4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 8, 2018 19:48:02 GMT
Sometimes refunds or change of date does happen in the West End, especially when the show is marketed for the person.
When I walked past the Adelphi when it had Joseph, Lee Mead was out and this production was all about Lee Mead, the producers were happy to give a refund or reschedule. Which was the correct thing to do.
Don’t know what has happened to Lee Mead? A genuine smashing guy.
|
|
4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 8, 2018 19:51:15 GMT
On tours they build in pauses in the schedule, so all actors and stage staff can take their leave. So you have more chances of seeing the people advertised.
This should happen in London too, shows go dark for a week or two, instead of pot luck with who you are going to see. Than for example turn up at the theatre and check the board to see who’s out.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jun 8, 2018 20:20:41 GMT
When I walked past the Adelphi when it had Joseph, Lee Mead was out and this production was all about Lee Mead, the producers were happy to give a refund or reschedule. Which was the correct thing to do. Don’t know what has happened to Lee Mead? A genuine smashing guy. I once battled through rail replacement hell to see Lee Mead in Joseph, only to arrive to get the understudy. There was definitely no refund or rescheduling. Nothing's happened to him.😉 He's worked consistently in theatre and TV for the past 10 years, currently playing a nurse in Holby City after moving across from Casualty. He also performs concerts around the country and on those celeb cruises that took up a whole other thread a while back. Personally I think he's at his best in musical theatre and I can't bring myself to watch Holby, even though I like him. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 20:23:33 GMT
On tours they build in pauses in the schedule, so all actors and stage staff can take their leave. So you have more chances of seeing the people advertised. This should happen in London too, Tours can do it because they're short. That doesn't work for open-ended runs. How would you feel if your employer told you that you had to take all your holidays on specific dates, with no absences at other times permitted for any reason? |
|
349 posts
|
Post by kimbahorel on Jun 8, 2018 20:57:27 GMT
For curiousity how many people here believe that going to a show you go to the show and not to see actors in the show? And actors I don't mean just the very famous leads - I mean any of the cast.
All the people I have known and met from going theatre have all gone to see actors in shows. I have been to see shows - just to see the show then gone back because I liked actors performances then gone to see them in the next show they did. There are some shows I probably wouldn't have gone to if an actor I liked hadn't have been in it.
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jun 8, 2018 21:01:30 GMT
There are definitely shows I've gone to because I liked one or a number of people in the cast, but generally that's not the make or break because I know if it hadn't been them, it likely would've been someone else of that same "type" who I already like.
I'm pretty glad I saw Alan Rickman in Seminar, though...
|
|
349 posts
|
Post by kimbahorel on Jun 8, 2018 21:10:21 GMT
I wonder where that idealism came from then? That you "pay for the show not the cast"
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jun 8, 2018 21:17:02 GMT
It's not necessarily idealism. It's because many other theatregoers aren't like us. Poll tourists leaving (generally) the more touristy shows and 90% of them won't know who they just saw, and it doesn't matter to them. Even my parents, who have seen Les Miz and Book of Mormon multiple times with me, can probably only name a couple of actors they saw in it, even if they had a great time. My parents saw the national tour of The Wiz and Annie back in the 70s and 80s, but they didn't know or care that they'd seen Molly Ringwald as an orphan. (My mom did recognize Lilias White as the woman who'd played Dorothy years later, but she wasn't why they went.)
A good friend of mine (also here in NYC) is a frequent but casual theatregoer. She is amazed whenever I can remember who I saw in what. She just remembers that she saw a show and enjoyed it and maybe knows the names of a couple people she sees in one season. But she keeps tabs on what she wants to see — just not who she wants to see. (However, she can remember what she ate and at what restaurant and with which friend at the drop of a hat.)
