4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Mar 20, 2022 21:32:42 GMT
Perhaps we all need a reminder that theatre is meant to be an enjoyable thing.
You wouldn't think so when you read these boards sometimes!
It wasn't that long ago that all the theatres were closed and we couldn't see anything at all.
|
|
4,022 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Mar 20, 2022 21:38:24 GMT
And they want people to pay ... to see some unknown cast. I find this baffling about all musicals. Unless there's some "star" name, most musicals seem to expect people to book months in advance with no idea who the cast will be and they only announce the cast about a month beforehand. I started my theatregoing primarily with opera & opera companies announce casts at least several months beforehand, sometimes over a year before. I flatly refuse to book anything without knowing who the cast will be. |
|
|
|
Post by shambles on Mar 20, 2022 21:43:48 GMT
If you're anyways going to call any new cast unknowns, what difference does knowing their name make?
|
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 20, 2022 21:51:05 GMT
I’m looking for a seat in July. Which is when I can come. When I go to ATG’s website to book, the seats are minimum £70 for the absolute worst seats in the house. Wednesday 27 July 2pm Stalls Row J £70x4 If you aren't Satisfied sitting 10 rows from the stage for £70 (in seats which people on seat plan say are exceptional) then your expectations need to be managed. That matinee seat is £100 for evening performances early in the week. And sorry (because don’t want to be argumentative) but no I don’t want to sit in the back row oF the stalls for £70. If you think that’s ok, then Whoopi do for you. I don’t. |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Mar 20, 2022 21:56:35 GMT
And they want people to pay ... to see some unknown cast. I find this baffling about all musicals. Unless there's some "star" name, most musicals seem to expect people to book months in advance with no idea who the cast will be and they only announce the cast about a month beforehand. I started my theatregoing primarily with opera & opera companies announce casts at least several months beforehand, sometimes over a year before. I flatly refuse to book anything without knowing who the cast will be. I think the majority of theatre goers book in advance to see Jersey Boys or Les Miserables or whatever the show is and they haven't got the foggiest who the cast will be and don't particularly care. They are booking to see the show. I love knowing who the cast is personally but I do actually quite envy people who just fancy seeing a show and just book it without any of the surrounding circus that we talk about in depth on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 21:57:22 GMT
I challenge anyone to write that statement. Write a statement that doesn't suggest there is an agreed schedule change, and omits any mention of a possible medical reason. If that's the case, that's surely a thing in the UK and not here because actors are announced as being on a "medical leave" or "out by doctor's orders" all the time. So, I apologize if I've misunderstood that. Actors can be announced as being out on medical leave if they consent to that announcement. No one has a right to disclose anyone else's medical information without their consent. Alternatively, the producers decide there is no need to make an announcement, which is their prerogative regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is a good decision or not. |
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 20, 2022 22:06:05 GMT
Wednesday 27 July 2pm Stalls Row J £70x4 If you aren't Satisfied sitting 10 rows from the stage for £70 (in seats which people on seat plan say are exceptional) then your expectations need to be managed. That matinee seat is £100 for evening performances early in the week. And sorry (because don’t want to be argumentative) but no I don’t want to sit in the back row oF the stalls for £70. If you think that’s ok, then Whoopi do for you. I don’t. I'm sure they will miss the 10s of pounds you won't be spending. Sorry you will miss this magnificent production. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 22:06:29 GMT
Well if you aren't saying she had to do all shows then why do you have a problem with her for having an arrangement that she only does some, which seems from the pattern of shows she did in the last couple of months to have been the case? Clearly she could function to do the job part time so what is the problem with her doing so? If your ire is due to a lack of transparency then that is on the producers and has nothing to do with her doing some but not all of the shows. It is rather elitist to say you would resign if you couldnt work - clearly you are lucky enough to have enough money to do so, but not everyone is that fortunate, so that sort of attitude does nothing to help many people. And you claim you aren't saying she should have to do all shows or none, so I am rather confused as to why you also seem to be saying a leave of absence is the only other option. Why are you so against the idea that an employer might dare to make adjustments for an employee so that they can do part of their job even if they are not fit enough in some way to do it all? And no, I don't have much money in the bank