21 posts
|
Post by comporhys on May 1, 2016 10:00:54 GMT
I know. I'm not saying I'm right, just putting alternatives out there. I do think an audience would be even more annoyed if the star they came to see pulled out mid performance, rather than knowing from the start they'd have someone else. In my experience audiences often love it when someone has to take over mid-show. There's the disappointment of breaking the suspension of disbelief by being unexpectedly dropped into reality for a while, but there's also the appreciation that it's not easy to switch roles with no notice and there's the whole the-show-must-go-on feeling of being there for something special that other audiences won't have experienced. People are there for live theatre, and it doesn't get more live than something going wrong and someone stepping in to fix it. In contrast, having the show cancelled a short way in means the audience is left with a wasted journey and an empty evening. I doubt anyone's going to be hanging around twiddling their thumbs and saying "Well, this may be boring as hell but at least we're not watching a show where someone in the cast had to be replaced part way through. That would be the worst." I completely agree with that; last year, we went to see the opening night of Guys & Dolls in Manchester.. David Haig did the first scene, then ran off stage. Cue a 45 minute gap and an announcement that his understudy (who had never rehearsed the role yet) would be taking over. The atmosphere was electric throughout and the roar of the audience for his curtain call was one of those magic theatrical "the show must go on" moments. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 10:39:55 GMT
So does Sheridan Smith defiantly not come out in between shows?
|
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on May 1, 2016 11:04:03 GMT
What does she have to be "defiant" about?
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 1, 2016 11:41:25 GMT
I know. I'm not saying I'm right, just putting alternatives out there. I do think an audience would be even more annoyed if the star they came to see pulled out mid performance, rather than knowing from the start they'd have someone else. In my experience audiences often love it when someone has to take over mid-show. There's the disappointment of breaking the suspension of disbelief by being unexpectedly dropped into reality for a while, but there's also the appreciation that it's not easy to switch roles with no notice and there's the whole the-show-must-go-on feeling of being there for something special that other audiences won't have experienced. People are there for live theatre, and it doesn't get more live than something going wrong and someone stepping in to fix it. In contrast, having the show cancelled a short way in means the audience is left with a wasted journey and an empty evening. I doubt anyone's going to be hanging around twiddling their thumbs and saying "Well, this may be boring as hell but at least we're not watching a show where someone in the cast had to be replaced part way through. That would be the worst." Ordinarily I'd agree, but I doubt this would've been the case here as so many will have bought tickets to see Sheridan. I'm sure the understudy would've won people around but I reckon there would've been an atmosphere of disappointment well into the second half - depending on how many audience members decided to leave. This is not just miscellaneous Theatre actor being replaced by miscellaneous Theatre actor (that's how most of the public see them). We've all been there when an understudy takes over the role half way through and it's great to see someone else do flawlessly in the role, but at Funny Girl it wouldn't have been the same. If they were offering refunds/exchanges or the chance to see the show with an understudy, it would've been fascinating to see how much audience was left by the end. |
|
8,109 posts
|
Post by alece10 on May 1, 2016 12:01:24 GMT
Anyway she is back and on top form
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 12:11:13 GMT
In my experience audiences often love it when someone has to take over mid-show. There's the disappointment of breaking the suspension of disbelief by being unexpectedly dropped into reality for a while, but there's also the appreciation that it's not easy to switch roles with no notice and there's the whole the-show-must-go-on feeling of being there for something special that other audiences won't have experienced. People are there for live theatre, and it doesn't get more live than something going wrong and someone stepping in to fix it. In contrast, having the show cancelled a short way in means the audience is left with a wasted journey and an empty evening. I doubt anyone's going to be hanging around twiddling their thumbs and saying "Well, this may be boring as hell but at least we're not watching a show where someone in the cast had to be replaced part way through. That would be the worst." Ordinarily I'd agree, but I doubt this would've been the case here as so many will have bought tickets to see Sheridan. I'm sure the understudy would've won people around but I reckon there would've been an atmosphere of disappointment well into the second half - depending on how many audience members decided to leave. This is not just miscellaneous Theatre actor being replaced by miscellaneous Theatre actor (that's how most of the public see them). We've all been there when an understudy takes over the role half way through and it's great to see someone else do flawlessly in the role, but at Funny Girl it wouldn't have been the same. If they were offering refunds/exchanges or the chance to see the show with an understudy, it would've been fascinating to see how much audience was left by the end. You seem to be overlooking the fact that for most people "come back another day" isn't