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 8, 2018 21:20:30 GMT
Sometimes refunds or change of date does happen in the West End, especially when the show is marketed for the person. When I walked past the Adelphi when it had Joseph, Lee Mead was out and this production was all about Lee Mead, the producers were happy to give a refund or reschedule. Which was the correct thing to do. Don’t know what has happened to Lee Mead? A genuine smashing guy. As well as Casualty, he did Panto in Southend last Christmas, so he is still around. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 21:41:22 GMT
I wonder where that idealism came from then? That you "pay for the show not the cast" It's not idealism. It's the reality of what is actually possible. A production cannot ensure that a cast is always available. People want holidays. People get sick. People have personal emergencies. Actors have as much right as any other employee to have time off work, and a production can't promise something that it doesn't have the power to deliver. I find this kind of entitlement intensely annoying. Every single person who buys a theatre ticket knows that people take time off work. They know that people get sick. Unless they've never been to the theatre before in their lives and never read a newspaper or watched television they certainly know about understudies, and if they know about understudies they must know what the existence of understudies implies. They know that when they book to see a particular person there is a risk that the person they want to see won't be there, just as when they book a holiday they know they might not get the perfect weather they want and when they go to a restaurant the favourite meal they love might be off the menu. Things don't always turn out perfectly. Everybody knows that, and most of the time people accept that. But for some reason when it comes to gawping at a celebrity on stage people seem to think that it's someone else's duty to take away the risk and give them exactly what they want. They start saying they thought that promoting the star meant they were certain to get the star. Of course they didn't think it was certain. Anybody who thought that is too stupid to live. They knew damned well there was a risk and they were perfectly happy for the risk to be there so long as it didn't happen to them. That's the thing that really annoys me about this entire situation. The dishonesty. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed when you don't get what you hoped, and it's great if a generous gesture from the production can offset that disappointment. But when people start claiming that they didn't know it was possible for the star to be off, act as though the production has broken a promise and demand that someone fixes it? That disgusts me. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jun 8, 2018 21:47:05 GMT
About 20 years ago, I was seeing the Les Miz tour with my mom, and there were three understudies on (from what I remember, Valjean, Enjolras, and Marius). I was very excited. My mom scoffed, "Then why aren't we paying understudy prices?!" (Even though she had no idea who they were, much less who the full-time performers were.) She ended up loving them and the entire show, but the mentality can be taken much further and much more seriously by more annoying and aggravating people.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Jun 8, 2018 23:01:27 GMT
Don’t know what has happened to Lee Mead? A genuine smashing guy. Am I the only member who watches Holby City, in which Lee Mead has been appearing for the past year or so? |
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 8, 2018 23:48:25 GMT
I agree with this. At the end of the day as a theatre goer, you are paying to watch the SHOW and if the star or leads happen to be there then great, but sometimes life gets in the way meaning thapt they can’t appear for whatever reason. Does this mean the show is poorer for their absence? No, sometimes the understudy can be just as good or even better than the absent cast member. A few years ago, I booked to watch Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act at the Palladium. I got an e mail just before I was travelling down to London to say that due to a family illness she had to go back home and an understudy would be taking over. When I got into the auditorium, it was obvious that by the large number of empty seats around me thst people had not bothered to show up because she wasn’t there. In fact, the understudy was making her debut I think and actually was really good in the role. Did it lessen my enjoyment of the show? No. For me, only if the show gets cancelled (such as an on stage technical issue) then refunds should be given, not for having absent cast members. I always find this reasoning to be an odd kind of Stockholm Syndrome - I mean to be fair I guess sometimes you are paying to watch the show but sometimes the show and especially *pricing* for the show clearly reflects you are paying for a star. If you honestly believe there is nothing ethically wrong with a producer marketing BETTE MIDLER in HELLO, DOLLY - accepting up to $1,000 USD for a premium ticket and then not taking a refund or exchange should Bette Midler not appear, then I