751 posts
|
Post by horton on Apr 23, 2016 17:11:58 GMT
So anyone who has ever missed the small print deserves to be duped by the big over-the-title unique selling point? Garbage! Unless the T&C are as clearly displayed in the same font size as the star of any vehicle, there are grounds for complaint of unfair advertising.
It is only your opinion that the understudy is better than the star- better in what respect? Once again, if the producers did not think there was value in hiring and prominently advertising their star, they would have cast a much cheaper alternate. Clearly, Glenn Close offers something unique for many of the people buying tickets.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2016 17:14:14 GMT
The guy we were sat next to at Toxic Avenger this afternoon had flown in from Germany to see Glenn Close tonight and was visibly upset by the fact she would not be appearing. Fortunately he picked the best antidote in being at Southwark Playhouse for matinee. Were you the one telling him the bad news? |
|
70 posts
|
Post by TheOneOnTheLeft on Apr 23, 2016 17:14:15 GMT
The guy we were sat next to at Toxic Avenger this afternoon had flown in from Germany to see Glenn Close tonight and was visibly upset by the fact she would not be appearing. Fortunately he picked the best antidote in being at Southwark Playhouse for matinee. That guy was me! Still disappointed but The Toxic Avenger really might have been the best possible antidote. And it was lovely to meet you and your wife. |
|
1,570 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Apr 23, 2016 17:17:15 GMT
Ria wears the Turban as its a cheaper option than another wig for her. And Glenn probably has an issue with her head being restricted.
This is "The Glenn Close Show" so she pretty much got whatever she wanted
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 17:22:17 GMT
If it was an normal West End run, of course audiences understand if an actor is ill, but this was heavily sold and advertised on Close's name. I agree she should never have committed to 8 shows a week, but it's easy to be clever with hindsight.
ENO and the producers have engendered real ill-will over the failure to at least try to offer exchanges (a final additional Sunday matinee maybe).
There is a legal precedent “The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade.” In other words, it doesn't matter what you print if everyone knows what was really intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 17:30:23 GMT
Amazing that Ria Jones had never sung with the orchestra before her first night on Thursday! Isn't this rather unusual? And doesn't it reveal that the producers were really quite confident that she wasn't going to be going on?
'Speaking at the stage door, Jones admitted she completely understood the audience’s initial resentment, saying: “Of course. I'd have been disappointed if I'd turned up and found Glenn Close wasn't singing.”
Asked how she felt about her standing ovation, she added: ''I was gob smacked, just gob smacked.
'I'd never sung with the orchestra before. I've really just been watching her [Close] from the wings and learning that way.'' '
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Apr 23, 2016 17:32:42 GMT
^ Yes, very normal. Standbys/understudies have piano only put-in rehearsals and are thrown into the lion's den. Understudy-sitzbrobes means that they need to pay the orchestra overtime. It's all about the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 17:34:21 GMT
^ Yes, very normal. Standbys/understudies have piano only put-in rehearsals and are thrown into the lion's den. Understudy-sitzbrobes means that they need to pay the orchestra overtime. It's all about the bottom line. Well I'm gob-smacked now! (Thanks for the information...) |
|
2,762 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 23, 2016 17:34:23 GMT
Conditions of sale are usually very clear that cast are subject to change. Wish people would read the terms & conditions before going on their high horse. Plus in this case the standby is better than the lead. I think there's a difference between legal obligation and moral obligation. Yes, the T&Cs are carefully worded to cover the producers in case the theatre falls down, what happens if the ticket goes missing in the post etc. Regardless of the legal terms, pissing off customers who might have spent £150 on a ticket isn't good practice if you want repeat business. |
|
158 posts
|
Post by broadwaylover99 on Apr 23, 2016 17:46:09 GMT
Ria was phenomenal this afternoon! From my point of view, I would much rather see an understudy or standby who was on top form than the 'star' who was ill and struggling to perform. Ria pulled out everything she had and I'm so so glad that she is my first ever Norma!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wallacio on Apr 23, 2016 17:48:33 GMT
The guy we were sat next to at Toxic Avenger this afternoon had flown in from Germany to see Glenn Close tonight and was visibly upset by the fact she would not be appearing. Fortunately he picked the best antidote in being at Southwark Playhouse for matinee. Was he sat on your left?  |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Apr 23, 2016 17:53:44 GMT
Clearly the "fine print" protected the producers and ENO. However, I think there's a lot to be said about managing your customer's expectations and treating them with grace and respect, which seems that this wasn't the case last few days. It's really an interesting case study in client management and also somewhat of an interesting communications case study. They really should have had some sort of crises management protocol put in place for a situation like this.