that easy. They may be on holiday. They may have a several-hour round trip to London. It may be a special day out: a birthday or anniversary. Under those circumstances getting your money back for the tickets alone or getting a ticket for a different date when you'll have to go through all the expense and inconvenience of travelling again is nowhere near good enough. I doubt you'd be all that happy if it was you a production was telling "Hey, you know that great last night in London you had planned before you fly home? Well, you're just going to have to spend it wandering round the streets for a few hours because we've decided not to do the show tonight." I'm sure there are some people for whom theatre is routine and it's no big deal to come back, but for the overwhelming majority of the audience theatre is something they do once a year. It's a special occasion they plan months in advance. I think you are vastly overstating the importance most people put in seeing a complete stranger in the distance, compared with the significance of having their plans for a special occasion ruined. You can't put off a birthday until next month. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 1, 2016 12:22:38 GMT
Ordinarily I'd agree, but I doubt this would've been the case here as so many will have bought tickets to see Sheridan. I'm sure the understudy would've won people around but I reckon there would've been an atmosphere of disappointment well into the second half - depending on how many audience members decided to leave. This is not just miscellaneous Theatre actor being replaced by miscellaneous Theatre actor (that's how most of the public see them). We've all been there when an understudy takes over the role half way through and it's great to see someone else do flawlessly in the role, but at Funny Girl it wouldn't have been the same. If they were offering refunds/exchanges or the chance to see the show with an understudy, it would've been fascinating to see how much audience was left by the end. You seem to be overlooking the fact that for most people "come back another day" isn't that easy. They may be on holiday. They may have a several-hour round trip to London. It may be a special day out: a birthday or anniversary. Under those circumstances getting your money back for the tickets alone or getting a ticket for a different date when you'll have to go through all the expense and inconvenience of travelling again is nowhere near good enough. I doubt you'd be all that happy if it was you a production was telling "Hey, you know that great last night in London you had planned before you fly home? Well, you're just going to have to spend it wandering round the streets for a few hours because we've decided not to do the show tonight." I'm sure there are some people for whom theatre is routine and it's no big deal to come back, but for the overwhelming majority of the audience theatre is something they do once a year. It's a special occasion they plan months in advance. I think you are vastly overstating the importance most people put in seeing a complete stranger in the distance, compared with the significance of having their plans for a special occasion ruined. You can't put off a birthday until next month. I think you're vastly understating the affection people have for Sheridan Smith. I'm sure some people would've been perfectly happy with a refund rather than sitting through a show they would never have gone to see if Sheridan hadn't been in it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course they'd be disappointed. As we've seen with Sunset Boulevard, some people were happy with Ria Jones, some people are still disappointed now that they didn't see Glenn. We'll never know now how this would've panned out if they'd put the understudy on on Thursday night (if the rumours are even true). |
|
345 posts
|
Post by johartuk on May 1, 2016 12:29:19 GMT
At the end of the day, sheridan fans are the new kerry ellis fans. She could go on stage and shoot half the audience and they will still adore her. Sheridan likes the celebrity party lifestyle, and if you are into that scene then the press comes with it (good and the bad). Lots of other well respected and famous actors don't get the tabloid treatment because they don't crave the attention People get the tabloid treatment whether they crave it or not, although lazy journalists now trawl through twitter and the Internet now rather than going out and looking for real stories. I disagree with the first part of this. It is possible to avoid media scrutiny, and much more high profile people than Sheridan have managed it. Victoria Wood rarely featured in the tabloids, unless it was an announcement of her latest project, or a (rare) interview. She managed to keep her final illness private, so the world only found out about it after her death. Alan Rickman and David Bowie are two others who managed to keep the media at arms length, in life and in death. Peter Kay and Adele also spring to mind. If we're talking TV actresses, Sarah Lancashire and Olivia Coleman are two more obvious examples. A lot of it is down to common sense - staying away from celeb haunts, staying off social media (or being sensible about its use) and not actively courting the media. I don't think Sheridan actively courts the media, but she does seem to create some situations (the twitter debacle of a couple of months ago springs to mind), which the media pick up on. |
|
153 posts
|
Post by liverpool54321 on May 1, 2016 13:01:11 GMT