would be shocked. This is a completely different situation than say Wicked though - where (at least now) you really are just paying to see the show. The producers aren't making a big deal about who is in the show or not. Of course, when Bette Midler did miss her one show the Producers did the right thing and gave refunds. It is them - not the audience - who should be accountable should they not be able to deliver on their marketing. If the West End hasn't already caught up to this, I hope they do soon. It's just a pure scam otherwise. It sounds like they have though, albeit inconsistently (I remember a big deal being made out of Glenn Close missing performances at ENO). From reading your post, I was interested in the fact that you didn’t acknowledge the issue of some things being out of a producers / theatres control that I mentioned in my original post resulting in that the “star” may not be available. I accept that in the case of Bette Middler, people will have booked specifically to see her rather than the production itself. Though if she couldn’t make a particular performance for personal reasons and people are not adult enough to accept that and ask for their money back then I don’t see the issue with producers not refunding money or exchanging tickets. There should be clear indications either on the ticket or at the time of sale the conditions in which the ticket is sold as is the case for UK theatres. Though accepting upto $1000 for a ticket as you stated for a ticket is in my opinion ethically wrong. It doesn’t matter who the star is those prices are just crazy and quite honestly if you decided that you wanted to pay that much for a ticket then someone should take you to one side and beat you around the head with a wet fish! I will happily admit there have been shows where I have booked simply to see a particular actor(s), but I would never think about not seeing the show or getting a refund or exchange if they did not appear in that particular performance. As other posts have stated as well as my own, I would hope to see them on stage, though I wouldn’t be going to the box office asking for my money back if they did not turn up. |
|
629 posts
|
Post by christya on Jun 8, 2018 23:52:21 GMT
Oh come now, the people who did get to see her said she was very good. It's just that she wasn't on most of the time! Let's not re-write history, folks. That's not what I was told by friends who went. One left at the interval. But I daresay she might have been to some people's taste - someone cast her, after all. |
|
4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 9, 2018 0:39:23 GMT
When I walked past the Adelphi when it had Joseph, Lee Mead was out and this production was all about Lee Mead, the producers were happy to give a refund or reschedule. Which was the correct thing to do. Don’t know what has happened to Lee Mead? A genuine smashing guy. I once battled through rail replacement hell to see Lee Mead in Joseph, only to arrive to get the understudy. There was definitely no refund or rescheduling. Nothing's happened to him.😉 He's worked consistently in theatre and TV for the past 10 years, currently playing a nurse in Holby City after moving across from Casualty. He also performs concerts around the country and on those celeb cruises that took up a whole other thread a while back. Personally I think he's at his best in musical theatre and I can't bring myself to watch Holby, even though I like him. Oh this was only for people who were chauffeured, or turned up in pedi-cab. They were definitely rescheduling or refunding people. On tours they build in pauses in the schedule, so all actors and stage staff can take their leave. So you have more chances of seeing the people advertised. This should happen in London too, Tours can do it because they're short. That doesn't work for open-ended runs. How would you feel if your employer told you that you had to take all your holidays on specific dates, with no absences at other times permitted for any reason? Why cannot it not work? The organisation I work for - a public transport organisation instructs a lot of operational grades tells the employees when to take their leave, we wouldn’t be able to run trains otherwise. That doesn’t mean that once leave has been allocated that local arrangements come in and staff make mutual agreements which suits them. Producers have worked out it’s cheaper to have understudies, than to stay dark for 5 weeks, it certainly can be done and should be implemented, than people turning up and it’s a crapshoot who you are going to see. Cirque du Soleil does this all the time on the strip in Vegas. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Jun 9, 2018 6:58:18 GMT
