|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 19:06:47 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. Poor Ria must of been terrified to go on |
|
153 posts
|
Post by liverpool54321 on Apr 23, 2016 19:09:03 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?  guess would be on our right, or others' left if facing us. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 19:11:08 GMT
Sorry Matthew, I've seen numerous understudies over the year and understood the whole "you bought tickets to a show" concept, but I honestly think this might be one time that can be legally challenged. The producers plainly weren't simply selling tickets to a production of Sunset Boulevard, they were selling tickets tickets to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard.
As I posted earlier there is a legal concept that it doesn't matter what you state in a contract, if it's plainly something else, that's what matters (a five-pronged implement will always before a fork, even if you call it a spade).
|
|
153 posts
|
Post by liverpool54321 on Apr 23, 2016 19:12:35 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. And lovely to meet and talk to you too. I hope tonight will not be too much of a disappointment. |
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 23, 2016 19:59:02 GMT
Theatreboard bringing people together! Group hugz!  |
|
4,178 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Apr 23, 2016 20:00:54 GMT
Theatreboard bringing people together! Group hugz! Group hugs across cities and countries |
|
653 posts
|
Post by ptwest on Apr 23, 2016 20:05:03 GMT
Sorry Matthew, I've seen numerous understudies over the year and understood the whole "you bought tickets to a show" concept, but I honestly think this might be one time that can be legally challenged. The producers plainly weren't simply selling tickets to a production of Sunset Boulevard, they were selling tickets tickets to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard. As I posted earlier there is a legal concept that it doesn't matter what you state in a contract, if it's plainly something else, that's what matters (a five-pronged implement will always before a fork, even if you call it a spade). I would have thought that any legal challenge possibility is lost if you use the ticket to see the show. The producers could argue that despite being informed of the cast change, you still got a full performance of the show and by implication have given your consent to the changes. The lack of refund is well covered in the small print of the ticket. im not saying this is right, in fact given the way this has been marketed I think there should be a refund policy, but only if you choose not to see the performance. If GC is off in two weeks I shall be mightily disappointed as she was my main reason for booking, but it wouldn't occur to me not to go and see Ria Jones and the rest of the cast and orchestra. |
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 23, 2016 20:20:13 GMT
If I were Glenn I'd have Monday Tuesday Wednesday off now. Might as well. We all like a week off dont we so make the most of it Girl!. We've all been there with the flu sickie, it gets to the point where it's in for a penny in for a pound. Go back too early and you look like a shyster. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 20:34:06 GMT
Sorry Matthew, I've seen numerous understudies over the year and understood the whole "you bought tickets to a show" concept, but I honestly think this might be one time that can be legally challenged. The producers plainly weren't simply selling tickets to a production of Sunset Boulevard, they were selling tickets tickets to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard. The fact that everybody buying tickets was aware that it's possible for the star to be ill means those people cannot have formed a legitimate expectation that the star would certainly perform. That matters. You can't just say "Oh, but they were pushing the presence of the star name really hard, so that removes the need for the audience to understand what was actually on sale". I'm not saying that they shouldn't have had some plan in place to deal with the possibility of illness. If I'd been running the show I would have had one. But they didn't, and the audience can't just invent one because they want it. There is the concept of an unfair contract, and there is the concept of unfair trading, but the conditions under which a contract or practice is considered to be unfair are strictly defined. If they'd only scheduled Glenn Close to perform on certain days but given the impression she'd be performing eight times a week, that would have been unfair as defined in law because they would have misled the audience into buying tickets that they might otherwise not have bought. But they haven't misled anyone. They intended for her to perform at every performance, but they never offered any guarantee that she'd be able to appear at every performance, the terms and conditions make it clear that there's no guarantee, and most importantly of all, the audience knew that was a possibility. Nobody can claim they were misled. A contract doesn't become unfair just because people don't like the fact that it has to deal with what's possible rather than what's ideal. If she has to pull out from the rest of the run then it's a different matter. If it was sold on her name and she's no longer in the cast at all then you could argue that the show on offer is materially different from the show as originally sold. When you buy a ticket in hope of seeing a particular person then you can rightly argue that although you know there are no guarantees you must have at least some chance of seeing that person, and if the chance has dropped to zero then the conditions have changed sufficiently to void the contract. But right now that's not the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 23, 2016 20:43:23 GMT
I have to disagree thematthew. I really don't believe everyone was aware she might not perform. We, as regular Theatre goers, never expect to see certain performers, but when booking and paying (a fortune in some cases) some people won't have even considered the fact she may not be available to perform. I'm talking about people who rarely, if ever, go to the Theatre, and only booked tickets because off Glenn.
