19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 21, 2018 19:35:01 GMT
They’ve got some nerve charging £74 for a premium at this theatre. SEVENTY FOUR QUID?! Yup. The seats arent even attached to the floor. Some nerve.. |
|
2,422 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Mar 21, 2018 22:10:57 GMT
Definitely gonna try and see this but not at those inflated prices. Bound to be deals about. It is the Arts Theatre, after all 😁
|
|
2,411 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatreian on Mar 21, 2018 22:13:42 GMT
Yes it does seem a bit excessive! It's hardly the Palladium after all.
|
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Mar 22, 2018 9:17:00 GMT
If a company posts something on social media, they definitely have an expectation that it will be shared and copied around - that is the whole point of companies putting things on social media in the first place, so they get shared to various places and get them seen, this is how things go 'viral'. I can go on that image on on the Ticketmaster Instagram page right now and share it wherever I want (there's a 'share to Facebook' and 'copy link' button on the image for example - see screenshot) and not be breaking any copyright rules. If they didn't want it shared they wouldn't put it on social media - the reason they've put it on social media is so that it CAN be shared. Photos on social media and normal websites aren’t treated the same.  Anyway, my point is - what is the difference between Ticketmaster sharing the image and someone from the general public sharing pretty much the exact same image? Someone from the general public could share the Ticketmaster image if they wanted, so posting their own one isn't any different, and the only thing that could possibly happen is it could be free (much needed) marketing for the show. As I said, obviously the producers can have any rules they want with regards to their own property - it just seems like it doesn't make any logical sense. If they were really that bothered about protecting their copyright they wouldn’t have allowed the image to be put on social media at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 9:25:47 GMT
If a company posts something on social media, they definitely have an expectation that it will be shared and copied around - that is the whole point of companies putting things on social media in the first place, so they get shared to various places and get them seen, this is how things go 'viral'. I can go on that image on on the Ticketmaster Instagram page right now and share it wherever I want (there's a 'share to Facebook' and 'copy link' button on the image for example - see screenshot) and not be breaking any copyright rules. If they didn't want it shared they wouldn't put it on social media - the reason they've put it on social media is so that it CAN be shared. Photos on social media and normal websites aren’t treated the same... Anyway, my point is - what is the difference between Ticketmaster sharing the image and someone from the general public sharing pretty much the exact same image? Someone from the general public could share the Ticketmaster image if they wanted, so posting their own one isn't any different, and the only thing that could possibly happen is it could be free (much needed) marketing for the show. As I said, obviously the producers can have any rules they want with regards to their own property - it just seems like it doesn't make any logical sense. If they were really that bothered about protecting their copyright they wouldn’t have allowed the image to be put on social media at all. Its probably down to Ticketmaster wanting their picture being shared exclusively, for clicks, so it all links back to that page where you spend money with them, rather than anyone elses page. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 9:36:36 GMT
Do you really not see the difference between "allowing an officially sanctioned picture to be shared in a way that also promotes Ticketmaster" and "just letting any old person take pictures even if that then results in shoddy pictures that could misrepresent the production being spread around with a side effect of inadvertently making it much harder to stop people taking pictures during the show"? Weird.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Mar 22, 2018 9:37:07 GMT
Anyway, my point is - what is the difference between Ticketmaster sharing the image and someone from the general public sharing pretty much the exact same image? Someone from the general public could share the Ticketmaster image if they wanted, so posting their own one isn't any different, and the only thing that could possibly happen is it could be free (much needed) marketing for the show. As I said, obviously the producers can have any rules they want with regards to their own property - it just seems like it doesn't make any logical sense. If they were really that bothered about protecting their copyright they wouldn’t have allowed the image to be put on social media at all. The difference is huge. The company has full rights to approve the quality and quantity of the images. As an ex-comms theatre person I really hated blurry images taken by the members of public that were not doing our show any justice and could only make people NOT want to see the show, not the other way round. So yes, I would like social media only to use the photos I carefully chose for that purpose. |
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Mar 22, 2018 9:37:54 GMT
That could be it - but if that's the case I would hope that Ticketmaster paid a significant amount for exclusivity, as by not allowing the public to do free marketing for them they are significantly reducing their reach. And even if the public did take photos and post them (which is still happening anyway) Ticketmaster or the show would have no way of knowing they are out there, and the show is getting free marketing - why would any producer want to stop that from happening?
|
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Mar 22, 2018 9:48:20 GMT
I went last night. Great cast and it’s great fun but it’s a bit of fluff.