I always find this reasoning to be an odd kind of Stockholm Syndrome - I mean to be fair I guess sometimes you are paying to watch the show but sometimes the show and especially *pricing* for the show clearly reflects you are paying for a star. If you honestly believe there is nothing ethically wrong with a producer marketing BETTE MIDLER in HELLO, DOLLY - accepting up to $1,000 USD for a premium ticket and then not taking a refund or exchange should Bette Midler not appear, then I would be shocked. This is a completely different situation than say Wicked though - where (at least now) you really are just paying to see the show. The producers aren't making a big deal about who is in the show or not. Of course, when Bette Midler did miss her one show the Producers did the right thing and gave refunds. It is them - not the audience - who should be accountable should they not be able to deliver on their marketing. If the West End hasn't already caught up to this, I hope they do soon. It's just a pure scam otherwise. It sounds like they have though, albeit inconsistently (I remember a big deal being made out of Glenn Close missing performances at ENO). From reading your post, I was interested in the fact that you didn’t acknowledge the issue of some things being out of a producers / theatres control that I mentioned in my original post resulting in that the “star” may not be available. I accept that in the case of Bette Middler, people will have booked specifically to see her rather than the production itself. Though if she couldn’t make a particular performance for personal reasons and people are not adult enough to accept that and ask for their money back then I don’t see the issue with producers not refunding money or exchanging tickets. There should be clear indications either on the ticket or at the time of sale the conditions in which the ticket is sold as is the case for UK theatres. Though accepting upto $1000 for a ticket as you stated for a ticket is in my opinion ethically wrong. It doesn’t matter who the star is those prices are just crazy and quite honestly if you decided that you wanted to pay that much for a ticket then someone should take you to one side and beat you around the head with a wet fish! I will happily admit there have been shows where I have booked simply to see a particular actor(s), but I would never think about not seeing the show or getting a refund or exchange if they did not appear in that particular performance. As other posts have stated as well as my own, I would hope to see them on stage, though I wouldn’t be going to the box office asking for my money back if they did not turn up. So if I understand, you are saying that you indeed see no moral issue with a Producer advertising and accepting money for BETTE MIDLER in HELLO, DOLLY! and then not having to be accountable for it should they not be able to deliver on their marketing? That just sounds like absolute madness to me - this is a commercial enterprise and they are banking on the fact that they have assets to sell. If you can't sell those assets (even if outside their control), it's always the people responsible for delivering those assets that are held to account, not the consumer. This is fair business practice 101. Of course, it's not all shows and all stars - but only shows where the show seems to be specifically marketed around the star. Examples of where I don't think consumers are entitled to a refund (good examples were mentioned): * Wicked * The Book of Mormon * Les Miz * Phantom Examples of where I think consumers are entitled to a refund: * Patti LuPone GYPSY * Bette Midler HELLO, DOLLY * King and I (upcoming revival) * Imelda Staunton GYPSY * Sheridan Smith FUNNY GIRL And to be clear, no one is *entitled* to see someone in the sense that they need to drag out a sick star from bed and force them on stage. But people are *entitled* to receive a refund if they don't receive the services that were advertised and marketed to them. We have to remember that, for the most part, this is a commercial enterprise. If the producers can't deliver on the goods they shouldn't take the risk. Of course, as mentioned thankfully these are not controversial opinions and it is already universal practice in New York City to follow through with this. I can only hope the West End can treat consumers a little better and catch up here (if they haven't already). If we think about why refunds or exchanges aren't offered you realise it's just simply to help fill the coffers of the production - typical example of the little guy (consumers) suffering for the big machine. For a typically economically progressive community, it is interesting to see people side with the fat cats. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 8:20:00 GMT
If we think about why refunds or exchanges aren't offered you realise it's just simply to help fill the coffers of the production - typical example of the little guy (consumers) suffering for the big machine. For a typically economically progressive community, it is interesting to see people side with the fat cats. No, that's not why refunds and exchanges aren't offered. They are not offered because when you buy a ticket you are clearly told that the appearance of any particular performer cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, you are buying a ticket to the show, not a ticket to see a certain person in a show. That's a matter of very simple contract law that doesn't take a genius to understand. If you don't read the terms and conditions before you part with your cash then that's no-one's fault but your own, and if the performer you want to see isn't on then obviously you're entitled to be disappointed, but you have no legal right whatsoever to a refund, so you should count yourself lucky if the producers are willing to be accommodating. If