Cock - Ambassadors Theatre

[apubleed]

I can confirm no exchanges/refunds. Particularly disgusting when you look at the tube ads that don’t even say the name of the play, just Taron and Jonathan’s face in big text with their photos. The west end culture needs to change.

[fiyerorocher]

In somewhat defence of the show, they aren't actually allowed to put the name of the show on the tube ads. I'm sure they would if they could as it would probably help if people knew the name while trying to book...

[jojo]

I get that Taron is the biggest name, but it's not like there aren't other famous cast members for people to tell their friends about. If you are a massive Taron fan then of course you'll be disappointed at missing him, but as many of them will be travelling with associated cost then it's going to be disappointing either way.

Booking to see your favourite celeb at the theatre is always a risk, and moreso in COVID times. It's nice that the theatre attempted to over exchanges at first, but it's not a sustainable model for them.

Hopefully Taron isn't too ill, and is just taking sensible precautions.  It's easy to forget, but there are still some people hit hard by it, despite being up to date with their vaccines.

[apubleed]

If they can’t sustain their business without deceiving and ripping off customers then they shouldn’t have a business in the first place. A business model that actually depends on these practices is not ethical, and may not even be legal. The risk should be on the producers because they are the one who market and advertise the service, not customers who expect to get what is marketed and are paying a lot of money they wouldn’t otherwise.

[jojo]

I don't see how they've deceived customers. Anyone old enough to see the play is old enough to understand that sometimes people, including their favourite celebrities, get sick. If people are that desperate to see a specific celebrity they should pay for a meet and greet.

If I were to challenge the producers on ripping off customers then it's how they set the ticket prices in the first place. You do expect to pay your star performers extra, but you save money by having them advertise the show for free on The One Show or their Instagram. And while someone like Taron can command a large fee, it's not as if he needs the money, so if prices are high because they are paying their star performers extra, then that's the point for discussion.

I'd be surprised if Taron's pay is docked because he's off sick.

[fiyerorocher]

They're not deceiving anyone? It's always a T&C of booking a theatre ticket that the cast is subject to change because humans are not machines and need holiday and sometimes get ill. The poor guy has covid, it's not like he's bunking off work to kick his feet up and marathon a few Netflix shows. If the risk of actors getting ill was on the theatre, the risk would be too high for small venues and short runs to contend with, considering the potential for lost revenue, and we'd lose out on some great shows.

[apubleed]

There are regulations that make clear T&Cs that might materially influence consumer behaviour must be prominent not hidden. The way to make this legal would be to print the stipulation on the ads, not hide in menus and walls of text. This is why in NYC they never can get away with this.

[fiyerorocher]

It's usually pretty clear on the website. Unless the advert is dispensing tickets, you're going to have to buy them from somewhere, which tends to make the T&Cs clear. Regardless of how big and bright you make the notice, people are still not going to read it, anyway. That's why you get people turning up at the theatre and complaining about not being able to see the full stage from their reduced price restricted view ticket, or horrified there's no seat for them with their standing ticket. I don't see how you could fail to realise that obviously no one can guarantee the appearance of an actor. They are legally entitled to holiday, they could get injured, they could be ill. You take a gamble in booking the ticket. Either you get who you wanted to see, or you get the understudy who often should have been the person the part went to if they weren't stunt casting. They're not 'getting away with' anything, that's just how theatre works - and how it should work. I think NYC refund policies are mad and insulting to those who cover lead roles. Thank god we don't have them here in the same way.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2022 11:00:09 GMT apubleed said:

There are regulations that make clear T&Cs that might materially influence consumer behaviour must be prominent not hidden. The way to make this legal would be to print the stipulation on the ads, not hide in menus and walls of text. This is why in NYC they never can get away with this.

T&Cs aren't hidden. It isn't the theatre's job to engage your brain or click a few buttons for you.

[apubleed]

There are actual legislation and laws that say it is their job actually to make qualifiers visible (whether you agree or not is another question). And the issue isn’t that people can’t have a day off or be sick - it’s just when they are it’s not the consumer that should have to pay for it if they don’t want to, assuming the producers were selling tickets on the basis of them being there (which is not every show - only shows like Cock or Glenn Close in Sunset boulevard where the names and faces are being marketed). Currently in NYC they follow their laws, probably because the consumer context is much riskier in terms of litigation.

[Mark]

Going Friday so curious if he will be back.

[fiyerorocher]

Mar 30, 2022 13:11:13 GMT apubleed said:

There are actual legislation and laws that say it is their job actually to make qualifiers visible (whether you agree or not is another question). And the issue isn’t that people can’t have a day off or be sick - it’s just when they are it’s not the consumer that should have to pay for it if they don’t want to, assuming the producers were selling tickets on the basis of them being there (which is not every show - only shows like Cock or Glenn Close in Sunset boulevard where the names and faces are being marketed). Currently in NYC they follow their laws, probably because the consumer context is much riskier in terms of litigation.