right now and am struggling to make rent. So, no, it isn't elitism. It's just how I feel - that if I'm incapable of doing the job (not one day here and there, but multiple days in a working week), I should figure out why, take a leave, maybe even move over so someone who CAN do the job gets it done. I've said multiple times I think it's more on the producers, but to a certain point, it's also on her. I still think she's a sensational talent. But I think her attendance in this limited run was atrocious and makes me question her commitment and professionalism. I'm allowed to have that opinion. And you're allowed to have yours. Apologies also for the multiple posts. I got back after a bit and still am learning how all the notifications on this board work as it's very different than BroadwayWorld's state-side board. (AND FOR A MILLION GOOD REASONS. Seriously, the mods and the design of this board? Chef's kiss.) Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Your posts make rather more sense now that I see you aren't from the UK. We have rather more humane employment rights here and people are perfectly entitled to work part time and to have adjustments made for medical reasons, rather than being forced to take leave. Especially when people evidently can do their job but just not full time. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's rather sad that you seem to equate managing medical matters and working part time as a result with being unprofessional. You might rather quit a job than work part time to manage a medical condition, that is your prerogative, but that doesn't make people who would rather continue as much as they can unprofessional (in my opinion they are the opposite), and indeed job sharing is not unprofessional in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned the only issue here is the producers not saying anything, even something that wouldn't involve disclosing any personal information. That is nothing to do with Ms Buckley and is nothing to do with her professionalism or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 20, 2022 22:08:39 GMT
If that's the case, that's surely a thing in the UK and not here because actors are announced as being on a "medical leave" or "out by doctor's orders" all the time. So, I apologize if I've misunderstood that. Actors can be announced as being out on medical leave if they consent to that announcement. No one has a right to disclose anyone else's medical information without their consent. Alternatively, the producers decide there is no need to make an announcement, which is their prerogative regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is a good decision or not. But there is a need in mine and many people's opinion, as demonstrated by the hot discussion on here. I hate these attempts at trying to shut the debate down, because certain posters vehemently disagree. Perhaps some kind of poll is in order? These tickets are hugely expensive, to an unprecedented extent. Lots of people DO think they have been "not fully transparent" at best or intentionally misleading at worst. This is every single person's prerogative regardless of whether the producers or those who disagree thinks it is worthy for debate or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 22:08:52 GMT
They have some nerve to advertise on FB that thousands of Tix are released from £30. Just looked for a ticket in July.. yes JULY on a Monday or Tuesday night thinking I’d do a visit with Dalmatians at the OAT. Very very cheapest up in the nosebleeds is £70 and we don’t even know who will be in it. Seriously, get stuffed. Looked again at October. Same. Dress Circle seats are definitely not the nosebleed seats. Upper Circle seats (£50 and £30) are currently only on sale until 25th June and usually become available about 3 months in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 22:09:06 GMT
Wednesday 27 July 2pm Stalls Row J £70x4 If you aren't Satisfied sitting 10 rows from the stage for £70 (in seats which people on seat plan say are exceptional) then your expectations need to be managed. That matinee seat is £100 for evening performances early in the week. And sorry (because don’t want to be argumentative) but no I don’t want to sit in the back row oF the stalls for £70. If you think that’s ok, then Whoopi do for you. I don’t. The back row of the stalls at the Playhouse is closer to the stage than premium seats at the Palladium... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 22:11:31 GMT
Actors can be announced as being out on medical leave if they consent to that announcement. No one has a right to disclose anyone else's medical information without their consent. Alternatively, the producers decide there is no need to make an announcement, which is their prerogative regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is a good decision or not. But there is a need in my people's opinion, as demonstrated by the hot discussion on here. I hate these attempts at trying to shut the debate down, because certain posters vehemently disagree. Perhaps some kind of poll is in order? These tickets are hugely expensive, to an unprecedented extent. Lots of people DO think they have been "not fully transparent" at best or intentionally misleading at worst. This is every single person's prerogative regardless of whether the producers or those who disagree thinks it is worthy for debate or not. I'm not saying anything about whether there is or isn't a need. All I am saying is that regardless of what anyone thinks the only FACT is that the producers have no obligation to make an announcement, and that is the bottom line. We can go around in circles all you like but nothing is going to change that. Optics are a different matter but they haven't legally done anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Mar 20, 2022 22:19:39 GMT
