|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 12:23:10 GMT
An appropriate day to make that joke. Why today especially? :confused: Easter Sunday, alot of people view the whole religous thing as fake news... bad joke, fell flat.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 16, 2017 12:36:27 GMT
Why today especially? :confused: Easter Sunday, alot of people view the whole religous thing as fake news... bad joke, fell flat. Ah, got it, I hadn't even registered that it was Easter Sunday!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 12:47:28 GMT
Easter Sunday, alot of people view the whole religous thing as fake news... bad joke, fell flat. Ah, got it, I hadn't even registered that it was Easter Sunday! Well then Happy Easter love.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Apr 16, 2017 13:03:35 GMT
Regarding poster quotes, I'm always amused by the fact that the quote used on most posters for Dirty Dancing is "The biggest live theatre sensation of all time" - The Observer For instance - Which is a genuine quote, but it's taken out of context as it's not from a review of the show, it's from an article about ticket sales before the show opened. www.theguardian.com/stage/2006/sep/10/theatre.westendThe full quote is - They've been using this quote for over 10 years!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 16, 2017 16:21:43 GMT
The full quote is - As for the London show, Dirty Dancing is, with £6m advance ticket sales, the most successfully pre-sold show in the history of London theatre. Across the world - in Dubai, Mexico, Scandinavia, Russia, Slovakia and Poland - production companies are clamouring for the rights to produce it. Dirty Dancing is shaping up to be the biggest live theatre sensation of all time. They've been using this quote for over 10 years! Well, The Observer did say "of all time" and a decade is but a pinprick in the infinity of eternity, so I'd say that The Observer got what it deserved after publishing its original article.
|
|
6,310 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 16, 2017 22:48:38 GMT
I don't know but I'd like to hazard a guess before someone gives an authoritative answer. I expect that "in association with" can mean quite different things in different cases. In this instance, was it that SFP had originally developed the project, and perhaps had also commissioned Patrick Marber, and then granted the NT the right to produce the play whilst maybe retaining a degree of creative producer input in the eventual NT production? And, despite not actually co-producing the NT production, did SFP also have certain rights over any future commercial exploitation of it or other later productions after the NT run? Or not? I think you're pretty much spot on, HG - from my understanding, "in association with" in the loosest sense just implies co-involvement. Whether this is as a full-blown co-producer, somebody putting some money in to just get their name on the project, or any of the examples you mentioned above. Thanks for the explaination, I assume with Oslo which is being produced by the National in association with ATG, it's because ATG have a relationship with the Lincoln Center and Bartlett Sher and they're put up some of the costs for both the run at the National and the transfer to the Harold Pinter.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 17, 2017 9:33:05 GMT
I assume with Oslo which is being produced by the National in association with ATG, it's because ATG have a relationship with the Lincoln Center and Bartlett Sher and they're put up some of the costs for both the run at the National and the transfer to the Harold Pinter. Oslo is the Lincoln Center Theater production. It is to be presented, "direct from Broadway", by the NT in the Lyttelton Theatre. Then, it is to be presented by the NT in the Harold Pinter Theatre, in association with ATG. ATG owns the Harold Pinter Theatre and I assume that the "association" in this case means that ATG is investing in, or co-financing, this presentation by the NT and will share the risk and the potential profits with the NT, which is the principal presenter. I suppose that an alternative model would have been for ATG to rent out the Harold Pinter Theatre to the NT. In that case, the NT would have had to finance all of the costs and take all of the risk of the West End run, which I doubt that the NT would have been prepared to do. Presumably, some of the capital and set-up costs of the Broadway transfer will be shared between the Lyttelton run and the West End run, which will make it more affordable for the NT to bring it over in the first place.
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 17, 2017 16:29:12 GMT
Picture the scene:
It's January 2nd or 3rd 2004 and I have spent the new year with family in Derbyshire. As ever I am not looking forward to the drive back to Surrey on the M1 but I am in a very good mood; I have pre - booked to see 'The Pillowman' with Jim Broadbent and David Tennant at the Cottesloe, it has received rave reviews and I'm really looking forward to it. The journey starts well but rapidly deteriorates and I have very little time to get to the theatre. I park up and run to the theatre and arrive literally 3 minutes before the start. Phew... But something is not quite right - One of the ushers tells me the performance has been cancelled, full refunds, copious apologies and even three tickets for a free drinks at the bar. The official reason for the cancellation? 'David Tennant is ill and the Cottesloe has a policy of no understudies.'
So my question - is this still the case in the Dorfman?
Only about a year later in a forgettable play set in a pub a similar thing happened. No cancellation this time but there was no proper understudy for a major character and an actor who just happened to be in the building read it from a script.