When the star is pushed as the selling point, every site should have another tick-box alongside the terms and conditions, in massive print, to say you will accept an understudy. That is, unless they will do refunds/exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 20:58:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 21:45:19 GMT
I have to disagree thematthew. I really don't believe everyone was aware she might not perform. We, as regular Theatre goers, never expect to see certain performers, but when booking and paying (a fortune in some cases) some people won't have even considered the fact she may not be available to perform. I'm talking about people who rarely, if ever, go to the Theatre, and only booked tickets because off Glenn. It doesn't matter whether you agree. The law is what the law is, not what people make up to suit what they'd like it to be. Part of the law is that people are expected to have some basic understanding of what they're getting into. Are you honestly saying that some people booked tickets in the genuinely-held belief that it absolutely could not happen that the person they wanted to see could be absent for any reason? It has nothing to do with being familiar with theatre in particular. To be able to claim that you didn't know it was possible for the star to be off you'd have to make the claim that you'd lived your entire life never having encountered the concept of anyone being off work. No illness, no family emergency, no bereavement. Ever. It beggars belief that anyone could truly have thought that it couldn't possibly happen. They may have been in denial about the possibility, but that's not the same thing. This whole situation comes across like the situation you get when people are prosecuted for speeding and claim that they shouldn't be prosecuted because there were no signs warning them of speed cameras. There's no legal requirement for speed camera warning signs, but people seem to think that because they want the problem to go away there "must" be some requirement that will make things turn out in their favour. Similarly, just because you really want to see someone doesn't mean there "must" be something in law that makes you exempt from understanding that people can take time off work. Don't get me wrong: I think the production should have anticipated that people would be angry if they'd paid to see a star who was unable to perform and should have included dealing with that in their budget. They're no more exempt than anyone else when it comes to knowing that people can be ill. My point here is about the law, and I think people should read what the law really says instead of assuming that every piece of legislation is implicitly titled "The {insert name here} Guaranteed Happiness (Protection From Every Misfortune In Life) Regulations 2016". |
|
|
|
Post by SamB (was badoerfan) on Apr 23, 2016 21:56:43 GMT
Can anyone give a bit of advice on the balcony? I'm finally considering this, but am broke so can't really justify more than the £12 seats. What's better - the ones nearer the front (sides of Row A and B) that say 'partially restricted view and legroom' or the ones at the back corners, which are further away but don't state a restricted view or legroom?
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 23, 2016 22:01:31 GMT
I wasn't disagreeing with the legal part. I do think some people will have booked expecting to see her and no one else, and so the ticket sellers should've made it clear you might not see her.
|
|
4,997 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 23, 2016 22:08:47 GMT
The adverts clearly state Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard and the ENO have priced it accordingly, if they charged £67.50 top price and the understudy has to come on, then people haven't got much to complain about, except give a sigh. Conversely if people paid a lot of money and then Glenn got terrible reviews, then that is tough.
For the record I have seen Sunset Boulevard with Glenn Close and didn't pay the top price, but feel for people who have and wanted to see Glenn, with travel, accommodation and food people may easily paid over a £1000 to see this.
What about if you hire a car and you pay a lot of money for a Mercedes for example and you get to to customer service desk and they say "we only have Fiat Punto left", which is about 20% of the Mercedes price you stumped up, then for the agent says to say you, you haven't got a leg to stand on because in the T&C it say 'or similar'?
I have seen a theatre make alternative arrangements (cannot confirm if it was a refund or exchange) when I passed it, when the star was out, this was Joseph at the Adelphi with Lee Mead. So it does happen.
