781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 24, 2016 7:57:07 GMT
Truth is some went to tell everybody "I saw this and that on stage" afterwards, some went to enjoy the performance of two great actors they (and the nation) love dearly, some went 'cause they are fans f Pinter and this is a major revival with stellar cast, etc., etc. You can't generalise anything...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 24, 2016 8:46:06 GMT
Truth is some went to tell everybody "I saw this and that on stage" afterwards, some went to enjoy the performance of two great actors they (and the nation) love dearly, some went 'cause they are fans f Pinter and this is a major revival with stellar cast, etc., etc. You can't generalise anything... Quite. All you can do is say why you personally went. |
|
2,741 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Oct 24, 2016 21:11:21 GMT
Sir Patrick still off tonight, doctor's orders...
The queue of people at the box office suggests that there was at least a significant minority who were there to see the two knights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 25, 2016 6:21:11 GMT
Sir Patrick still off tonight, doctor's orders... The queue of people at the box office suggests that there was at least a significant minority who were there to see the two knights. What options were they offering ? Refunds or exchanges ? Also, who is the understudy ? |
|
2,741 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Oct 25, 2016 7:29:11 GMT
The understudy is Andrew Jarvis.
They weren't offering any refunds or exchanges, which caused a certain level of unhappiness amongst punters.
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Oct 25, 2016 7:53:49 GMT
That is understandable, I suppose, as they don't really have any seats to exchange to and if they offered refunds, then they'd be playing to an empty house. In the DMT terms and conditions it states:
"If there is a material change to the content of the performance or the performance is cancelled, You may exchange Your Ticket for an alternative performance up to the value of Your Ticket (subject to availability) or refund Your Ticket and booking fee.".
No mention of understudies NOT constituting a material change, so I would be tempted to argue it out with the box office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 8:41:21 GMT
"If there is a material change to the content of the performance or the performance is cancelled, You may exchange Your Ticket for an alternative performance up to the value of Your Ticket (subject to availability) or refund Your Ticket and booking fee.". No mention of understudies NOT constituting a material change, so I would be tempted to argue it out with the box office. A material change is defined in law. It has to be an intentional change not covered by previous agreement. Understudies don't qualify. (A permanent and avoidable early change to the cast, however, might be considered a material change.) A rather more promising approach might be to point out that the cast changed into their costumes and the costumes are made of material. It has no chance of working but arguing it out might prove entertaining. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Oct 25, 2016 10:17:45 GMT
I think for a show like this it's definitely arguable. I'd be interested to see one of these cases get taken to court.
I'm a lawyer and in my view material here should be interpreted to mean 'it matters'. It's not a particularly high bar to cross where the show is marketed around the leads and for many people it's the main reason for being there.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 25, 2016 10:33:58 GMT
The situation on Broadway is that if an actor's name is displayed above the title of the show then refunds are given for shows where he/she does not appear. I don't know if that's law or custom. In this case both lead actors are above the title.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 25, 2016 10:48:01 GMT
The situation on Broadway is that if an actor's name is displayed above the title of the show then refunds are given for shows where he/she does not appear. I don't know if that's law or custom. In this case both lead actors are above the title. 1 Is he better, is he on now? 2 I once turned up for a play in which Maggie Smith was one of three actresses to be on stage, an Albee I think it was, and she was off. Box office gave me my dosh back without a murmur. And the rest of the audience.... |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 25, 2016 10:49:55 GMT
On the other hand....saw Ed Bennet as Hamlet instead of DT and the production was good enough to carry him through. ( I had seen DT in Stratford and he was remarkable...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:14:58 GMT
The situation on Broadway is that if an actor's name is displayed above the title of the show then refunds are given for shows where he/she does not appear. I don't know if that's law or custom. In this case both lead actors are above the title. Custom, not law. If it was the law, not a single producer would ever put any performer's name above the title! That way madness lies! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:58:40 GMT
Fingers crossed Sir Pat is back by Thursday (OK, I have a vested interest!).
Mind you, by then, he may well have passed it on to Sir Ian...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 14:33:18 GMT
I think for a show like this it's definitely arguable. I'd be interested to see one of these cases get taken to court. Every time this happens — and it happens nearly every time there's a star in a show — there are people who go on about taking it to court. As far as I know either nobody has ever done it or nobody who has done it has ever won, because it would set one hell of a precedent to say that people are allowed to unilaterally add their own expectations to a contract. If you're a lawyer then you know that what matters is what people have agreed to, not what they hoped for. It doesn't matter how much the leads are marketed: everybody who buys a ticket does so knowing there's a possibility that one or more of the leads may be ill or may need to be absent for some other reason. They accept the known risk at the time of purchase and they can't subsequently change their minds and say they only accepted it because they thought it wouldn't happen. Contracts don't work that way. If people assume that a star name in the publicity represents some sort of guarantee then that's their problem. They don't get to make it the producer's problem. The law protects people from being ripped off by the unscrupulous. It doesn't protect the public from the consequences of making stuff up because they can't be bothered to actually check the terms and conditions, because the law also protects the producers. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 23:10:05 GMT
The situation on Broadway is that if an actor's name is displayed above the title of the show then refunds are given for shows where he/she does not appear. I don't know if that's law or custom. In this case both lead actors are above the title. But neither's on Broadway at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 26, 2016 2:23:27 GMT
The understudy is Andrew Jarvis. They weren't offering any refunds or exchanges, which caused a certain level of unhappiness amongst punters. Oh, Andrew Jarvis, I remember him most notably as Richard III in the ESC History cycle (but he looks so old now !). Wouldn't mind seeing him in this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 22:26:32 GMT
Well, I got to see Patrick Stewart on Thursday but he is clearly still unwell. His voice cracked several times and I did wonder if we'd see the understudy instead after the interval, but he made it through.
Typically obscure play, of course, but I don't think I've ever laughed so much at a Pinter. Lovely to see these two bring their great friendship to the stage once more.
|
|
8 posts
|
Post by Marzipan on Nov 2, 2016 22:54:49 GMT
I saw it on Saturday night and he still sounded very hoarse. I kept wanting to give him a throat sweet!
|
|
4,778 posts
|
Post by Mark on Nov 9, 2016 22:15:57 GMT
Won a £20 front row seat on todaytix (had tried a fair few times!). - A great pleasure to see McKellan and Stewart onstage together but what a god awful play that was. Really struggled to follow it.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Nov 10, 2016 7:45:13 GMT
Maybe Pinter is just an acquired taste!
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Nov 10, 2016 8:01:55 GMT
No no I love Pinter. The play is AWFUL.....
|
|
1,280 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Nov 10, 2016 8:41:41 GMT
I love Pinter and i love this play
|
|
171 posts
|
Post by moelhywel on Nov 11, 2016 0:04:07 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon and struggled to follow what was happening at times but thought Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan were superb. The nuances they brought to their roles at times just emphasised what great actors they are. I shall be seeing it again next week so will be interested to see what I make of it knowing what happens.
|
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Nov 19, 2016 14:13:46 GMT
I'm speechless. I have entered the TodayTix lottery for every single performance and I have never won. Every single one. I need a sugar's daddy.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 25, 2016 13:15:37 GMT
Yeah, top notch. PS's voice still a bit patchy methought. Interesting point: a young audience! Heard going out from one such: I found the plot a little hard to follow at times...
Yes, Pinter, you knew we would. We've lost the plot.
|
|
