|
Post by d'James on Apr 27, 2016 23:10:04 GMT
There's no 'happens' about it though. It has been heavily publicised as the Glenn Close show, if there's any 'happens' about it, it's that the show 'happens' to be Sunset Boulevard. No, it's not the same as a pop concert, but neither is it the same as this month's performances of Les Mis, it is somewhere in between.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 6:46:44 GMT
I think it is kind of acceptable to be annoyed if the star of the show isn't on when you pay lots of money to see te show AND the celebrity who you like a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 8:19:49 GMT
I think it's wholly understandable to be annoyed if the star you've booked to see isn't on, but I don't think it's at all acceptable to be rude to anyone about it. Feel your disappointment, express your disappointment if you must, politely request a refund or exchange if it's that important to you, but accept that these things happen and don't go stomping around sulking about it and abusing people about it. And if the person in the box office cannot offer you an exchange or refund, you request the contact details of someone higher up, thank them, and step away. Hell, you could even smile sympathetically and wish them good luck, 'cos you're not the only disappointed person they'll be dealing with, but at least you can be the nice disappointed person whose mere existence helps them stay strong during the shift from hell.
(Basically don't be an asshole to the box office staff or the front of house staff EVER.)
I honestly don't see where the conversation can go that it hasn't gone already - people are going to book to see a star, people are going to be disappointed when a star is off, people aren't legally entitled to see the star because live theatre is covered for these eventualities, shows and concerts are different beasts, and if you're rude to anyone about the star not performing then you are a garbage person. Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 11:47:24 GMT
You covered everything but a lot if it was largely based on your opinion. Which might or might not be in line with others...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 13:06:33 GMT
Sorry, which part wasn't based in fact? The bit where theatres are legally allowed to use understudies? The bit that acknowledges people's motivations for booking a ticket? The bit where people who are rude to the theatre staff who don't earn enough to be abused for something that isn't their fault are garbage people?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 13:08:44 GMT
Any bits starting "I think..."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 13:10:11 GMT
Oh right, so my precis of the discussion was fine, and you just wanted to point out that the bits where I basically state "my opinion is..." were, in fact, my opinion? Gotcha.
|
|
6,328 posts
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2016 13:21:27 GMT
Can anybody think of any bad celebrity casting? Marti chuffing Pellow. And Jason Donovan. I hear you sister! Pellow was painful to watch in Blood Brothers...not bad, not rubbish. PAINFUL! Every time he opened his rictus, clenched up mouth and attempted some more 'smell the fart' actor-ing it made my testicles shrink back into my body I cringed so hard. Likewise Donovan in anything since Joseph. I would like to hurl Caprice in 'Rent' into the mix aswell. Who would even think to ask her in the first place, let alone actually cast her? Beggars belief.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 13:24:46 GMT
Baemax, why do you have to precis anything for us? Why do you feel the need to tell us there is no point continuing with a discussion? I've noticed that you can be quite forthright in your posts. You make some interesting points on occasions but they're not always right, are they? And with the Sunset Boulevard matter, which is obviously what all this is about, there's quite a lot of money been spent and a lot of excitement built up for a particular "star"... you simply can't dismiss this as you are trying to. Or dismiss it if you will, but at least acknowledge that not everybody feels as you do. Feelings come into play as well, not just facts. Life isn't all about facts, as clearly acknowledged by some of the kinder theatres and producers who have, in some circumstances, exchanged tickets for other shows.
