2,677 posts
|
Post by viserys on Dec 3, 2016 9:23:28 GMT
I'll be interested to see how prices will develop there. They're still fairly decent in London and apparently they are doing a good job at curbing the secondary market. Very different to what's happening on Broadway with Hamilton. Either Potter gets a grip on the secondary market on Broadway in which case Hamilton has no excuses left or they won't, in which case many many Potter fans will be priced out of their chance to see this live.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2016 9:26:21 GMT
I think they'll definitely be more expensive. JK wont suffer a loss to reputation because New Yorkers are used to it, all of their shows are more expensive than ours, even the flops. Hamilton is gonna be significantly cheaper here too.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by Rozzi Rainbow on Dec 19, 2016 18:49:43 GMT
I think I am actually about to have a heart attack!!
I was planning to go down to London next week, and reading the thread about the returns queue reminded me that's it's this Friday I'd need to enter the Friday Forty. I thought I'd just check the website on the off-chance there were any seats for next week - and there were! Exactly on the nights I planned to be there! I thought they'd be bad seats up in the balcony and I'd have the dilemma as to whether to get them or not - I don't like heights, but I'm desperate to see this - but they're mid-stalls. So I snapped them up, I really don't believe it!!
I panicked slightly as once I'd paid it just took me back to the main website, I didn't get a confirmation message with my booking number, but that arrived by email very quickly. I read the script when it first came out, thinking I stood no chance of getting tickets for years, but I won't read it again before I go to keep some of the surprise - I'm sure there are many parts I've forgotten.
Now I just need to hope I can find a hotel room somewhere ...
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 22, 2016 15:25:36 GMT
Thanks! I just went for a mosey on the website and found £70 tickets in the stalls for mid-Feb 2017. Going to return the upper circle tickets I have for Jan 2018 that cost just a fiver less than that.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 23, 2016 17:29:17 GMT
Bah humbug! Realised my confirmation email never came through, so went online to check in my Nimax account. Nothing there, or on my credit card statement. Booking must have not gone through.
Gaahh!
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 23, 2016 19:21:13 GMT
As we all know Harry Potter has been a phenomenon, it is the British Hamilton and it is a play that is doing well, despite not been written by the original author. There are reasons why it has done well, such as; - It is a strong brand.
- It is loved by all ages.
- Loved by many nationalities.
- It is in two parts, so only really does 4 performances a week.
- It got great reviews but think it would have been critic proof anyway.
I am sure their are other reasons, but what it isn't is star driven, the show is the star here. So looking at the fourth point on the bullets above, can they not do 6 shows a week of each part - so essentially doing 12 shows a week, I am not advocating the cast do more than there contracted 8 shows a week, but they can use other cast members more effectively and employ a bigger cast to cover the 4extra shows?
When you have lean periods after Christmas and after the summer holidays when the tourists go back home, you can revert to 8 performances a week and give the cast enhanced annual leave to reward them for their hard work.
Also front and backstage can be done on a roster, where staff do not have to do a full 6/7 day week, also a chance to have a occasional full weekends off for everyone.
It is a win win for all involved, it would be interesting to see how this pans out, if it did happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 19:24:24 GMT
I might be wrong, but isn't there already a thread for musings on this play?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 19:29:09 GMT
Isn't this the 4th thread!?!
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Dec 23, 2016 19:32:21 GMT
Yes maybe this is something that could've started a discussion in one of the many HP threads already existing!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 19:36:18 GMT
All the Harry Potter movies are being shown on ITV1, at a rate of one per day, starting on Christmas Eve and ending on New Year's Eve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 19:48:55 GMT
Merged
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Dec 23, 2016 19:50:22 GMT
8 shows is tiring enough. 12 would kill the cast and crew.