If you can get a comp, a discount or the front row for 20 quid then go.
|
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Mar 22, 2018 9:52:27 GMT
Anyway, my point is - what is the difference between Ticketmaster sharing the image and someone from the general public sharing pretty much the exact same image? Someone from the general public could share the Ticketmaster image if they wanted, so posting their own one isn't any different, and the only thing that could possibly happen is it could be free (much needed) marketing for the show. As I said, obviously the producers can have any rules they want with regards to their own property - it just seems like it doesn't make any logical sense. If they were really that bothered about protecting their copyright they wouldn’t have allowed the image to be put on social media at all. The difference is huge. The company has full rights to approve the quality and quantity of the images. As an ex-comms theatre person I really hated blurry images taken by the members of public that were not doing our show any justice and could only make people NOT want to see the show, not the other way round. So yes, I would like social media only to use the photos I carefully chose for that purpose. It still makes absolutely no sense to me, when this show is obviously struggling they are limiting the free marketing they can get. If poor quality images was that much of an issue, why would Hamilton actively encourage it? Hamilton's whole brand is centred around absolute excellence and the pinnacle of theatre, yet they allow photos from the public which they haven't vetted. Whenever someone's posted a photo of the Grinning Man set (which is encouraged by the producers) on the theatre Facebook groups I am a member of the reactions are always positive and you can see comments from people saying how it looks interesting and they might consider going. Surely the positive reactions would significantly outweigh the negative. |
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Mar 22, 2018 12:27:57 GMT
The difference is huge. The company has full rights to approve the quality and quantity of the images. As an ex-comms theatre person I really hated blurry images taken by the members of public that were not doing our show any justice and could only make people NOT want to see the show, not the other way round. So yes, I would like social media only to use the photos I carefully chose for that purpose. It still makes absolutely no sense to me, when this show is obviously struggling they are limiting the free marketing they can get. If poor quality images was that much of an issue, why would Hamilton actively encourage it? Hamilton's whole brand is centred around absolute excellence and the pinnacle of theatre, yet they allow photos from the public which they haven't vetted. Whenever someone's posted a photo of the Grinning Man set (which is encouraged by the producers) on the theatre Facebook groups I am a member of the reactions are always positive and you can see comments from people saying how it looks interesting and they might consider going. Surely the positive reactions would significantly outweigh the negative. Your idea of "free marketing" is a bit different from how others see it, I guess. While working in theatre comms I noticed, that people who are so sure that things they are posting on social media are definitely "free marketing" and "helping the show" - these very people are often the those who are not doing the show any justice by what they are posting. just saying. (I won't even going into the details of difference of what is allowed to post from Hamilton/Grinning Man etc... |
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Mar 22, 2018 12:52:20 GMT
It still makes absolutely no sense to me, when this show is obviously struggling they are limiting the free marketing they can get. If poor quality images was that much of an issue, why would Hamilton actively encourage it? Hamilton's whole brand is centred around absolute excellence and the pinnacle of theatre, yet they allow photos from the public which they haven't vetted. Whenever someone's posted a photo of the Grinning Man set (which is encouraged by the producers) on the theatre Facebook groups I am a member of the reactions are always positive and you can see comments from people saying how it looks interesting and they might consider going. Surely the positive reactions would significantly outweigh the negative. Your idea of "free marketing" is a bit different from how others see it, I guess. While working in theatre comms I noticed, that people who are so sure that things they are posting on social media are definitely "free marketing" and "helping the show" - these very people are often the those who are not doing the show any justice by what they are posting. just saying. (I won't even going into the details of difference of what is allowed to post from Hamilton/Grinning Man etc... I guess my idea of free marketing just comes from personal anecdotal experience. I remember seeing a photo posted by a friend of the Jesus Christ Superstar stage last year and booking a ticket off the back of it. And recently booking to see Witness for the Prosecution based on a photo from a friend of the inside of that beautiful chamber (the taking of photos again is encouraged here). I must have also seen at least 20 photos of the stage of Grinning Man on a theatre Facebook group, accompanied by hundreds of likes, comments saying how good the stage looked and how much they enjoyed the show or were now considering booking. I don't remember any of those photos being of poor quality or having anything negative associated with them. And even if 1 or 2 of them were of bad quality, the other 18 will reach thousands of potential ticket buyers that wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to this show, or even stopped to read the accompanying post if it