE DARK question - good question. I'll preface by saying that this question doesn't in any way invalidate my take on this eligibility issue, but to answer... I see it as two options. A) Any song (provably) written for the property (i.e. Lady in the Dark) that is in the property in its current production (i.e. this remake of Lady in the Dark film) and was not eligible or included in the production when the production was eligible, becomes eligible because it was written for the property and has not yet been eligible for the award. I do honestly think this is fair. B) If it is a remake and the song is not *newly* written for this new production of the property, then it is not eligible. Personally, obviously, option A makes more sense to me and is much more fair... I also think the Tony rules should change... I do not think that "classics" (or whatever word they use for shows that weren't ever on Broadway but have been recorded and performed a notable amount before this first broadway production/"revival") should be ineligible for writing awards. I don't think it's fair at all that Assassins, Violet, Hedwig and Little Shop have never been able to be nominated or win a Tony even though they were original musical with original scores that at some point had a first Broadway production. It's not fair to the writers or the history, and while I understand that scores with years of fan love and acclaim behind them may be unfairly weighted in contests with scores brand new to the scene that year, but I also understand that a small off-broadway production with an off-broadway budget is not the same thing as a Broadway production, and awards for Broadway are awards for shows that finally get to Broadway. Grey Gardens was not ineligible because it had been off-broadway already and had a cast album already released before they even announced a Broadway production. And I understand the difference between a "transfer" and just a full on new production years later that happens to be on Broadway. But this is about recognizing WRITING, and great writing on Broadway is not the norm, and there are so few musicals or plays that never went to Broadway and now have a Broadway "revival" that I don't think it's an issue. And of course, there is precedent with FORTUNE'S FOOL, a play written in 1848 and nominated for "Best Play" at the 2002 Tonys... because it had never been done on Broadway. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: that's not what i said - Michael_Portantiere 02:22 pm EST 01/26/18 |
| Next: | re: that's not what i said - Michael_Portantiere 04:36 pm EST 01/26/18 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.016962 seconds.