Given the problems the producers faced at Menier when Sheridan had to pull out and the offer to provide transfer tickets, they may have decided it simpler and ultimately less painful to pull the performance than go with an understudy part way through if that was the alternate solution. If there was a casting problem then, whilst unusual, they have opted for what is potential the least damaging outcome. No one knows what actually happened (yet). With around £12-14m in advance bookings you do all you can to avoid losing the main star for more than one night if that was the problem. Hopefully lessons learnt by all and we now see 6 months of happy customers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 13:01:34 GMT
Exactly. There are plenty of famous actors who may have the occasional pap photographing them in the street, but because they don't crave attention away from their artform (e.g via twitter, celeb bashes etc) they don't get the same level of intrusion others get. You can't use social media or the tabloid press for your own gains, and not expect the downside of this attention when things don't go well. They are not your friends.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 1, 2016 13:12:48 GMT
No one knows what actually happened (yet). [ That's not true. The theatre staff the cast know what happened, and have told us - technical problems. It's simply that some people are refusing to believe that based on the wild speculation of a couple of audience members, who know considerably less than the people who have offered an explanation. A couple of those people on Twitter found it weird that they heard the cast boo from behind the curtain when the cancellation was announced, which says to me that they were looking to sh*t-stir. Of course the cast want to finish the show, and on having it halted due to a technical difficulty that couldn't be fixed on the night would express their disappointment. What's weird about that?! It doesn't matter what the theatre says now - they could give a full technical explanation of the fault, which most people won't be qualified to understand - some people still won't believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:07:22 GMT
I think you're vastly understating the affection people have for Sheridan Smith. I'm sure some people would've been perfectly happy with a refund rather than sitting through a show they would never have gone to see if Sheridan hadn't been in it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course they'd be disappointed. As we've seen with Sunset Boulevard, some people were happy with Ria Jones, some people are still disappointed now that they didn't see Glenn. We'll never know now how this would've panned out if they'd put the understudy on on Thursday night (if the rumours are even true). And you're vastly underestimating—actually, outright ignoring—the fact that for most people in the audience a trip to the theatre is a huge investment in time and effort. For me, if I went to the theatre in London and the show was cancelled after a few minutes then I'd have wasted five to six hours and at least £20. That's not something I can shrug off. For people who live a little further out their investment in an evening at the theatre is going to include a hotel and probably time off work. They could end up wasting a couple of days and several hundred pounds. Given your casual dismissal of such things I'm guessing that for you coming back on a different date is a comparatively simple matter, but for many people it isn't. If they'd hoped to see a particular person then of course they're going to be disappointed, but it's utter nonsense to suggest that most people would be so disappointed that they'd consider their entire trip was ruined beyond salvation and figure that there was no point in the production even trying to continue. In the real world most people want to make the best of it when things don't turn out perfectly, and not getting to see the performer they wanted really isn't that big a deal compared with a celebratory theatre trip to London turning into an evening in a crowded and overpriced generic chain-pub because the show was cancelled. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:31:42 GMT
"Technical difficulties"
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 14:39:46 GMT
No one knows what actually happened (yet). [ That's not true. The theatre staff the cast know what happened, and have told us - technical problems. It's simply that some people are refusing to believe that based on the wild speculation of a couple of audience members, who know considerably less than the people who have offered an explanation. A couple of those people on Twitter found it weird that they heard the cast boo from behind the curtain when the cancellation was announced, which says to me that they were looking to sh*t-stir. Of course the cast want to finish the show, and on having it halted due to a technical difficulty that couldn't be fixed on the night would express their disappointment. What's weird about that?! It doesn't matter what the theatre says now - they could give a full technical explanation of the fault, which most people won't be qualified to understand - some people still won't believe it. Just as a matter of interest, would they still get paid for a halted performance? I'm assuming they do. In which case, would they really be that disappointed? (I'm thinking, it's a bit like when a snow blizzard starts mid afternoon, and the boss in the office tells everyone not to hang around and to get off while they can...) |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 1, 2016 15:19:38 GMT