didn't have a picture attached to it. I guess context also comes into play here - this show is struggling to sell tickets - they need to do something to get the word out there, and it just seems to me that this is such an easy way of doing it. It's a well designed stage! Show it off to as many people as possible! That one Ticketmaster photo isn't going to go very far - I haven't seen it come up on my Facebook yet and Im a member of every theatre group and page going! I'm not trying to have an argument or anything and am genuinely trying to learn if there is a valid reason I am missing as to why producers wouldn't want pictures of the stage shared on social media 😀 I hadn't considered a possible exclusivity deal with Ticketmaster - so I've learnt about that, but still can't see how this would be beneficial to the production at all (unless Ticketmaster paid them a hefty sum) Could you please share what the difference between this and Grinning Man would be? They are both similar size shows - at Grinning Man there was an announcement when I went that specifically asked people to take photos of the set and share them on social media. I am not sure why it would be impossible for Ruthless to do similar? Thank you 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 12:54:50 GMT
It's not that it's impossible, it's that they have not given permission. It's literally just a matter of consent at this point - Grinning Man say it's fine, so do it. Ruthless do not, so don't. It doesn't really matter what their reasoning is, or if you think the Ruthless producers/Arts Theatre are doing themselves out of an absolute ton of publicity, it's simply the polite thing to do to adhere to what the individual shows/theatres have asked you to do or not do. I know that "because I said so" is an infuriating response to receive to a "why" question, but sometimes that's all there is to it.
|
|
4,214 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Mar 22, 2018 12:55:35 GMT
For those of us who haven’t seen the show and may be considering doing so, is it possible to get the discussion back on track?
|
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Mar 22, 2018 13:02:30 GMT
It's not that it's impossible, it's that they have not given permission. It's literally just a matter of consent at this point - Grinning Man say it's fine, so do it. Ruthless do not, so don't. It doesn't really matter what their reasoning is, or if you think the Ruthless producers/Arts Theatre are doing themselves out of an absolute ton of publicity, it's simply the polite thing to do to adhere to what the individual shows/theatres have asked you to do or not do. I know that "because I said so" is an infuriating response to receive to a "why" question, but sometimes that's all there is to it. OK yeah I know the response at this moment is 'because I said so', was just trying to find out if there was a valid reason this the the answer, and it looks like there isn't one that I can see. So I've got my answer, I just think it's an absolutely crazy one that makes no sense to me 😀 Sorry for diverting the conversation, though it was somewhat relevant. |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 23, 2018 1:20:50 GMT
For those of us who haven’t seen the show and may be considering doing so, is it possible to get the discussion back on track? Yes, happy to get the discussion back on track! I saw this on Thursday afternoon and enjoyed it. It is performed by a very talented cast of 6 with tons of energy, camp and hugely over the top which suited the piece. All the roles were performed with gusto. Jason Gardiner especially impressive - good to see he can "deliver" the performance that he was expecting the Dancing On Ice contestants to do! The child I saw was excellent ( I usually hate child performers) but the girl I saw was fabulous and managed to be awful without being obnoxious! Tracie Bennett of course (almost ) steals the show with an hilarious number in the first act called "I hate musicals" which (almost) stops the show! But unfortunately does not have a great deal of stage time! All the cast appear to be having a huge amount of fun with it. Great fun for fans of musical theatre as the whole thing is a send up of the ruthless show biz mother and ambitious child, containing lots of lines, lyrics and musical motives from numerous other shows. It is quite fun to see how many you can spot. The show is very camp and funny and hurtles towards a funny and suitably over the top climax. The only issue I had with the show really is that it is very niche and fringe - with just two sets (although effective) and a cast of 6, and in this awful venue, the show really cannot justify the prices! So I would say it is only worth seeing at a discount - not worth £50 plus! If you can see it with a deal on the prices - go! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 9:16:34 GMT
Well. I just loved it. Loved loved loved it. It still makes me laugh out loud now thinking about it. I think the kids nowadays call it 'LOL'. It's a campalicious, frothy delight. In a strange way it reminds me of a slightly lighter showbiz mother/child version of the film 'Serial Mom'. The songs are catchy, the jokes come thick and fast and I just loved all the references to old films and Broadway musicals and the cast are sensational PLUS there's some tap dancing. Jason Gardiner camps it up a storm (as do they all) and has a strange look of Dame Diana Rigg in the second act (AND there's a turban!) and Kim Maresca who plays the mother is simply fabulous. Tracie Bennett pretty much steals the show with her drunk acting and big 'I Hate Musicals' number but she's challenged pretty strongly in the second act by Lara Denning as the assistant Eve who . . {SPOILER!! DONT DO IT!!}
. . . has quite possibly one of the best on stage deaths I have seen in a long time. The image of her grabbing the curtains still makes me scream.