What if you bought your ticket from the box office, where you haven't physically agreed T&C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 22:11:32 GMT
There is the concept of an unfair contract, and there is the concept of unfair trading, but the conditions under which a contract or practice is considered to be unfair are strictly defined. If they'd only scheduled Glenn Close to perform on certain days but given the impression she'd be performing eight times a week, that would have been unfair as defined in law because they would have misled the audience into buying tickets that they might otherwise not have bought. But they haven't misled anyone. They intended for her to perform at every performance, but they never offered any guarantee that she'd be able to appear at every performance, the terms and conditions make it clear that there's no guarantee, and most importantly of all, the audience knew that was a possibility. Nobody can claim they were misled. A contract doesn't become unfair just because people don't like the fact that it has to deal with what's possible rather than what's ideal. If she has to pull out from the rest of the run then it's a different matter. If it was sold on her name and she's no longer in the cast at all then you could argue that the show on offer is materially different from the show as originally sold. When you buy a ticket in hope of seeing a particular person then you can rightly argue that although you know there are no guarantees you must have at least some chance of seeing that person, and if the chance has dropped to zero then the conditions have changed sufficiently to void the contract. But right now that's not the situation. Actually yes, I do think people (not us lot of old hands on here) thought they were buying tickets to see "Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard" and the marketing and advertising reinforced that. If Glenn Close couldn't perform, they'd expect at least an exchange, if not a refund. Anyway we're going to have to agree to disagree. |
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Apr 23, 2016 22:16:05 GMT
Can anyone give a bit of advice on the balcony? I'm finally considering this, but am broke so can't really justify more than the £12 seats. What's better - the ones nearer the front (sides of Row A and B) that say 'partially restricted view and legroom' or the ones at the back corners, which are further away but don't state a restricted view or legroom? I've seen the show twice and sat in A14 (£25) and B38 (£12) so can't advise other than from those experiences. I'd definitely go for a row A or B rather than further back though. I'm pretty short so I had ample leg room in both rows, about 1.55m I think (yes, I don't know how tall I am). In row A I saw straight under the bar, the vertical bar was easy to see past. From row B I had to slouch in my seat to be able to see under the bar, the person next to me seemed to be sitting up straight to see over it. However having an aisle seat was great because I could look past the person in front of me. From 38 I could see the whole stage, not sure how much further over you are before you start loosing the sides though. Hope that's of some help. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 22:26:08 GMT
Hands up, who thinks Glenn is being a Diva?
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 23, 2016 22:31:52 GMT
Hands up, who thinks Glenn is being a Diva? I don't at all. |
|
|
|
Post by SamB (was badoerfan) on Apr 23, 2016 22:40:07 GMT
Can anyone give a bit of advice on the balcony? I'm finally considering this, but am broke so can't really justify more than the £12 seats. What's better - the ones nearer the front (sides of Row A and B) that say 'partially restricted view and legroom' or the ones at the back corners, which are further away but don't state a restricted view or legroom? I've seen the show twice and sat in A14 (£25) and B38 (£12) so can't advise other than from those experiences. I'd definitely go for a row A or B rather than further back though. I'm pretty short so I had ample leg room in both rows, about 1.55m I think (yes, I don't know how tall I am). In row A I saw straight under the bar, the vertical bar was easy to see past. From row B I had to slouch in my seat to be able to see under the bar, the person next to me seemed to be sitting up straight to see over it. However having an aisle seat was great because I could look past the person in front of me. From 38 I could see the whole stage, not sure how much further over you are before you start loosing the sides though. Hope that's of some help. Thanks, that's really helpful And I'd basically made a decision to go for that B38 which is actually available for one of the dates I can do, until my boyfriend suddenly decided he maybe wants to come too... Back to the drawing board! |
|
5 posts
|
Post by sub37 on Apr 23, 2016 23:05:27 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. Lack of prior rehearsal was nothing to do with it. Take it from someone who sits onstage! The delay was because of grumbling at the box office.... |
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Apr 23, 2016 23:17:35 GMT
I have to disagree thematthew. I really don't believe everyone was aware she might not perform. We, as regular Theatre goers, never expect to see certain performers, but when booking and paying (a fortune in some cases) some people won't have even considered the fact she may not be available to perform. I'm talking about people who rarely, if ever, go to the Theatre, and only booked tickets because off Glenn. When the star is pushed as the selling point, every site should have another tick-box alongside the terms and conditions, in massive print, to say you will accept an understudy. That is, unless they will do refunds/exchanges. Surely even people who rarely, if ever, go to the theatre are familiar with the concept of people being too ill to go to work... |
|
134 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Apr 23, 2016 23:17:54 GMT