I think you're vastly understating the affection people have for Sheridan Smith. I'm sure some people would've been perfectly happy with a refund rather than sitting through a show they would never have gone to see if Sheridan hadn't been in it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course they'd be disappointed. As we've seen with Sunset Boulevard, some people were happy with Ria Jones, some people are still disappointed now that they didn't see Glenn. We'll never know now how this would've panned out if they'd put the understudy on on Thursday night (if the rumours are even true). And you're vastly underestimating—actually, outright ignoring—the fact that for most people in the audience a trip to the theatre is a huge investment in time and effort. For me, if I went to the theatre in London and the show was cancelled after a few minutes then I'd have wasted five to six hours and at least £20. That's not something I can shrug off. For people who live a little further out their investment in an evening at the theatre is going to include a hotel and probably time off work. They could end up wasting a couple of days and several hundred pounds. Given your casual dismissal of such things I'm guessing that for you coming back on a different date is a comparatively simple matter, but for many people it isn't. If they'd hoped to see a particular person then of course they're going to be disappointed, but it's utter nonsense to suggest that most people would be so disappointed that they'd consider their entire trip was ruined beyond salvation and figure that there was no point in the production even trying to continue. In the real world most people want to make the best of it when things don't turn out perfectly, and not getting to see the performer they wanted really isn't that big a deal compared with a celebratory theatre trip to London turning into an evening in a crowded and overpriced generic chain-pub because the show was cancelled. I'm not ignoring it. I'm disagreeing that they would all stay for the show just because of how far they'd travelled. You only seem to be seeing it from your point of view and what you would do. I honestly believe a lot of people would rather have the refund than see the show regardless of how far they'd travelled, and yes without Sheridan I'm sure some people would rather go and find a posh restaurant or a luxury cinema than sit through the show. Some people would give it a go, others would not. From here and your posts in the Sunset Boulevard thread, the celebrity thing is obviously not a big thing for you and you just go for the show. That's great, but for a lot of people it is and they wouldn't be in those Theatres if it wasn't for those stars. I do live close to London, yes, but I have travelled all over the place with hotels etc. just to see shows. I have also travelled far and wide to see certain actors in regional performances, I've always been lucky and seen them. I don't know how I would've reacted if they'd been off as I certainly would not have been going to see those shows otherwise. If the Theatre offered me a refund I would have to weigh it up in my head at the time. It would of course depend where I was but in London it's not like there's nothing else to do. |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on May 1, 2016 16:11:33 GMT
[ That's not true. The theatre staff the cast know what happened, and have told us - technical problems. It's simply that some people are refusing to believe that based on the wild speculation of a couple of audience members, who know considerably less than the people who have offered an explanation. A couple of those people on Twitter found it weird that they heard the cast boo from behind the curtain when the cancellation was announced, which says to me that they were looking to sh*t-stir. Of course the cast want to finish the show, and on having it halted due to a technical difficulty that couldn't be fixed on the night would express their disappointment. What's weird about that?! It doesn't matter what the theatre says now - they could give a full technical explanation of the fault, which most people won't be qualified to understand - some people still won't believe it. Just as a matter of interest, would they still get paid for a halted performance? I'm assuming they do. In which case, would they really be that disappointed? (I'm thinking, it's a bit like when a snow blizzard starts mid afternoon, and the boss in the office tells everyone not to hang around and to get off while they can...) I would say they would still be rather disappointed. If you're an actor, you are certainly not in it for the money, unless you become relatively famous. So I would say the money aspect is vastly overridden by the fact that an actor loves, more than anything in the world, to perform, and when that opportunity to do so in front of a sold-out crowd of 1,150 people, in a West End theatre, in a very well-received and publicised show is taken away, the disappointment of not getting to be on stage that evening will be worse than the knowledge of still getting £400-£700 at the end of the week! If being an actor, specifically in musical theatre, was comparable to an office job, then my goodness the world and his wife would be doing it! |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 1, 2016 16:37:42 GMT
[ That's not true. The theatre staff the cast know what happened, and have told us - technical problems. It's simply that some people are refusing to believe that based on the wild speculation of a couple of audience members, who know considerably less than the people who have offered an explanation. A couple of those people on Twitter found it weird that they heard the cast boo from behind the curtain when the cancellation was announced, which says to me that they were looking to sh*t-stir. Of course the cast want to finish the show, and on having it halted due to a technical difficulty that couldn't be fixed on the night would express their disappointment. What's weird about that?! It doesn't matter what the theatre says now - they could give a full technical explanation of the fault, which most people won't be qualified to understand - some people still won't believe it. Just as a matter of interest, would they still get paid for a halted performance? I'm assuming they do. In which case, would they really be that disappointed? (I'm thinking, it's a bit like when a snow blizzard starts mid afternoon, and the boss in the office tells everyone not to hang around and to get off while they can...) Most actors spend thousands of pounds and several years of their life working to get the chance to perform in front of a West End audience. Of course they want to perform. It's not like doing data entry! |