I get some of the commentator's support to the understudy, which I don't necessarily disagree with. But if the customers are upset, then they are upset. No customer-centric business should behave with this take it or leave it attitude.
|
|
1,743 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Apr 23, 2016 17:54:28 GMT
I'f I'd have known yesterday Ria would be on today I would have been there. After 3 trips in the last month (6 shows including twice for Sunset Boulevard) I couldn't justify a trip just hoping the understudy would be on! I know I am an unusual one though, the only time I have paid full top price for Wicked was when I knew the standby would be on at last minute for Galinda.
|
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Apr 23, 2016 18:07:07 GMT
Lack of prior rehearsal with orchestra presumably explains why the house was so late opening on Thursday evening (well that and the unseemly arguments still ongoing at the Box Office perhaps) - must have been 7.20pm before doors opened and show was c.15 mins late starting.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Apr 23, 2016 18:08:36 GMT
How was the Box office and crowd reaction this afternoon.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Apr 23, 2016 18:14:54 GMT
Amazing that Ria Jones had never sung with the orchestra before her first night on Thursday! Isn't this rather unusual? And doesn't it reveal that the producers were really quite confident that she wasn't going to be going on? 'Speaking at the stage door, Jones admitted she completely understood the audience’s initial resentment, saying: “Of course. I'd have been disappointed if I'd turned up and found Glenn Close wasn't singing.”
Asked how she felt about her standing ovation, she added: ''I was gob smacked, just gob smacked.
'I'd never sung with the orchestra before. I've really just been watching her [Close] from the wings and learning that way.'' 'I thought she did the first rehearsals before La Close came into town? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 18:15:45 GMT
How was the Box office and crowd reaction this afternoon. Loads of tourists looking surprised as they read the notices indicating the illness on the doors of the coliseum To be honest yes people can get ill But this debacle does not surprise me It is exactly what you expect to go hand in hand with the disgrace and shambles that is the ENO and the London Coliseum There is a post on "flops" The ENO is the biggest flop of all I doubt they have generated any profit from an opera staging in the last 5 years |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 18:16:40 GMT
So anyone who has ever missed the small print deserves to be duped by the big over-the-title unique selling point? Garbage! Unless the T&C are as clearly displayed in the same font size as the star of any vehicle, there are grounds for complaint of unfair advertising. Rubbish. Quite apart from the fact that it would be ridiculous to expect everything to be in same size, the terms and conditions are standard. None of the people complaining about this needed to read the terms and conditions. They knew what the rules were because they're always the same rules, and you don't get to make up new rules to give you a get-out every time you find yourself a situation that isn't to your liking. People need to remember that consumer legislation isn't there to free them from every disappointment. It's there to protect honest consumers from unscrupulous traders. It also works both ways: it's there to protect legitimate traders from excessively onerous obligations to overly demanding consumers. It's not unfair advertising, and nobody even remotely acquainted with the law could ever think it was. To be unfair it would have to genuinely mislead, and anybody who claims that they believed that the presence of Glenn Close's name in the promotion of the show carried the implication that she could not possibly be ill is a damned liar. Nobody was misled by this. They're just pissed off that they aren't getting everything their own way. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 18:27:50 GMT
I don't think anyone is expecting glenn close to go on when ill, but the way producers have handled this is poor. And other producers have been more understanding in the past. It's about managing expectations, especially when you have promoted the star more than the show
In the time of sky high ticket prices the whole 'you pay to see the show' excuse doesn't really fly anymore. Much in the same way as 'it's only a preview' doesn't when producers now charge full price