I have seen most productions at the Cottesloe/Dorfman in the last 20 years and no one has been ill to test the 'policy' further. I also realise the Olivier and Lyttelton always have understudies.
ps. I got tickets later in the run and saw 'The Pillowman' (with David Tennant) and thought it excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 17, 2017 16:50:35 GMT
So my question - is this still the case in the Dorfman? Yes - no understudies at Dorfman, Royal Court, etc.
|
|
223 posts
|
Post by Kim_Bahorel on Apr 17, 2017 17:27:27 GMT
The Globe/SWP didn't or don't have understudies specifically for any roles but they get either a company member or some to read the part. I saw it twice. I forgot the actors name. It was in Richard II he was ill so one of the others read the part. He had the script in his hand but he knew most of it off my heart. Which concidering it was Shakespeare was impressive.
Then I saw in As You Like It Gary Shelford had injured himself so he couldn't do a certain scene. They had 2 ensemble members. One of which had to learn that bit for the play. I guess thats why they started getting ensemble so if someone was ill injured they could cover but not a specified understudy.
I can understand small venues not having understudies but places like Royal Court etc suprises me. I wonder why uf not understudies they don't just do what the Globe does.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 17, 2017 20:07:29 GMT
I wonder why uf not understudies they don't just do what the Globe does. Sometimes they do. It depends on the production how acceptable it would be to the audience.
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 17, 2017 20:10:08 GMT
I believe the Globe now has understudies
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 18, 2017 6:58:50 GMT
It's amazing though that for 'The Pillowman' they cancelled the whole production and didn't cover with someone reading from a script (and rather annoying since I'd driven 150 miles to see it.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 7:28:09 GMT
I once drove to Bath for 'Look Back in Anger' (a production funny enough Tennant had left not long before) to find it cancelled due to no understudies. This was a good decade or more ago before faster twitter/email alerts. But to say I was irritated I'd done battle with Bath Saturday traffic (and had to drive back again later that week to see it) was an understatement.
The Globe had someone read in for Colin Morgan during The Tempest if I recall. Sure that went down a storm (pardon the pun) with the fangirls!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 7:52:16 GMT
Got all the way to London for a performance of Xanadu at Southwark Playhouse before getting an email saying it was cancelled due to illness. Thanks to my mate not only did we get tickets for later in the run but we got free tickets to Grey Gardens too!
|
|
455 posts
|
Post by mistressjojo on Apr 21, 2017 15:41:50 GMT
It's amazing though that for 'The Pillowman' they cancelled the whole production and didn't cover with someone reading from a script (and rather annoying since I'd driven 150 miles to see it.) And you were incredibly unlucky - David Tennant is rarely off unless seriously poorly.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 21, 2017 21:05:54 GMT
And you were incredibly unlucky - David Tennant is rarely off unless seriously poorly. Yes, so rare. VIrtually the entire London run of Hamlet. So rare.
|
|
6,310 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 23, 2017 14:10:42 GMT
How many years do shows can reside in a particular theatre? I know shows close due to not grossing enough money and/or the theatre owner enabling a stop clause but I'm curious if about long runners which moves theatres like Mamma Mia!, was that the producers decision or the theatre owner?
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on Apr 23, 2017 15:56:49 GMT
How many years do shows can reside in a particular theatre? I know shows close due to not grossing enough money and/or the theatre owner enabling a stop clause but I'm curious if about long runners which moves theatres like Mamma Mia!, was that the producers decision or the theatre owner? It could be either - often when shows aren't selling great and end up downsizing to a smaller venue, it's in the interest of both Producer and Theatre. Equally if a theatre owner has a particular show lined up, they'll negotiate with the incumbent show to leave, like in the case of Jersey Boys moving for Miss Saigon.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 16:04:37 GMT
And you were incredibly unlucky - David Tennant is rarely off unless seriously poorly. Yes, so rare. VIrtually the entire London run of Hamlet. So rare. I feel like having a major operation on his back counts as 'seriously poorly'.