|
|
6,328 posts
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2016 13:37:27 GMT
Oh no, a two posts in a row embarassment. But; I think the crux of this argument lies in the difference between regular theatregoers and 'the general public'. Some girl has been trolling me on twitter for pointing out that the initial reason for someone attending a show might be the star, and not the show. Whilst it strikes me as a bit pretentious and overly 'arty' to throw about "the show being the star", "you are going to see the show, not the people in it", it is the truth for a lot of the people there who booked the tickets to see that person. Yes, there is the chance that they might not, but to infer that someone is a lesser person for wanting to see an individual rather than the show is snobbery taken to a new level. The ENO have shot themselves in the foot by giving themselves a get out on one hand, but failing to accept that it mightn't be acceptable to a massive % of those attending. It is no where near a sell out, despite people harping on about it being so. A bit of admin and ringing around could quite easily satisfy alternative dates for some of those affected; they just don't respect the audience enough to actually try. It has been handled badly hence the unwieldy amount of chatter about it. I hope both the ENO, and other institutions finally accept it as an issue and through SOLT, create a hard and fast policy on the rules around star billing, exchanges etc. Refund - No, but exchanges absolutely. Plan a couple of midweek/Sunday matinees to mop up demnad that is not met. Actually care about your customer enough to solve the issue rather than hiding behind luvvie folklore!
|
|
123 posts
|
Post by terrylondon79 on Apr 28, 2016 13:52:08 GMT
That's the thing, from a good will point of view the Eno. And its producers have shot themselves in the foot. Four no shows from Glenn Close, say theatre was 3/4 booked. Probably 6000 people with tickets. If at least half of them were disgruntled by the handling of the issue, that's a lot of people just at that those performances pissed off.
The difference is the way at were handling it at the playhouse when Matthew Perry was off, was yes people were upset, but I didn't see anyone annoyed. They could even make a joke about the illness in the play, and get a laugh. I'm not sure how a flu joke would have gone down at sunset boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 28, 2016 13:52:47 GMT
Oh no, a two posts in a row embarassment. But; I think the crux of this argument lies in the difference between regular theatregoers and 'the general public'. Some girl has been trolling me on twitter for pointing out that the initial reason for someone attending a show might be the star, and not the show. Whilst it strikes me as a bit pretentious and overly 'arty' to throw about "the show being the star", "you are going to see the show, not the people in it", it is the truth for a lot of the people there who booked the tickets to see that person. Yes, there is the chance that they might not, but to infer that someone is a lesser person for wanting to see an individual rather than the show is snobbery taken to a new level. The ENO have shot themselves in the foot by giving themselves a get out on one hand, but failing to accept that it mightn't be acceptable to a massive % of those attending. It is no where near a sell out, despite people harping on about it being so. A bit of admin and ringing around could quite easily satisfy alternative dates for some of those affected; they just don't respect the audience enough to actually try. It has been handled badly hence the unwieldy amount of chatter about it. I hope both the ENO, and other institutions finally accept it as an issue and through SOLT, create a hard and fast policy on the rules around star billing, exchanges etc. Refund - No, but exchanges absolutely. Plan a couple of midweek/Sunday matinees to mop up demnad that is not met. Actually care about your customer enough to solve the issue rather than hiding behind luvvie folklore! I doubt it would be legal to insist that every member of cast and crew who had turned up for 8 shows, had to do another one because one cast member had missed a performance
|
|
6,328 posts
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2016 13:59:26 GMT
Oh no, a two posts in a row embarassment. But; I think the crux of this argument lies in the difference between regular theatregoers and 'the general public'. Some girl has been trolling me on twitter for pointing out that the initial reason for someone attending a show might be the star, and not the show. Whilst it strikes me as a bit pretentious and overly 'arty' to throw about "the show being the star", "you are going to see the show, not the people in it", it is the truth for a lot of the people there who booked the tickets to see that person. Yes, there is the chance that they might not, but to infer that someone is a lesser person for wanting to see an individual rather than the show is snobbery taken to a new level. The ENO have shot themselves in the foot by giving themselves a get out on one hand, but failing to accept that it mightn't be acceptable to a massive % of those attending. It is no where near a sell out, despite people harping on about it being so. A bit of admin and ringing