Tickets are sold with the stipulation that the presence of no actor is guaranteed. There's nothing illegal going on. You accept that T&C when you book the ticket, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

[apubleed]

Ok let me ask you this, if on the tube poster that has their name and faces there was text on the bottom of the poster that said “In the event of indisposition the roles normally played by Taron E or Jonathan B may be played by understudies. In the event of this occurrence there are no refunds or exchanges” do you think consumers would respond differently to the claims of the poster or decide not to buy a ticket? If so there is a legal requirement that the T&C must be on the poster. They have a legal obligation to put it there. It’s actually completely fine for the stipulation to exist but there are regulations about where it has to be.

[fiyerorocher]

Mar 30, 2022 13:43:41 GMT apubleed said:

Ok let me ask you this, if on the tube poster that has their name and faces there was text on the bottom of the poster that said “In the event of indisposition the roles normally played by Taron E or Jonathan B may be played by understudies. In the event of this occurrence there are no refunds or exchanges” do you think consumers would respond differently to the claims of the poster or decide not to buy a ticket? If so there is a legal requirement that the T&C must be on the poster. They have a legal obligation to put it there. It’s actually completely fine for the stipulation to exist but there are regulations about where it has to be.

But no one is buying tickets directly from the poster? ? ? ? People who see it and want to get a ticket are going to probably go online and it there, where they will see the T&Cs and can read them at their leisure. I think the show is allowed to assume a certain level of common sense in their advertisements: obviously they cannot 100% guarantee the appearance of person in a play performed live.

[apubleed]

Is there a reason why you wouldn’t just want them to clearly state that as a footnote of every poster and on the front page of the website? Seems like it shouldn’t harm anything if people should or already do know it. The only reason I can think of not doing that is because of the fear that the info would somehow affect commercial outcomes of the production, which is the very reason why it should be there.

[fiyerorocher]

Mar 30, 2022 14:55:07 GMT apubleed said:

Is there a reason why you wouldn’t just want them to clearly state that as a footnote of every poster and on the front page of the website? Seems like it shouldn’t harm anything if people should or already do know it. The only reason I can think of not doing that is because of the fear that the info would somehow affect commercial outcomes of the production, which is the very reason why it should be there.

It doesn't much matter to me whether they do or not. But to suggest them not doing so is illegal is a strange position to take when no show puts it on their posters and we've yet to see a lawsuit (and from the recent lawsuits we have seen, it's clear theatre people love an opportunity to sue)

[Stephen]

In tonight. Taron off. Understudy very good. Jonathan Bailey similar to in Company.

Thought the play was just ok. I did really like the staging and movement though. Thought that it really worked in this. My favourite element was the lighting - it’s very well lit!

[Mark]

Taron still off. Very young crowd in. Clearly signposted though. Back of the stalls doesn’t seem tooo bad for £20 (considering one row forward is like £65).

[inthenose]

I don't really know what Taron Egerton is known for (apart from sitting through Rocketman, which I assume he got off the back of something else?) and won't be seeing this regardless of cast.

My question is actually about all this cryptic talk throughout this thread about the "movement" and the "choreography".

In layman's terms, can someone explain (and spoiler tag it if deemed necessary) what exactly this entails in actual terms?

[A.Ham]

Apr 2, 2022 5:15:27 GMT inthenose said:

My question is actually about all this cryptic talk throughout this thread about the "movement" and the "choreography".

In layman's terms, can someone explain (and spoiler tag it if deemed necessary) what exactly this entails in actual terms?

Essentially, at various dramatic points in the story, the dialogue stops, the lighting changes and the cast contort themselves into various shapes and positions to indicate the agony or ecstasy their current situation has made them feel. I’m sure others can explain it better, but it felt like dance on slo-mo to me.

[geweena]

[Mark]

Marianne is right. Joel is an incredibly gifted actor and immediately won the crowd over last night - no mean feat when people go for a celebrity.

Enjoyed the play, the first hour is particularly strong but it does stumble a bit in the last half hour or so.

The “choreography” is mainly just to signify scene changes/passage of time.

[couldileaveyou]

Apr 2, 2022 8:08:52 GMT geweena said:

I somehow had the weird feeling this was about to happen. Between covid and fainting it's been a short but problems-riddled run, I doubt we'll see him on stage again any time soon

[apubleed]

They better offer refunds or this show is a complete and utter scam. Selling an entire run on his name and not being able to deliver on it is the problem of the producers not audiences. Audiences should not have to pay for their inability to deliver.

[A.Ham]

I wonder if ATG and the producers will change all the advertising, programmes, hoardings at the Ambassadors etc?

I thought Joel was good when I saw it, not sure it would have felt particularly different with Taron other than the post-show bragging rights!