you're going to act entitled about it then frankly I think the producers are well within their rights not to be accommodating. It's nothing to do with "siding with the fat cats", it's to do with a very simple understanding of how a contract works. It's not rocket science. More than that though, it's to do with having respect for all the other performers and crew who work incredibly hard to put on a show, and especially the understudy who might out of pure luck get their big break. They deserve respect, and a blind focus on the star of the production assumes it's all about them, when it isn't. Without the rest of the cast and crew there wouldn't be a show for you to see at all, so I find it really distasteful that people seem to think they're entitled to ditch the show and get money back for doing so just because one person isn't on. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Jun 9, 2018 8:54:14 GMT
There is a difference between describing the terms of a contract (as you have done) and describing why the terms of the contract exist (as I have done). Have you worked in commercial theatre? The contract exists to protect the financial interests of the enterprise. It isn't about holding a moral stance about respect for performers or anything as fluffy as that lol. It's to offload the risk of non-delivery onto consumers, which does not stand in almost any other industry. Producers can hide behind walls of text that might be a accessed through a tiny asterisk at the bottom of a page, but you can't look at the following marketing image and suggest they are selling "the show not the star". We have to call a spade a spade. If they want to sell the show take out Orlando Bloom's name and face from the image. You can't have your cake and eat it too.  |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jun 9, 2018 9:12:34 GMT
Oh come now, the people who did get to see her said she was very good. It's just that she wasn't on most of the time! Let's not re-write history, folks. That's not what I was told by friends who went. One left at the interval. But I daresay she might have been to some people's taste - someone cast her, after all. Martine was excellent and she won the Olivier. I don't think your friends' opinion was shared by many. It's a really shame that clearly musical theatre was not for her because she could have had a great career in it And if your friend left at the interval because of *one* poor performance, I'm guessing he/she isn't a great musicals fan |
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jun 9, 2018 11:59:17 GMT
That's not what I was told by friends who went. One left at the interval. But I daresay she might have been to some people's taste - someone cast her, after all. Martine was excellent and she won the Olivier. I don't think your friends' opinion was shared by many. It's a really shame that clearly musical theatre was not for her because she could have had a great career in it And if your friend left at the interval because of *one* poor performance, I'm guessing he/she isn't a great musicals fan Expressed much better than I could have managed, and spot on! Martine was great in MFL. |
|
2,323 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 9, 2018 12:50:00 GMT
I went to see the Misanthrope but unfortunately Keira Knightley's understudy wasn't playing that night
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Jun 9, 2018 13:08:34 GMT
Since this thread is now straying somewhat from its original purpose I might as well put in my two penneth and say that in general, West End musicals these days maintain a high standard of performance through long runs and understudies/covers are usually extremely good. As an example of this, look at the various terrific covers in 42nd Street, even the covers for Clare Halsey are brilliant so anybody who books to see 42nd Street for the first time is guaranteed to get a top class performance, even taking Lulu into account!
Anyway, my point is that following on from this idea that covers are usually excellent and I had booked principally to see the show, I was disappointed when I turned up to the Savoy a few years ago to see 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels', which was promoted as something like: "starring the finest musical performer in the West End – Robert Lindsay" to find that Mr Lindsay was off. I cannot remember the name of the cover, but he was no more than adequate and just went through the part in a mechanical way with no trace of charisma or star quality. I thought about making a fuss to the production company but in the end I just left in the interval and put it down to a bad experience! But the promotion was very clearly to see Robert Lindsay in 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' and I genuinely felt defrauded that the producers had not found a cover to remotely match Mr Lindsay. With hindsight I wish I had tried to get a swap for another date before the performance started but I was not expecting such a poor understudy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 14:32:43 GMT