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 23, 2016 22:50:46 GMT
There Jon in my post I didn't suggest that they do 12 performances a week, but be more efficient with other cast members and hire more actors to cover the extra shows.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Dec 23, 2016 23:09:42 GMT
There Jon in my post I didn't suggest that they do 12 performances a week, but be more efficient with other cast members and hire more actors to cover the extra shows. What does being "more efficient with other cast" mean? And hiring more actors to do what? To cover what? I would say (to refer to your original post) that it's not like the cast are doing 4 performances a week at all. They might be performing half a play in a broader sense, but those two plays also full-length plays. Are you suggesting that the show should be double cast, with them all performing the same show in one theatre (with no extra dressing rooms?) over 12 performances a week? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but none of what you were saying made any sense to me - especially when exactly what they are doing right now is working out pretty well for them! |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Dec 23, 2016 23:19:48 GMT
I did understand Phantom of London, but I hadn't thought through the logistics like theatremadness. There was a question earlier in this thread about whether it might be worth their while running two productions concurrently in different Theatres. |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Dec 23, 2016 23:20:41 GMT
From what I understand of PoL's post, the suggestion is that there would be six performances of each part making a 12 show week, but each cast member/crew etc would do no more than there contacted 8. With the show being the star, the vast majority of people won't know/care who is performing what roles, so with a larger number of swings increasing the cast size, all of the roles could be covered for an increased number of shows.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Dec 23, 2016 23:26:07 GMT
From what I understand of PoL's post, the suggestion is that there would be six performances of each part making a 12 show week, but each cast member/crew etc would do no more than there contacted 8. With the show being the star, the vast majority of people won't know/care who is performing what roles, so with a larger number of swings increasing the cast size, all of the roles could be covered for an increased number of shows. Right! Yes, I totally get it. Great that the audience have come to see 'Harry Potter - the play'. But....why?? My word that is SO complicated!! No one is doing more than 8, but there's 12 in total. So are they all doing 6 performances each, effectively doubling the entirety of the cast AND crew....all in one theatre!!!....or they all do a combination of 8 shows on with 4 shows off meaning the casts are all completely inconsistent with each other (whether the audience care or not, an actor works hard to build chemistry with a certain set of other actors!).....and not to mention WHEN do they all have time to rehearse AND tech, seeing as there's a brand new crew, too?? Totally get this is all hypothetical and a pretty harmless idea....but.....logistics!!! |
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 24, 2016 1:28:47 GMT
If it needs to be double cast, then so be it.
More efficient, by what I mean is to use your swings on a regular basis, than fill in ad-hoc.
Harry Potter must hit the £1m bracket each week, so doing 4 extra performances you could gross an extra £500k a week, so if the extra performers cost say £150k a week in wage bill, additional theatre rent £70k other staff cast £30k and put on unforeseen costs £50k, then you are making an extra £200k a week, in good weeks, you duplicate this with Broadway and tours, then you are on a nice little earner, also provides extra 'stable' work for actors and the theatre profession.
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 24, 2016 1:39:05 GMT
From what I understand of PoL's post, the suggestion is that there would be six performances of each part making a 12 show week, but each cast member/crew etc would do no more than there contacted 8. With the show being the star, the vast majority of people won't know/care who is performing what roles, so with a larger number of swings increasing the cast size, all of the roles could be covered for an increased number of shows. Right! Yes, I totally get it. Great that the audience have come to see 'Harry Potter - the play'. But....why?? My word that is SO complicated!! No one is doing more than 8, but there's 12 in total. So are they all doing 6 performances each, effectively doubling the entirety of the cast AND crew....all in one theatre!!!....or they all do a combination of 8 shows on with 4 shows off meaning the casts are all completely inconsistent with each other (whether the audience care or not, an actor works hard to build chemistry with a certain set of other actors!).....and not to mention WHEN do they all have time to rehearse AND tech, seeing as there's a brand new crew, too?? Totally get this is all hypothetical and a pretty harmless idea....but.....logistics!!! It s hypothetical, as it is my opinion so therefore subjective. But the point you make is totally not true, that actors build up a chemistry, this may happen in your short run plays, where the actors are expected to complete the whole run - but in a big production there are always principal cast members taking contractual annual leave, so the acting dynamic is constantly shifting, anyway when someone is off and a alternative come in, you can get a fresh performance, as acting comes more receptive, rather than a mundane stale one. Daniel above made my point more eloquent than I did. |
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Dec 24, 2016 4:16:23 GMT
I did understand Phantom of London , but I hadn't thought through the logistics like theatremadness . There was a question earlier in this thread about whether it might be worth their while running two productions concurrently in different Theatres. I'd imagine they'd be a huge backlash running two productions of the same show as it would mean less new plays in the West End. Also, there is no incentive to do it, it's similar to why neither Mormon and Hamilton moved to bigger theatres as the producers know that a sold out show creates demand and buzz and will increase the life of the show. POL's idea doesn't work because you're increasing the running costs for little gain. They're already making money with the current performance schedule, they don't need to change it nor will they change it. It's theatre, not a production line. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Dec 24, 2016 4:25:24 GMT
I did understand Phantom of London , but I hadn't thought through the logistics like theatremadness . There was a question earlier in this thread about whether it might be worth their while running two productions concurrently in different Theatres. I'd imagine they'd be a huge backlash running two productions of the same show as it would mean less new plays in the West End. Also, there is no incentive to do it, it's similar to why neither Mormon and Hamilton moved to bigger theatres as the producers know that a sold out show creates demand and buzz and will increase the life of the show. There'd be a small backlash from places like here, but not that much overall. I agree about the small size creating a demand, but not many people (again apart from places like here) care how long a show ran (or has run) unless it's Les Mis or to use it as a stick to beat the show with if it's said to have flopped. I'd say the amazing buzz surrounding the exact same production having to run in two Theatres at the same time because of the massive demand would outweigh the negatives you suggest. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 24, 2016 9:21:55 GMT
No, I think it would detract from the uniqueness of the experience, as you would have a push to standardise the performances. Production-line theatre.