But there is a need in my people's opinion, as demonstrated by the hot discussion on here. I hate these attempts at trying to shut the debate down, because certain posters vehemently disagree. Perhaps some kind of poll is in order? These tickets are hugely expensive, to an unprecedented extent. Lots of people DO think they have been "not fully transparent" at best or intentionally misleading at worst. This is every single person's prerogative regardless of whether the producers or those who disagree thinks it is worthy for debate or not. I'm not saying anything about whether there is or isn't a need. All I am saying is that regardless of what anyone thinks the only FACT is that the producers have no obligation to make an announcement, and that is the bottom line. We can go around in circles all you like but nothing is going to change that. Optics are a different matter but they haven't legally done anything wrong. A lot of what I understand to be your view is based on what is the traditional norm in British theatregoing. My point is that this has set a "new normal", our first experience of Broadway prices, with big name stars attached to justify them, yet with none of the protection that Broadway audiences receive when buying their hugely expensive ticket. I don't see how or why "like it or lump it" should be given as justification, with a straight face. In 2022, with theatre being the expensive luxury it is for most of us, having fewer consumer rights and paying more could in no way possibly be considered fair. When this eventually gets regulated - as it should be already - most of us will look back with no fondness on how unscrupulous some producers could be. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 22:19:43 GMT
Jessie Buckley has received so much flak and negative press on here, when not one person knows the reason she was off. If these absences have been agreed with the producers, then not a single word of what has been said about her on here has been warranted. Its sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 20, 2022 22:29:11 GMT
Can we all agree that:
Some people believe -
- cabaret is too expensive
- customers should get a refund if named cast members don't appear
- producers should make statements about absences
AND
Some people believe-
- cabaret isn't too expensive (it's market value)
- customers shouldn't get a refund if casts members are off (because this isn't brodway)
- producers are entitled not to make statements (because some things are private)
|
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 20, 2022 22:34:56 GMT
I'm not saying anything about whether there is or isn't a need. All I am saying is that regardless of what anyone thinks the only FACT is that the producers have no obligation to make an announcement, and that is the bottom line. We can go around in circles all you like but nothing is going to change that. Optics are a different matter but they haven't legally done anything wrong. A lot of what I understand to be your view is based on what is the traditional norm in British theatregoing. My point is that this has set a "new normal", our first experience of Broadway prices, with big name stars attached to justify them, yet with none of the protection that Broadway audiences receive when buying their hugely expensive ticket. I don't see how or why "like it or lump it" should be given as justification, with a straight face. In 2022, with theatre being the expensive luxury it is for most of us, having fewer consumer rights and paying more could in no way possibly be considered fair. When this eventually gets regulated - as it should be already - most of us will look back with no fondness on how unscrupulous some producers could be. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 The Consumer Rights Act sets out your rights when you're buying products, services and digital content. Product quality - what should you expect? As with the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. The rules also include digital content in this definition. So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards: Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods. As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase. Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods. Who should you claim against? If what you’ve bought doesn’t satisfy any one of the three criteria outlined above, you have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act. |
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 20, 2022 22:36:05 GMT
If you feel you have a claim, make a claim.
|
|
333 posts
|
Post by stuart on Mar 20, 2022 22:43:30 GMT
I take it from the above posts that the £70 back of Dress Circle seats are still pretty good for this show? And may actually be better than £100 seats at the rear of stalls where the overhang might obstruct?