around could quite easily satisfy alternative dates for some of those affected; they just don't respect the audience enough to actually try. It has been handled badly hence the unwieldy amount of chatter about it. I hope both the ENO, and other institutions finally accept it as an issue and through SOLT, create a hard and fast policy on the rules around star billing, exchanges etc. Refund - No, but exchanges absolutely. Plan a couple of midweek/Sunday matinees to mop up demnad that is not met. Actually care about your customer enough to solve the issue rather than hiding behind luvvie folklore! I doubt it would be legal to insist that every member of cast and crew who had turned up for 8 shows, had to do another one because one cast member had missed a performance Possibly not, but if it is a star vehicle, it could be written into contracts from the outset that x dates are set aside on the off chance of illness and needing to meet the requirements of the paying audience....the customer...the person they are actually doing it for. It isn't community theatre at those prices
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Apr 28, 2016 14:53:30 GMT
No need to fret. You'll be able to see her when the cinema film is made and on release.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 15:02:54 GMT
No need to fret. You'll be able to see her when the cinema film is made and on release. But that's not what a lot of people have stumped up the money for, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 15:06:27 GMT
Oh no, a two posts in a row embarassment. But; I think the crux of this argument lies in the difference between regular theatregoers and 'the general public'. Some girl has been trolling me on twitter for pointing out that the initial reason for someone attending a show might be the star, and not the show. Whilst it strikes me as a bit pretentious and overly 'arty' to throw about "the show being the star", "you are going to see the show, not the people in it", it is the truth for a lot of the people there who booked the tickets to see that person. Yes, there is the chance that they might not, but to infer that someone is a lesser person for wanting to see an individual rather than the show is snobbery taken to a new level. The ENO have shot themselves in the foot by giving themselves a get out on one hand, but failing to accept that it mightn't be acceptable to a massive % of those attending. It is no where near a sell out, despite people harping on about it being so. A bit of admin and ringing around could quite easily satisfy alternative dates for some of those affected; they just don't respect the audience enough to actually try. It has been handled badly hence the unwieldy amount of chatter about it. I hope both the ENO, and other institutions finally accept it as an issue and through SOLT, create a hard and fast policy on the rules around star billing, exchanges etc. Refund - No, but exchanges absolutely. Plan a couple of midweek/Sunday matinees to mop up demnad that is not met. Actually care about your customer enough to solve the issue rather than hiding behind luvvie folklore! No I think that lots of people book for a star AND the show, I defiantly do. Ticket prices are super expensive at the moment for good seats so you go to shows you want to really see. For example, I can't wait for Funny Girl. I would love to see the show anyway but the fact that Sheridan Smith, who I adore, is in it makes me 100% go and see it. If Smith wasn't in it and there was nobody famous in it, then I doubt the tickets would have sold out in 90mins and even the Savoy run is selling out now. If you go to the show and they're not on and you paid £70-100 for a ticket then you would feel quite annoyed.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 28, 2016 15:29:24 GMT
And with the Sunset Boulevard matter, which is obviously what all this is about, there's quite a lot of money been spent and a lot of excitement built up for a particular "star"... you simply can't dismiss this as you are trying to. Or dismiss it if you will, but at least acknowledge that not everybody feels as you do. Feelings come into play as well, not just facts. Life isn't all about facts, as clearly acknowledged by some of the kinder theatres and producers who have, in some circumstances, exchanged tickets for other shows. Feelings come into play as far as people's disappointment is concerned but they have absolutely nothing to do with what people are entitled to get, and what has me riled up about this is the number of people who are saying things like "it's false advertising" or "it's no different from a concert". Those statement are factually incorrect, and it's the facts that matter. False advertising is defined in law, and no matter how disappointed you are you don't get to decide what the law says and you don't get to decide what you're entitled to. The whole point of having such things defined in law is so businesses can operate without having to bow to every whim of the customer. It's great if the business goes further than it needs to in order to keep the customer happy, but too many people are treating the fact that some businesses do that as setting a precedent that means they get to tell the business how it has to respond when they don't get exactly what they want.