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 24, 2016 16:04:57 GMT
I did understand Phantom of London , but I hadn't thought through the logistics like theatremadness . There was a question earlier in this thread about whether it might be worth their while running two productions concurrently in different Theatres. I'd imagine they'd be a huge backlash running two productions of the same show as it would mean less new plays in the West End. Also, there is no incentive to do it, it's similar to why neither Mormon and Hamilton moved to bigger theatres as the producers know that a sold out show creates demand and buzz and will increase the life of the show. POL's idea doesn't work because you're increasing the running costs for little gain. They're already making money with the current performance schedule, they don't need to change it nor will they change it. It's theatre, not a production line. Sonia Friedman wouldn't be worried by a huge backlash, she would just say that she is increasing the show from 4 to 6 a week, the huge backlash would've come when it was announced it was going to be done in 2 parts. By increasing the show by 50% it will now just sell out in 2 days instead of, I buy into the idea of creating demand and understand and see the logic, but this is selling too well and demand is very high and doesn't seem to have waned. I don't see why the running costs would have to be that higher, a considerable part of your running cost would be marketing, you don't have to increase this, also you don't have to pay the big development and creative budget, your costs are simply a bigger wage bill and maybe costumes. Sadly if this process did happen, it would become a production line, but this happens to successful shows, good example of this would be Aladdin, think that has 6 productions open in 2 years. The producers have my respect how they tackle scalpers. |
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on Dec 24, 2016 20:35:08 GMT
I don't see why the running costs would have to be that higher, a considerable part of your running cost would be marketing, you don't have to increase this, also you don't have to pay the big development and creative budget, your costs are simply a bigger wage bill and maybe costumes. Sadly if this process did happen, it would become a production line, but this happens to successful shows, good example of this would be Aladdin, think that has 6 productions open in 2 years. The producers have my respect how they tackle scalpers. If it was remotely feasible then producers would have done it already and opening a new production in a different country or a tour isn't the same as putting it on more performances per week and having to pay for two casts and likely two crews for one show in one theatre, would the leads have to share a dressing room? It makes no economical sense not to mention you're essentially turning a show from a play to a theme park stage show which theatre isn't and should never be. In terms of running costs, that includes repairs to costumes or set that need to be done during the dark days or evening shows, with more shows, where would they find the time to do them. |
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 24, 2016 22:35:38 GMT
I don't see why the running costs would have to be that higher, a considerable part of your running cost would be marketing, you don't have to increase this, also you don't have to pay the big development and creative budget, your costs are simply a bigger wage bill and maybe costumes. Sadly if this process did happen, it would become a production line, but this happens to successful shows, good example of this would be Aladdin, think that has 6 productions open in 2 years. The producers have my respect how they tackle scalpers. If it was remotely feasible then producers would have done it already and opening a new production in a different country or a tour isn't the same as putting it on more performances per week and having to pay for two casts and likely two crews for one show in one theatre, would the leads have to share a dressing room? It makes no economical sense not to mention you're essentially turning a show from a play to a theme park stage show which theatre isn't and should never be. In terms of running costs, that includes repairs to costumes or set that need to be done during the dark days or evening shows, with more shows, where would they find the time to do them. I am loving your contribution here, great bit of sport. I agree with you that theatre shouldn't be a theme park show, even though Harry Potter is a theme park show. Good point about how to utilise the dressing rooms, I would suggest that the same cast do 2 shows a day, then another cast will perform 2 shows on a different days, also I am not suggesting doubling up on every role, you can utilise other cast members, more effectively such as swings and standbys rather than use them as spares, waiting for something to happen. With 2 shows a day the total performance time would be 6 hours, so you would have 18 hours to make repairs. I am surprised the Lion King in New York hasn't done this already, they could easily do 16 shows a week at peak times. |
|