An interesting observation there, tonyloco , that in general West End understudies are extremely good. And I've had many a good evening seeing the understudy, not the star... I remember booking for Aspects of Love at the Prince of Wales when it was first announced. Back then the announcement of a new Andrew Lloyd Webber show was met with huge excitement, especially after the success of Phantom three long years earlier. So I'd booked to see a new Lloyd Webber show, but I was also excited about seeing Michael Ball as I'd loved him in Les Mis. I think I was relieved that Roger Moore had dropped out... Anyway, the evening we went Ann Crumb, the American actress who was playing Rose, was off. Someone called Carol Duffy was the lead that night and she was phenomenal. In fact I waited at the stage-door for her after the show (nobody else there...) and she autographed my souvenir brochure. I still have it. I saw it again afterwards, as I'd loved the production so much, and when it was announced that Sarah Brightman would be doing a 'special twelve week season' as Rose I booked again. However, after booking it was announced that she'd not be on the night I'd got tickets for. I 'phoned the box-office (remember those days?) and spoke to a rather pompous box-office manager who informed me, "You booked for the show, not the person in it." To which I replied, "You have absolutely no idea what I booked for. I've already seen the show twice. This time I booked solely to see Sarah Brightman playing Rose." Unbeaten, I was given the telephone number of the Really Useful Group to pursue the matter. "But I don't hold out much hope!" he squawked. They exchanged my tickets without much fuss... Now I love to go down to Chichester every year to see the summer musical. A lot of the time I'm not really that fussed what it is; I just like a nice day out in West Sussex, and a night at the cft always offers a lot more than a good show. We booked for Half a Sixpence. Bryan Dick was supposed to be the lead; I knew his face from the telly. The Morecambe and Wise drama... But early on it was announced that he'd no longer be appearing. I wasn't that bothered to be honest. It was a nice night out at cft I'd booked for, not him. However, two minutes into the show, and his replacement, newcomer Charlie Stemp, had me under his spell! A knockout performance! I raved about him to all my friends, many of whom went to see him, but one was particularly disapponted that she'd missed the boat. So when it came to London I bought a couple of tickets for us to see him. Which we did. But I'd have been well and truly pissed off to see his understudy. It was him we were paying to see. And him (and Elaine Paige) I paid to see in Dick Whittington at the Palladium.
I don't expect anyone to tell me why I bought a new Lamy pen (I could have bought a bic biro to write with after all), or what I bought my blue Aussiebum pants for (M&S ones do more or less the same job and they're shed-loads cheaper...). Why should anyone tell me why I booked to see a show?
|
|
821 posts
|
Post by ensembleswings on Jun 9, 2018 15:21:59 GMT
I feel it completely depends on how the marketing is done. For current shows like '42nd Street' with Lulu and 'Killer Joe' with Orlando Bloom I feel like they should offer refunds/exchanges for performances that that actor is not appearing in, as all the advertising is clearly saying book to see this person in the show. But shows like say 'Mamma Mia' I don't feel like they should have to as none of the advertising ever mentions individual cast members? Personally I'd never accept the offer of a refund/exchange but I can see why others would, what I don't understand is why people need to slate the understudy just because they aren't the actor you were hoping to see. I'm not saying you have to enjoy their performance or even think it's remotely good but at least let them perform before you begin to slate them, offering refunds/exchanges may lower the amount of 'hate' and comments understudies receive which I feel would be a lot kinder on the understudies, at the end of the day they're only doing their job.
As for return visits to see certain actors in roles I do that quite often, if the actor I'd hope to see isn't on I initially feel disappointed but if I'm returning to a show it's because I like the show itself so I'd stay to see the understudy and then return at a later date to see the lead (I'm lucky I have the means to do so which I appreciate not everyone does). No matter how much I like seeing actors I admire on stage if I know I don't like the show they're going into I just won't go.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by christya on Jun 9, 2018 16:10:26 GMT
That's not what I was told by friends who went. One left at the interval. But I daresay she might have been to some people's taste - someone cast her, after all. Martine was excellent and she won the Olivier. I don't think your friends' opinion was shared by many. It's a really shame that clearly musical theatre was not for her because she could have had a great career in it And if your friend left at the interval because of *one* poor performance, I'm guessing he/she isn't a great musicals fan Actually, he normally loves musical theatre. He said she was overly poppy, among other things. As for the Olivier, well I'll give her this, it was one of the funniest 'winner' announcements ever just watching Jonathan Pryce's face. Had to be worth it just for that. |
|
