107 posts
|
Post by littleflyer on Apr 27, 2016 11:13:42 GMT
I really think it reflects on the marketing departments, of course they are going to use a name if they think they can make more money, but when you put the "stars" name above the name of the show (and often bigger) it is very clear what you are selling and it's not the show. If you brought a ticket to see a celebrity in concert, let's say Beyoncé, and she poorly so you get X Factors Rachel Furgeson, would that be expectable?
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Apr 27, 2016 18:58:48 GMT
Can anybody think of any bad celebrity casting?  |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2016 19:03:33 GMT
Can anybody think of any bad celebrity casting? Whoa. Don't diss The Hoff. If it weren't for him, the Berlin Wall would still be standing and Germany would still be separated in East and West. |
|
204 posts
|
Post by Sue on Apr 27, 2016 20:51:38 GMT
Can anybody think of any bad celebrity casting? Marti chuffing Pellow. And Jason Donovan. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 23:03:35 GMT
If you brought a ticket to see a celebrity in concert, let's say Beyoncé, and she poorly so you get X Factors Rachel Furgeson, would that be expectable? Well that's my point - take the current ENO example: very clearly not a Glenn Close concert, it's a production of Sunset Boulevard that happens to star Glenn Close. It's not at all comparable to a recording artist giving a solo concert, when of course diffeent refund rules should (and generally do) apply. |
|
4,006 posts
Member is Online
|
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.  |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
127 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 |
|
|
|
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 Deleted 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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. |
|
127 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. |
|
1,483 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"...!) |
|