|
|
6,310 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 23, 2017 16:12:28 GMT
It could be either - often when shows aren't selling great and end up downsizing to a smaller venue, it's in the interest of both Producer and Theatre. Equally if a theatre owner has a particular show lined up, they'll negotiate with the incumbent show to leave, like in the case of Jersey Boys moving for Miss Saigon. Thanks, I assume with Mamma Mia! Cameron Mackintosh offered them the Novello at a reduced rent so he could have the Prince of Wales for The Book of Mormon. The move was announced a year in advance as well. I'm curious if a show can hand back a closing notice due to increase in sales even if the theatre owner has lined up another show, I know WWRY did and I think Blood Brothers changed its closing date but it must be very rare
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 23, 2017 18:28:07 GMT
I think it's always a shame when a really nice theatre like the Novello has a long runner there like 'Mamma Mia.' When I saw 'Crazy for You' there a few years ago it had only just been restored by Cameron Mackintosh and was looking really lovely. It was a real pleasure to visit. Since I'm not one of these mad people who wants to revisit 'Mamma Mia' every week I'm now unlikely to have the pleasure of experiencing it again in the foreseeable.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 23, 2017 19:36:47 GMT
Does anyone know if there's anywhere that gives the sizes of the West End theatres' stages? As I sat in the Criterion last night I found myself idly wondering how many times over its stage would fit into that of the Theatre Royal Drury Lane!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 19:14:23 GMT
Yes, a book called "The Original British Theatre Directory" from Richmond House Publishing has that data for the entire country. Used to be in a book published annually until 2009, but now online and subscription only. Don't know if the info is available anywhere else. Anyway, the Criterion has a proscenium opening of 7.62m, height 3.81m, depth of sightlines 6.63m. Theatre Royal Drury Lame: 12.95m, 7.92m, 24.69m. So roughly 4 times. I once heard that you could fit the entirety of the Fortune Theatre, foyer, box office, toilets, auditorium, stage etc, just on the stage of the Dominion. Does anyone know if that's actually true?
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 25, 2017 21:54:41 GMT
Yes, a book called "The Original British Theatre Directory" from Richmond House Publishing has that data for the entire country. Used to be in a book published annually until 2009, but now online and subscription only. Don't know if the info is available anywhere else. Anyway, the Criterion has a proscenium opening of 7.62m, height 3.81m, depth of sightlines 6.63m. Theatre Royal Drury Lame: 12.95m, 7.92m, 24.69m. So roughly 4 times. I once heard that you could fit the entirety of the Fortune Theatre, foyer, box office, toilets, auditorium, stage etc, just on the stage of the Dominion. Does anyone know if that's actually true? I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say I don't think we'll ever find out if that is *actually* true, it'll only ever be a theory...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 22:08:13 GMT
I don't know, you could certainly work out the perimeter measurements of the Fortune easily enough if you had a decent map, then it would simply be a matter of finding out the area of the Dominion stage. Up-and-down would be a little harder, but you could certainly do the side-to-side and front-to-back.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 25, 2017 22:26:16 GMT
I once heard that you could fit the entirety of the Fortune Theatre, foyer, box office, toilets, auditorium, stage etc, just on the stage of the Dominion. Does anyone know if that's actually true? I don't know, you could certainly work out the perimeter measurements of the Fortune easily enough if you had a decent map, then it would simply be a matter of finding out the area of the Dominion stage. Up-and-down would be a little harder, but you could certainly do the side-to-side and front-to-back. But how do you propose to get the entirety of the Fortune Theatre into the Dominion? Would you knock a massive hole in the back wall of the Dominion and then drag the entirety of the Fortune through it on to the stage? Or would you painstakingly demolish the Fortune, carefully labeling the fragments, and then take them into the Dominion by the usual stage access and rebuild the Fortune on the Dominion's stage? Neither method would be free of potential pitfalls. And how do you propose to support the weight of the entirety of the Fortune Theatre on the Dominion's stage? I doubt that it is feasible. Better to leave the Fortune Theatre where it is, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Apr 25, 2017 23:00:47 GMT
Having been backstage at the Dominion, I'd guess that it sadly isn't true. The stage isn't that big outside of what you see, not megaamounts of wing space or anything. But it could be...
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 26, 2017 6:32:35 GMT
I once heard that you could fit the entirety of the Fortune Theatre, foyer, box office, toilets, auditorium, stage etc, just on the stage of the Dominion. Does anyone know if that's actually true? I don't know, you could certainly work out the perimeter measurements of the Fortune easily enough if you had a decent map, then it would simply be a matter of finding out the area of the Dominion stage. Up-and-down would be a little harder, but you could certainly do the side-to-side and front-to-back. But how do you propose to get the entirety of the Fortune Theatre into the Dominion? Would you knock a massive hole in the back wall of the Dominion and then drag the entirety of the Fortune through it on to the stage? Or would you painstakingly demolish the Fortune, carefully labeling the fragments, and then take them into the Dominion by the usual stage access and rebuild the Fortune on the Dominion's stage? Neither method would be free of potential pitfalls. And how do you propose to support the weight of the entirety of the Fortune Theatre on the Dominion's stage? I doubt that it is feasible. Better to leave the Fortune Theatre where it is, I feel. No. Why not have it as a project for the next theatreboard meet up? Better surely than just sitting around drinking.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 26, 2017 6:46:54 GMT
Or would you painstakingly demolish the Fortune, carefully labeling the fragments, and then take them into the Dominion by the usual stage access and rebuild the Fortune on the Dominion's stage? If you dispense with the requirement to rebuild the Fortune then I have no doubt that it will fit quite easily, although the comfort and functionality may be somewhat impaired.
|
|