|
|
632 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2022 22:46:23 GMT
I take it from the above posts that the £70 back of Dress Circle seats are still pretty good for this show? And may actually be better than £100 seats at the rear of stalls where the overhang might obstruct? Yes, absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by shadypines on Mar 20, 2022 22:47:55 GMT
I take it from the above posts that the £70 back of Dress Circle seats are still pretty good for this show? And may actually be better than £100 seats at the rear of stalls where the overhang might obstruct? As someone who has sat in both, I'd say the stalls are better because of legroom and the drink shelf, plus you're slightly closer. The dress circle is amazing though and definitely worth £70. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 0:59:17 GMT
I'm not saying anything about whether there is or isn't a need. All I am saying is that regardless of what anyone thinks the only FACT is that the producers have no obligation to make an announcement, and that is the bottom line. We can go around in circles all you like but nothing is going to change that. Optics are a different matter but they haven't legally done anything wrong. A lot of what I understand to be your view is based on what is the traditional norm in British theatregoing. My point is that this has set a "new normal", our first experience of Broadway prices, with big name stars attached to justify them, yet with none of the protection that Broadway audiences receive when buying their hugely expensive ticket. I don't see how or why "like it or lump it" should be given as justification, with a straight face. In 2022, with theatre being the expensive luxury it is for most of us, having fewer consumer rights and paying more could in no way possibly be considered fair. When this eventually gets regulated - as it should be already - most of us will look back with no fondness on how unscrupulous some producers could be. I'm not sure I've ever expressed whether or not people should be able to get refunds if a star is out (and if I have then I've probably said they should). All my posts are based on is the legal position on contracts, employment rights and privacy. I'm just stating facts in that regard, not my opinion or any justification, just the facts. And it's nothing to do with having fewer consumer rights, you have the same consumer rights you've always had, and the legal position is that the contract is for the show. What you're asking for is more consumer rights, which clearly many people do want, but which no-one is currently legally obliged to give. That's all there is to it. And the other fact we all know whether we think it fair or not is that the law isn't going to change because Jessie Buckley missed performances. |
|
1,117 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by sph on Mar 21, 2022 1:41:16 GMT
I think we understand what is legal regarding these things, it's just unpleasant for producers to shrug it off.
Legally a star can miss shows and there's nothing anyone can do about it, but it would be nice if producers just acknowledged it and said "OK, we understand you're disappointed, but please, stay, watch the show, have a drink on us." etc.
There are just a few things they could do that would add a touch of class to the whole situation.
I'm sure the understudy is wonderful, and Redmayne is the main name anyway and he hasn't missed a performance has he?
|
|
|
|
Post by vernongersh on Mar 21, 2022 2:54:49 GMT
still hoping there is some intersting casting over the summer when the current cast stated departs (although it still looks quite sold out in the cabreat seats even with current cast).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 7:19:49 GMT
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 The Consumer Rights Act sets out your rights when you're buying products, services and digital content. Product quality - what should you expect? As with the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. The rules also include digital content in this definition. So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards: Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods. As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase. Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods. Who should you claim against? If what you’ve bought doesn’t satisfy any one of the three criteria outlined above, you have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act. "Information said or written and given to the consumer is binding where the consumer relies on it. This will include quotations and any promises about timescales or about the results to be achieved. This applies if the consumer takes account of this information in deciding whether to buy the service, or to make any decision about the service subsequently. Those pesky T&C again. |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Mar 21, 2022 8:24:03 GMT
I really don't know what else can be said about the subject.
Yes she has missed lots of shows.
Yes we don't know why and yes it would be nice to have the option of a refund should you want one but in the end you are buying a ticket to Cabaret and you will see Cabaret.
You are not buying a ticket to an evening with Ms Buckley. "The producers cannot guarantee the appearance of any performer" is always written there somewhere.
You are also perfectly entitled to be disappointed if you go and see a show because you like any performer in it and they are not on. Whether that person is a Hollywood film star or the swing you like who is fifth cover midwife.
|
|