It's OTT and has all the subtlety and depth of the cast of TOWIE in a puddle but oh, it's a joy. I will definitely go back again. If they charged me £75 to see it, I wouldn't begrudge a single pound of it. Even if the theatre needs burning down and starting again. I knew God would punish me for panning 'Fiddler'! |
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Mar 23, 2018 10:30:07 GMT
I LOVED this and would happily watch it again. As others have said it's silly, funny and camp - and the humour and musical/film references add to the fun. The performances are brilliantly over the top, and I enjoyed myself immensely.
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Mar 23, 2018 10:39:13 GMT
Is The Arts that bad? I have only been once but thought it wasn't that bad apart from the very crappy seats. That to me is the only issue. I don't mind if it's a bit grungy as long as it's comfortable. So yeh the seating should be fixed but other than that i don't mind the building.
Mind you i didn't use the loo's. Which i imagine could be problematic.
|
|
8,159 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 23, 2018 10:53:32 GMT
Is The Arts that bad? I have only been once but thought it wasn't that bad apart from the very crappy seats. That to me is the only issue. I don't mind if it's a bit grungy as long as it's comfortable. So yeh the seating should be fixed but other than that i don't mind the building. Mind you i didn't use the loo's. Which i imagine could be problematic. Well the bar area is very nice now but as soon as you go downstairs to enter the theatre its a bit grubby. Black painted walls and it reminds me of going into a seedy gay club in the 80s! If you sit at the back of the stalls you also get to hear the noise coming from a bar/club/whatever it is next door. Just needs a bit of TLC but aren't there plans for the building to be re-developed? |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 23, 2018 11:33:25 GMT
The floor of the stalls appears to be crumbling away and patched with black tape. The gents toilets (for the whole theatre!) must be the smallest anywhere! They must measure about 9'x 6' containing 2 miniature cubicles, a urinal and washbasin.
I dread to think what the backstage conditions are like!
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Mar 23, 2018 12:09:07 GMT
Is The Arts that bad? I have only been once but thought it wasn't that bad apart from the very crappy seats. That to me is the only issue. I don't mind if it's a bit grungy as long as it's comfortable. So yeh the seating should be fixed but other than that i don't mind the building. Mind you i didn't use the loo's. Which i imagine could be problematic. It's a bit shabby and the loos arent great (the nearby pubs must get so many people "just seeing if my friend is here"), but I like being in a theatre that size, and the bar/cafe area is nice. However, I agree that the pricing seems very warm for such a venue. |
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Mar 23, 2018 13:53:12 GMT
Jason and Tracie will be on Graham Norton's Radio 2 show tomorrow. Guests are usually on after 11.30am.
|
|
151 posts
|
Post by gra on Mar 25, 2018 0:26:49 GMT
Saw this tonight and enjoyed it a lot.
Excellent performances from all the cast including the young girl.
My only reservation was the sound. Maybe it was where I was sitting (front row circle) but it was extremely difficult to make out the song words in the more heavily orchestrated numbers.
Unfortunately this included the 'I hate musicals' number which I'm sure contains some very entertaining lyrics which sadly largely passed me by.
Anyone else think the same?
......could be the age thing I suppose!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 12:05:55 GMT
Am booked in for this Wednesday! I've always been curious about this musical so I'm excited to finally see it, especially with Tracie! Went for a front row £21 seat. The stage doesn't look as high as some shows so I'll be fine with that.  |
|