|
119 posts
|
Post by emilyrose on May 1, 2016 16:43:09 GMT
I think you're vastly understating the affection people have for Sheridan Smith. I'm sure some people would've been perfectly happy with a refund rather than sitting through a show they would never have gone to see if Sheridan hadn't been in it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course they'd be disappointed. As we've seen with Sunset Boulevard, some people were happy with Ria Jones, some people are still disappointed now that they didn't see Glenn. We'll never know now how this would've panned out if they'd put the understudy on on Thursday night (if the rumours are even true). And you're vastly underestimating—actually, outright ignoring—the fact that for most people in the audience a trip to the theatre is a huge investment in time and effort. For me, if I went to the theatre in London and the show was cancelled after a few minutes then I'd have wasted five to six hours and at least £20. That's not something I can shrug off. For people who live a little further out their investment in an evening at the theatre is going to include a hotel and probably time off work. They could end up wasting a couple of days and several hundred pounds. Given your casual dismissal of such things I'm guessing that for you coming back on a different date is a comparatively simple matter, but for many people it isn't. If they'd hoped to see a particular person then of course they're going to be disappointed, but it's utter nonsense to suggest that most people would be so disappointed that they'd consider their entire trip was ruined beyond salvation and figure that there was no point in the production even trying to continue. In the real world most people want to make the best of it when things don't turn out perfectly, and not getting to see the performer they wanted really isn't that big a deal compared with a celebratory theatre trip to London turning into an evening in a crowded and overpriced generic chain-pub because the show was cancelled. I have to agree with you here. For me, well I have disabilities sadly. I have pain disorders which for days/weeks after a show I suffer. I live in London, so it's not too far for me, although I till have to travel to get to the west end, but it is a lot of time and energy to get there and get ready to go too. If I could, I would be at the theatre every night, but I can only manage once every few months because of the physical side of it. If a show is cancelled after ten minutes, I will still suffer the same as if I had seen the whole thing. I never really care if I see the 'star' turn. I want to see a good show. I trained as a dancer/performer, I know how hard those understudies have worked and how much talent they have (a lot of the times more then the named celeb in the show), so I would rather see a show then none at all. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 1, 2016 16:50:53 GMT
It would of course depend where I was but in London it's not like there's nothing else to do. Like what? It'd be too late to go to another show, tourist attractions are likely already closed, you've probably already had dinner, any gigs going on are likely sold out and way across town. There's over-priced cinemas but the films in most are unlikely to be any different to back home. It's not like most people coming in to town for a show are going to even know what else is going on that night. The best most people are going to come up with at short notice is the pub and an early train home. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 16:54:47 GMT
Just as a matter of interest, would they still get paid for a halted performance? I'm assuming they do. In which case, would they really be that disappointed? (I'm thinking, it's a bit like when a snow blizzard starts mid afternoon, and the boss in the office tells everyone not to hang around and to get off while they can...) Most actors spend thousands of pounds and several years of their life working to get the chance to perform in front of a West End audience. Of course they want to perform. It's not like doing data entry! It's an interesting take, I agree. However, soemeone I know through a friend was in the chorus of Les Mis some years ago and she said she thought she was going mad singing the same stuff night in, night out. I reckon acting can become like anything else in the end, especially if you are always in the chorus in the Long Runners, never quite making it as a featured performer. Perhaps some of our posters who are professional actors could enlighten us... |
|
119 posts
|
Post by emilyrose on May 1, 2016 17:08:16 GMT
Don't be daft. Nothing draws more attention than having to cancel mid-performance. An understudy having to go on due to the indisposition of Sheridan wouldn't draw more attention and would cost a lot less. Indisposition would also provide a much better excuse for her, if there was a problem with her, than technical difficulties. People are pretty rubbish at interpreting behaviour, and very good at jumping to conclusions. Normally the performance isn't stopped after 15 minutes, which is the young Fanny bit, so people don't start tweeting until the interval, by which time they are used to the accent and the performance has progressed.I imagine the producers and Sheridan are taking legal advice. To be fair, one of the tweets I read was tweeted during the show, the tweet came before they then said they were on a break. I think people who go to the theatre can see if something fits or doesn't. Other people who have been have never said she plays the first bit drunk or stumbles over the lines. I think if there are a few who feel the same , something must have been up. The poster on here said they felt like it, then heard the people at the back shout 'put the understudy on', so without sharing and talking to them, the other people felt it too. I think the lack of support from her co-stars speaks volumes too, along with the producers. If it were all made up, you could bet that they would be quick to jump to her defence. Wouldn't they at least disclose the problem, say Darius, wouldn't he put it out there that the safety curtain was acting up? |
