371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Apr 1, 2016 23:12:12 GMT
£15 tickets... Can these only be booked through the ATW site? Can't see them on the Duke Of York site. The Duke of York doesn't have its own venue specific site. Their official site is the ATG tickets site. Any site that looks like it's an official site for them or any other ATG venue is another ticket agent pretending otherwise. |
|
137 posts
|
Post by jason71 on Apr 2, 2016 8:17:21 GMT
I think I'll decline these £15 tickets. Not prepared to pay the extortionate £3.50 booking fee.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 2, 2016 8:26:29 GMT
Know what you mean, Jason, I hate booking fees, but it is £3.50 in total not each ticket and includes posting them out to you if you want. It did decide me to have a go for this and I booked stalls tickets that on other nights are selling for £65, so £33.50 in total for two tickets compared to £133.50 seems good?
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Apr 2, 2016 22:22:47 GMT
I think I'll decline these £15 tickets. Not prepared to pay the extortionate £3.50 booking fee. A £3.50 transaction fee as opposed to the up to 25% of the face value per ticket booking fee charged by most other west end agents? This is a prime example of cutting your nose off to spite your face, I feel. |
|
137 posts
|
Post by jason71 on Apr 3, 2016 3:15:27 GMT
ATG make a fortune out of these rip off charges. They also make money from the rip off phone numbers that they use. They won't be making money from me by either of these methods.
Bath Theatre Royal charge fees when people book in person. This includes cash, cheque & card payment. I wonder when ATG will follow suit
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Apr 9, 2016 8:38:09 GMT
Well, they haven't yet, and neither has any other West End venue, regardless of ownership. Boycotting them over a relatively small admin fee and something that they might possibly do in the future seems like you're really reaching for your reasons.
Anyway, it's the first preview tonight. Who is going?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 8:49:25 GMT
In the West End there are so many theatres that fees at one theatre for in-person cash booking would genuinely provoke some people into not booking there because there are many many alternatives very near at hand not charging such a fee.
The nearest similar theatre to the Theatre Royal Bath is many miles away so only a nutter would travel over ten miles each way to avoid a booking fee.
Also, a relatively high proportion of the Theatre Royal Bath audience lives or works close enough to book in person and it would be impractical for them all to stop booking online and turn up en masse at the box office in person.
West End theatres could introduce booking fees for in-person booking (which, arguably, would be fair) but they would have to act together and all do it.
|
|
137 posts
|
Post by jason71 on Apr 9, 2016 9:09:49 GMT
But it does not cost anything to process cash payments
I see that certain people are happy to pay rip off charges and are happy to ring up rip off 087 numbers
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 9:29:52 GMT
But it does not cost anything to process cash payments Staff costs are much higher for in-person booking and for cash accounting, there may be associated bank costs, and the risks of losses by theft and fraud are much higher with cash. |
|
137 posts
|
Post by jason71 on Apr 9, 2016 12:58:39 GMT
If that is the case then maybe theatres should start charging for all forms of payments.
I see that nobody has commented on the use of 087 numbers. Sore point eh??
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 15:29:07 GMT
If that is the case then maybe theatres should start charging for all forms of payments. Some do - like Theatre Royal Bath (as you said) and St David's Hall and New Theatre in Cardiff. But in London, with loads of theatres cheek by jowl, no one wants to be the first to make the move. |
|
137 posts
|
Post by jason71 on Apr 9, 2016 18:02:54 GMT
These so called theatres should come clean and say how much it costs to process these various payments. They should also reveal how much revenue they are making through rip off phone numbers
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by greenswan on Apr 12, 2016 19:43:38 GMT
Has anyone seen it yet? I'm really hesitant to book due to the prices.
|
|
15 posts
|
Post by warmington on Apr 13, 2016 11:25:36 GMT
Has anyone seen it yet? I'm really hesitant to book due to the prices. There is a short review on Theatremonkey, looks favourable. I shall be there on Saturday so may be able to offer more info  |
|
1,305 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Apr 15, 2016 12:27:16 GMT
I've just returned a front row for Monday 18th April (I'm still going, kid has to work). Have you seen the photo on twitter?!?!?!? Not wearing white on Monday!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 15, 2016 12:36:02 GMT
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Apr 15, 2016 12:48:43 GMT
Also got a front row ticket, will have to make sure I don't wear my Saturday Night Fever suit that night.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 15, 2016 15:51:48 GMT
Okay, but you must promise that you will still sing the chorus from 'Stayin' Alive' at appropriate moments.