|
|
123 posts
|
Post by terrylondon79 on Apr 28, 2016 15:37:35 GMT
And with the Sunset Boulevard matter, which is obviously what all this is about, there's quite a lot of money been spent and a lot of excitement built up for a particular "star"... you simply can't dismiss this as you are trying to. Or dismiss it if you will, but at least acknowledge that not everybody feels as you do. Feelings come into play as well, not just facts. Life isn't all about facts, as clearly acknowledged by some of the kinder theatres and producers who have, in some circumstances, exchanged tickets for other shows. Feelings come into play as far as people's disappointment is concerned but they have absolutely nothing to do with what people are entitled to get, and what has me riled up about this is the number of people who are saying things like "it's false advertising" or "it's no different from a concert". Those statement are factually incorrect, and it's the facts that matter. False advertising is defined in law, and no matter how disappointed you are you don't get to decide what the law says and you don't get to decide what you're entitled to. The whole point of having such things defined in law is so businesses can operate without having to bow to every whim of the customer. It's great if the business goes further than it needs to in order to keep the customer happy, but too many people are treating the fact that some businesses do that as setting a precedent that means they get to tell the business how it has to respond when they don't get exactly what they want. In regards to false advertising, I'm currently waiting to see of the asa get back to me. I still feel the Eno should make you at least display the T and c's you agree to. It is possible to click the check box without opening the pop up box. I'm also pretty sure they have reworded there terms and conditions to expressly mention cast illness in the last week or so.
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 28, 2016 15:44:24 GMT
I doubt it would be legal to insist that every member of cast and crew who had turned up for 8 shows, had to do another one because one cast member had missed a performance Possibly not, but if it is a star vehicle, it could be written into contracts from the outset that x dates are set aside on the off chance of illness and needing to meet the requirements of the paying audience....the customer...the person they are actually doing it for. It isn't community theatre at those prices And if Glenn had completely lost her voice in the first week and was unable to return at all for the other four weeks, how long do you expect the rest of the cast to keep their diaries open for to do all these extra performances?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 15:55:01 GMT
And with the Sunset Boulevard matter, which is obviously what all this is about, there's quite a lot of money been spent and a lot of excitement built up for a particular "star"... you simply can't dismiss this as you are trying to. Or dismiss it if you will, but at least acknowledge that not everybody feels as you do. Feelings come into play as well, not just facts. Life isn't all about facts, as clearly acknowledged by some of the kinder theatres and producers who have, in some circumstances, exchanged tickets for other shows. Feelings come into play as far as people's disappointment is concerned but they have absolutely nothing to do with what people are entitled to get, and what has me riled up about this is the number of people who are saying things like "it's false advertising" or "it's no different from a concert". Those statement are factually incorrect, and it's the facts that matter. False advertising is defined in law, and no matter how disappointed you are you don't get to decide what the law says and you don't get to decide what you're entitled to. The whole point of having such things defined in law is so businesses can operate without having to bow to every whim of the customer. It's great if the business goes further than it needs to in order to keep the customer happy, but too many people are treating the fact that some businesses do that as setting a precedent that means they get to tell the business how it has to respond when they don't get exactly what they want. "Whim"? We'll have to just disagree, Matthew... (I take it you are in "advertising"...!)
|
|
6,328 posts
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2016 16:01:50 GMT
Being a smart arsed pedant helps no-one, and does not make for interesting reading...