|
119 posts
|
Post by emilyrose on May 1, 2016 17:14:54 GMT
Most actors spend thousands of pounds and several years of their life working to get the chance to perform in front of a West End audience. Of course they want to perform. It's not like doing data entry! It's an interesting take, I agree. However, soemeone I know through a friend was in the chorus of Les Mis some years ago and she said she thought she was going mad singing the same stuff night in, night out. I reckon acting can become like anything else in the end, especially if you are always in the chorus in the Long Runners, never quite making it as a featured performer. Perhaps some of our posters who are professional actors could enlighten us... I think it depends what type of a person you are. I would think being in the chorus of Les Mis for five years would be a bit mundane and run of the mill, so you may not mind getting out of the odd performance. This show is a limited run, still fresh and only days old in the Savoy, the whole cast most likely would have been very disappointed not to go on. Plus they may feel sorry for the audience too, who they would know would be an eager audience and it would disappoint greatly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 17:37:08 GMT
You only seem to be seeing it from your point of view and what you would do. I honestly believe a lot of people would rather have the refund than see the show regardless of how far they'd travelled, and yes without Sheridan I'm sure some people would rather go and find a posh restaurant or a luxury cinema than sit through the show. Some people would give it a go, others would not. I'm basing my opinion on the results of surveys into theatregoing behaviour. Most people go to the theatre once a year or less frequently, and do it for special occasions. They're not going to have an attitude of "Never mind that the show we've been looking forward to for months has been cancelled. We'll just have to try to find something else to do, even though we have no idea what else there is to do because we hadn't planned for this." It easy to sit there and say "they could just do something else", but do you really believe that people who are making their one trip to the theatre that year will accept a cinema or a when-they-can-be-squeezed-in table at a restaurant as a substitute, even if they can find one? Apparently you do, but I don't personally know of anyone who thinks that way. Almost all of my theatregoing is based on going to see people rather than shows. Not celebrities, because I've never believed that fame is related to talent or ability, but that doesn't lessen the disappointment when things don't work out as I'd hoped. And yes, sometimes I am disappointed. The difference between you and me is that I don't believe that what I want gives me an entitlement to demand anything more from the producers than they're actually selling. If I don't get exactly the cast I want I shrug it off and see what the cast I get can do. I don't storm off in a fit of pique. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 1, 2016 17:44:47 GMT
Has anyone else here ever seen an actor drunk on stage? I have, once, a rather famous actor, and it was painfully obvious to everyone - slurred words, missed cues, ad libs, concerned looks from other actors. You KNOW. So why are the reactions of audience members who were actually there being dismissed? And, as emilyrose said, why aren't her fellow cast mates supporting her? Why aren't the producers telling us what exactly the technical difficulties were? The lack of forthrightness speaks volumes.
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by liverpool54321 on May 1, 2016 17:46:40 GMT
No one knows what actually happened (yet). [ That's not true. The theatre staff the cast know what happened, and have told us - technical problems. It's simply that some people are refusing to believe that based on the wild speculation of a couple of audience members, who know considerably less than the people who have offered an explanation. A couple of those people on Twitter found it weird that they heard the cast boo from behind the curtain when the cancellation was announced, which says to me that they were looking to sh*t-stir. Of course the cast want to finish the show, and on having it halted due to a technical difficulty that couldn't be fixed on the night would express their disappointment. What's weird about that?! It doesn't matter what the theatre says now - they could give a full technical explanation of the fault, which most people won't be qualified to understand - some people still won't believe it. I'm not say "no one" knows. Of course someone does. Just the media and those there on the night to watch, and those on this forum, and thousands of others that don't. If I was Sheridan's agent and I was sat watching my star client being hung out to dry by the media because of technical difficulties that the theatre has chosen to keep quiet I would be seriously looking at suing them. I think most people with a relatively low IQ would get it if it was simply explained that part of the set or equipment malfunctioned. That's all they would have to say. |
|