Sorry Matthew, I've seen numerous understudies over the year and understood the whole "you bought tickets to a show" concept, but I honestly think this might be one time that can be legally challenged. The producers plainly weren't simply selling tickets to a production of Sunset Boulevard, they were selling tickets tickets to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard. The fact that everybody buying tickets was aware that it's possible for the star to be ill means those people cannot have formed a legitimate expectation that the star would certainly perform. That matters. You can't just say "Oh, but they were pushing the presence of the star name really hard, so that removes the need for the audience to understand what was actually on sale". I'm not saying that they shouldn't have had some plan in place to deal with the possibility of illness. If I'd been running the show I would have had one. But they didn't, and the audience can't just invent one because they want it. There is the concept of an unfair contract, and there is the concept of unfair trading, but the conditions under which a contract or practice is considered to be unfair are strictly defined. If they'd only scheduled Glenn Close to perform on certain days but given the impression she'd be performing eight times a week, that would have been unfair as defined in law because they would have misled the audience into buying tickets that they might otherwise not have bought. But they haven't misled anyone. They intended for her to perform at every performance, but they never offered any guarantee that she'd be able to appear at every performance, the terms and conditions make it clear that there's no guarantee, and most importantly of all, the audience knew that was a possibility. Nobody can claim they were misled. A contract doesn't become unfair just because people don't like the fact that it has to deal with what's possible rather than what's ideal. If she has to pull out from the rest of the run then it's a different matter. If it was sold on her name and she's no longer in the cast at all then you could argue that the show on offer is materially different from the show as originally sold. When you buy a ticket in hope of seeing a particular person then you can rightly argue that although you know there are no guarantees you must have at least some chance of seeing that person, and if the chance has dropped to zero then the conditions have changed sufficiently to void the contract. But right now that's not the situation. I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying. No one is arguing that it's wrong, unacceptable or unheard of for people to get ill. That would be ridiculous. They're saying that the situation should have been dealt with correctly by the producers. Had they offered exchanges or refunds, then people may have been disappointed, but would have had no choice but to accept that what has happened, as you can't argue against genuine illness. In my previous post, I drew a comparison with a Madonna concert. The same applies here - if Madonna cancels a show due to genuine illness and audience members get a refund, then there would be disappointment but not uproar. But if they were to get an alternative act without the possibility of a refund, it's another matter altogether. And that's exactly what has happened for people who thought they'd paid to see Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard... |
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Apr 23, 2016 23:21:31 GMT
The adverts clearly state Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard and the ENO have priced it accordingly, if they charged £67.50 top price and the understudy has to come on, then people haven't got much to complain about, except give a sigh. Conversely if people paid a lot of money and then Glenn got terrible reviews, then that is tough. For the record I have seen Sunset Boulevard with Glenn Close and didn't pay the top price, but feel for people who have and wanted to see Glenn, with travel, accommodation and food people may easily paid over a £1000 to see this. What about if you hire a car and you pay a lot of money for a Mercedes for example and you get to to customer service desk and they say "we only have Fiat Punto left", which is about 20% of the Mercedes price you stumped up, then for the agent says to say you, you haven't got a leg to stand on because in the T&C it say 'or similar'? I have seen a theatre make alternative arrangements (cannot confirm if it was a refund or exchange) when I passed it, when the star was out, this was Joseph at the Adelphi with Lee Mead. So it does happen. What if you bought your ticket from the box office, where you haven't physically agreed T&C. The Lee Mead example is the only time I've ever known it to happen - they offered refund or exchange in that case if memory serves. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Apr 23, 2016 23:22:49 GMT
The adverts clearly state Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard and the ENO have priced it accordingly, if they charged £67.50 top price and the understudy has to come on, then people haven't got much to complain about, except give a sigh. Conversely if people paid a lot of money and then Glenn got terrible reviews, then that is tough. For the record I have seen Sunset Boulevard with Glenn Close and didn't pay the top price, but feel for people who have and wanted to see Glenn, with travel, accommodation and food people may easily paid over a £1000 to see this. What about if you hire a car and you pay a lot of money for a Mercedes for example and you get to to customer service desk and they say "we only have Fiat Punto left", which is about 20% of the Mercedes price you stumped up, then for the agent says to say you, you haven't got a leg to stand on because in the T&C it say 'or similar'? I have seen a theatre make alternative arrangements (cannot confirm if it was a refund or exchange) when I passed it, when the star was out, this was Joseph at the Adelphi with Lee Mead. So it does happen. What if you bought your ticket from the box office, where you haven't physically agreed T&C. The Lee Mead example is the only time I've ever known it to happen - they offered refund or exchange in that case if memory serves. I think they were offering exchanges when Connie Fisher dropped from 8 to 6 shows a week but warned it be a long while till you can rearrange. |
|