it would be incredibly complicated, and enough leeway would need planning based on the length of the run. But at least it might so some way towards righting an incredibly unbalanced relationship between those providing a service vs the customer. (In reply to Steve)
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 28, 2016 16:31:14 GMT
Being a smart arsed pedant helps no-one, and does not make for interesting reading... it would be incredibly complicated, and enough leeway would need planning based on the length of the run. But at least it might so some way towards righting an incredibly unbalanced relationship between those providing a service vs the customer. (In reply to Steve) lol Suggesting ridiculous solutions to problems doesn't really help much either, to be honest :-)
|
|
6,328 posts
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2016 16:40:09 GMT
Being a smart arsed pedant helps no-one, and does not make for interesting reading... it would be incredibly complicated, and enough leeway would need planning based on the length of the run. But at least it might so some way towards righting an incredibly unbalanced relationship between those providing a service vs the customer. (In reply to Steve) lol Suggesting ridiculous solutions to problems doesn't really help much either, to be honest :-) Imagine the fuss if 'x' considered themselves important enough to need extra days scheduling, but their producer hadn't thought them worthy...they could film that too ?
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 28, 2016 17:08:25 GMT
Feelings come into play as far as people's disappointment is concerned but they have absolutely nothing to do with what people are entitled to get, and what has me riled up about this is the number of people who are saying things like "it's false advertising" or "it's no different from a concert". Those statement are factually incorrect, and it's the facts that matter. False advertising is defined in law, and no matter how disappointed you are you don't get to decide what the law says and you don't get to decide what you're entitled to. The whole point of having such things defined in law is so businesses can operate without having to bow to every whim of the customer. It's great if the business goes further than it needs to in order to keep the customer happy, but too many people are treating the fact that some businesses do that as setting a precedent that means they get to tell the business how it has to respond when they don't get exactly what they want. "Whim"? We'll have to just disagree, Matthew... (I take it you are in "advertising"...!) No, I'm not! How dare you! But I am quite familiar with consumer protection law, and I'm in the habit of reading through legislation to find out what it actually says instead of assuming it says what I'd like it to say. Most people think the law is there to protect them, and it doesn't occur to them that the same law is also there to protect the other side. The law gives you rights, but it also gives you obligations. It gives the business rights and obligations as well. It also imposes strict limits on both sides' rights and obligations so they don't unreasonably interfere with a business's ability to operate. It's a shield to protect you from unlimited risk, not a sword to allow you to take what you want. When it comes to advertising and promotion the business has an obligation to avoid misleading the customer, but the customer also has an obligation to understand what is being advertised and to know what factors the business cannot reasonably be expected to control. If you see a brochure picture of a hotel when you book your holiday you're entitled to expect that the hotel you get will be of the same standard as the one shown, but you're also expected to understand that the weather and the attractiveness of the guests is not what is being advertised. When you see a menu in a restaurant flyer you're expected to understand that the listed food is presented on a best-effort basis and sometimes certain items may be unavailable. And when you book to see someone playing a role in a show you are expected to understand that a role can be played by different people and that the person you get may not always be the person mentioned in the publicity. Even when the production makes a big deal of the star, you still have an obligation to understand that the star is an actor playing a role and the production is undertaking to provide the role, not the actor. No matter how disappointed you are, that doesn't grant you exemption from your duties and obligations with respect to differentiating between what a business is actually offering and what you hope to get. You don't get to turn round and say "I've unilaterally decided that this thing they can't control must be part of the contract, and so that means they have to give me compensation for breaking a contact that they didn't agree to". It's not your decision to make.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 17:26:50 GMT
Oh! But businesses, any businesses, rely quite a bit on repeat business. You know, where customers who have had a good experience will go back. Time and time again in some cases. Then they will recommend the business to friends and family, colleagues and all sorts of people they have never met via the internet. And business is a two way thing, isn't it? The customer is pleased, so the business gets busy and makes more money. Sometimes the customer isn't pleased, and he makes a cheeky demand. The business owner knows that the customer is being a tinsy bit cheeky, and he could refuse... But to keep his business, and to stop him blabbing to all his mates what a sh*t business it's now become, the business makes a goodwill gesture, I believe it's called. This usually works. And before you know it, everyone is pleased. I'd love to know what the ENO is planning as its extravaganza next year. I have a feeling that, whatever it is, a lot of customers will feel once bitten, twice shy. And then the ENO will have only had themselves to blame when they have even more tickets left to sell than they have had this year. Some might even hope it falls on its arse.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 28, 2016 17:42:05 GMT
Yes. A lot of people who booked tickets will receive emails from now on and if anyone felt badly treated by them will probably just delete them straight away. I hope this whole debacle hasn't put some first time Theatre goers from trying again (even if it's at a different Theatre).