And terms and conditions arnt always water tight. There have been plenty of occasions in the past where shops and other companies have had their own t&cs that don't actually meet the law. And it's only when you press the issue they are forced to back down. Not saying this is the case here, just that's some terms and conditions from a company doesn't always mean anything
If a broadway style rule was brought in over here it would help keep advertising fair and also consumers know where they stand if their star is not on
|
|
163 posts
|
Post by Scots UK Theatre on Apr 23, 2016 18:28:35 GMT
Conditions of sale are usually very clear that cast are subject to change. Wish people would read the terms & conditions before going on their high horse. Plus in this case the standby is better than the lead. I think there's a difference between legal obligation and moral obligation. Yes, the T&Cs are carefully worded to cover the producers in case the theatre falls down, what happens if the ticket goes missing in the post etc. Regardless of the legal terms, pissing off customers who might have spent £150 on a ticket isn't good practice if you want repeat business. I agree morally it's wrong and for repeat business best practice would be to offer exchanges or refunds. However the terms & conditions are there for a reason. So anyone who is going on about their rights should of read these before they bought them. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Apr 23, 2016 18:30:26 GMT
As previously mentioned, in an open run it might be different, but the proposal here was clearly: "see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard". Not "see Sunset Boulevard- Glenn Close might be in it". Especially bearing in mind a whole bunch of people might book tickets who never set foot in a theatre and / or musical show, standard terms are quite possibly not readily known. And just as on Broadway, the producers would be well-advised to maintain goodwill for the future by acknowledging the diminution of the product provided by exchanging tickets.
Incidentally, I don't have tickets for this show as- ironically- I'd quite like to see Sunset Boulevard but not with Glenn Close in it!
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 23, 2016 18:34:25 GMT
Reports on twitter that a man heckled this afternoon demanding his money back.
|
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 23, 2016 18:39:00 GMT
What is interesting Is that people sh*t their pants and moan when they have to wait in A&E for 3 hours for a sore throat And do not hesitate to assert their right to make a complaint Yet some people are quite happy to pay £100 plus and be messed around by producers who are SOLELY interested in making a profit Sums up this country nicely What a load of drivel |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 23, 2016 18:40:03 GMT
Audio from Thursday night of audience members booing when it was announced that Glenn Close wouldn't be on. You can also hear shouts of "can we have our money back". Rapturous applause when it's announced that Ria Jones would be on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 19:00:20 GMT
As previously mentioned, in an open run it might be different, but the proposal here was clearly: "see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard". Not "see Sunset Boulevard- Glenn Close might be in it". Especially bearing in mind a whole bunch of people might book tickets who never set foot in a theatre and / or musical show, standard terms are quite possibly not readily known. I agree that as a matter of good publicity it would have been sensible to have a refund policy in place when casting a star name at the sort of prices they're charging. However, that is a very different thing from having any legal or moral obligation to do so. From both a legal and a moral point of view the audience doesn't have a leg to stand on. Everybody is familiar with the idea of illness. Everybody knows that people can have to take time off work. Nobody can claim that they didn't know it was possible for the star they wanted to see to be unable to perform. There have been many other stories of star names having to be replaced; surely everybody has heard at least one. Everybody went into this with their eyes open. Every single one of them, without exception, knew this could happen. But now it's happened to them they're spouting lies about how they thought having the star's name all over the publicity constituted some sort of immunity from disappointment. I do not believe that anyone genuinely thought there was no possibility of this. |
|