|
|
1,305 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Apr 15, 2016 16:15:52 GMT
I've booked front row in hopes of a dribble of Jon Snow's DNA. Looks like I'm in luck .. er ... |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 16, 2016 5:17:01 GMT
Front row peeps may well get sprayed with fizzy drink. There's also a fair amount if nudity (yep, including the star) and a lot less Marlowe than I had expected
|
|
209 posts
|
Post by Flim Flam on Apr 16, 2016 7:48:42 GMT
Front row peeps may well get sprayed with fizzy drink. There's also a fair amount if nudity (yep, including the star) and a lot less Marlowe than I had expected Sounds like a typical Saturday night out down my way |
|
5 posts
|
Post by cainc on Apr 16, 2016 11:16:34 GMT
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Well, it's interesting. I imagine it will be quite divisive, and your reaction will probably depend on what you want out of your evening. Ultimately I think I found it frustrating, though highly compelling. There is certainly a lot to discuss, and I would argue that it is textually rigorous in many places. However, I did find the new middle, though well thought out in some respects, did not work as well as I had hoped. The audience in the stalls at least seemed divided. Quite a few hugely positive reactions, a lot seeming to be torn, and a few walkouts during the interval.
|
|
5 posts
|
Post by cainc on Apr 16, 2016 15:15:41 GMT
A few additional thoughts, though it is best to see it 'cold' as it were.
Jenna Russell sensational.
Kit Harington very good - started a little too Classic Shakespeare for me, proclaiming rather than just talking, but became stronger throughout the performance, though he did seem more comfortable with the modern text.
Some innovations a bit irrelevant in my opinion, especially the canned laughter - started to grate very quickly.
Colin Teevan's new text - interesting, well thought out, but disappointing compared to some of the real beauty contained in Marlowe's work.
Set very good - drawing many tropes from horror movies.
Very creepy.
Some nice illusions.
Loads of blood.
What a gunshot!
Great deadly sins.
Jade Anouka stunning - I'd love to hear her say more of Marlowe's text. Or do Shakespeare. she'd be a great Hamlet.
Strong ensemble.
Interesting focus on bodies, and their relationship with the soul.
Lots to recommend, and lots to mull over when leaving the theatre.
I thought it made a very interesting double bill with the RSC one. Both completely different whilst still having many parallels. Both place a lot of emphasis on movement, the use of a chorus, music and sexuality.
However, despite all this goodness (and this is a big spoiler, even if you know the text)
{Spoiler - click to view}
I really really didn't like the rape. I understand what they were trying to do, and I don't think they were attempting to be gratuitous or shocking, but I thought it was wrong. I understand that it's the final stage of Faustus' damnation, an act from which he cannot return, but I thought it was completely unneeded.
For me it also just steamrollered through any ambiguity. As Faustus contemplates his future at the very end the audience (or me personally) are placed very much in his shoes. His actions throughout the play are ones that I can empathise with, (well, in Marlowe's text anyway) but this removed Faustus from his existential crisis. It didn't darken or strengthen the dramatic structure of the play's climax, it simply alienated me, and not in the way intended. I also found it a shame since Harington delivered his final speech with great clarity and intelligence, and I thought the final image of him alone onstage was incredibly haunting. A real shame, in my opinion, though I'm sure some will completely disagree with me and see it as a natural extension of the play's dark themes.
It's also an interesting matter with trigger warnings. Somebody on twitter posted wishing there had been a warning and I understand the creative dilemma. The audience is warned of "adult content" but rape is clearly outside of that category. However, I'm sure that the creative team would see warning of sexual violence as being a spoiler, especially as it isn't in the original text. It is, however, incredibly painful to watch, and Anouka's acting is brilliant, so I'm sure if had someone been through such experiences, watching this in the middle of a row of people could be incredibly difficult and uncomfortable. |
|
181 posts
|
Post by caa on Apr 16, 2016 19:49:43 GMT
As this is a Marlowe and Colin Teevan Doctor Faustus I notice that this version was staged at the West Yorkshire Playhouse in 2013, when Kevin Trainor was Faustus and Siobhan Redmond played Mephistopheles. The West Yorkshire Playhouse version used stage illusions, and Faustus was a modern-day conjuror.
|
|
19,651 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 18, 2016 12:19:04 GMT
My apologies, I've merged the two threads about this play together without realising they were different productions. Bear with me while I see if I can get it undone.
|
|