When booking tickets for this show, I never saw anything saying about the understudy stuff and how Glenn wasn't guaranteed. When the star is the selling point (for a lot of people, not everyone before anyone shouts at me), there should be a bold text separate statement with a box to tick rather than having it as part of the generals Ts and Cs (yes the general Ts and Cs cover them legally blah blah blah but this would be helpful and give the box office some extra back up). Of course there are multiple ticket sellers for most shows but it wouldn't be that much work to add it.
As I said on the actual Sunset Boulevard thread, maybe they should offer insurance if the star is off. Say £5 a ticket in case the star doesn't appear, that would doubly draw their attention to the fact that illness is a possibility. I wouldn't have taken it for my tickets, but for some people paying £150 a ticket, an extra £5 probably wouldn't be too much. Of course the terms of the insurance would depend on the show (e.g. only refunds and no exchanges, or the opposite, or both).
If Glenn Close had pulled out of the whole run early on it would've been on Watchdog and in all the papers, I reckon they would've had to back down just to save face. Then they would've had to find a new understudy etc.
|
|
107 posts
|
Post by littleflyer on Apr 28, 2016 17:49:17 GMT
Question is, would those tickets have been as much had Glenn Close (or another big name) not been in it? I tend to think no! Also personal annoyance and totally not to do with this subject but Funny Girl didn't sell out in 90 minutes. By 10:30 when it had all sold the tickets had been on general sale since midnight and for about 2-3 weeks to pre-sale. So really it sold out in about a month ?
|
|
123 posts
|
Post by terrylondon79 on Apr 28, 2016 18:34:30 GMT
The worst thing is, judging from terms and conditions that people tick on the Eno website, (does anyone ever read them??) they can change the production and/or cast without notice. So you could book for Sunset Boulevard starring Glenn Close, and get Barry Chuckle and Sue pollard, with a busker from the south bank playing the score on his casio keyboard.
I know it's extreme, but acceptable to the people defending the Eno and this production.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 18:39:31 GMT
That argument is creating a strawman though and it's quite offensive to understudies too. Whether it's Glenn Close, the second violin, or the conductor who needs a stand-in, they're going to provide someone of a suitable professional standard, not a couple of children dragged in off the street wearing giant coats and hoping you won't notice the orchestra is now an iPod. Waving the "well by YOUR logic" card around doesn't magically change the fact that at the end of the day the audience is still going to see a professional quality semi-staged production of Sunset Boulevard, which is what their ticket money has paid for. And it's not "by YOUR logic", it's by the legal terms and conditions. Creating a bizarre fantasy worst-case scenario that would never even be considered doesn't change anybody's legal rights, and it's not going to convince the people who understand that that maybe you've got a good point after all.
|
|
123 posts
|
Post by terrylondon79 on Apr 28, 2016 18:45:45 GMT
Bit that's my point the Eno doesn't have to provide understudies to the standard they did. Anyone with an equity card could be drafted in. The understudies aren't listed on the Eno website prior to the show. That argument is creating a strawman though and it's quite offensive to understudies too. Whether it's Glenn Close, the second violin, or the conductor who needs a stand-in, they're going to provide someone of a suitable professional standard, not a couple of children dragged in off the street wearing giant coats and hoping you won't notice the orchestra is now an iPod. Waving the "well by YOUR logic" card around doesn't magically change the fact that at the end of the day the audience is still going to see a professional quality semi-staged production of Sunset Boulevard. And it's not "by YOUR logic", it's by the legal terms and conditions, so.
|
|