NeoPatrick

starrs, of course we all base our feelings on what has happened to us and that's only right. Oddly, my experiences with Telecharge have been really great -- changing seats when once I simply misread the website mistaking one section for another, and another time exchanging tickets for me when I inadvertently booked two shows the same night! So when I look at a Broadway show and see it is handled by Ticketmaster I get a little twinge of pain, but when I see it is handled by Telecharge I sigh a little relief.

Oh, and the Ticketmaster website drives me nuts too, because they only offer you one choice of seats. Turn it down to look for others, and it keeps offering you the same ones. Telecharge keeps offering different selections. But I've learned to call to either rather than booking online for best selection!

Jane_Jamieson

Come to London to see your shows then! We can deal directly with the theatres themselves (and cheaper too) and decide where we want to sit etc. We are going to New York for Christmas and I won't book any theatre because I don't want to use Ticketmaster! However - I did go and book us to see the Radio City Christmas show - but I had to do it through TM, which was very annoying - still - it is a fantastic show! Otherwise, we enjoy the shows here by booking with the theatres.

TC

I agree, Jane. Many years ago I saw Lion King in London simply because getting tickets in NY was so difficult, expensive and annoying. Wish I could come to London more often. You'll love the Rockettes Christmas show. Its beautiful.

TC

I had forgotten this email and note which I posted on a different Broadway thread here in September. So I feel I was right in asking for a refund or discount on my preview tickets. They should not have cost $150 each. The following discount would have covered performance up to the originally scheduled opening night -- December 21.

"I received an email from The Nederlander Group for discount preview tickets for Spiderman. The code is good for performances November 17 to December 20. Orchestra seats $69 weekdays and $79 weekends."

carlota

don't tell me about this "offer" of disccount tickets...I received it just after I had bought them at full price....As it seems I'll be the 1st on this board to go and see it (hopefully, it'll have started by then...) I'll be able to tell you all about it whwn I get back!

NeoPatrick

"I had forgotten this email and note which I posted on a different Broadway thread here in September. So I feel I was right in asking for a refund or discount . . ."



TC, I'm not sure what you're saying in that last post. I'm interpreting it as you paid full price rather than using a discount therefore you were entitled to get the "overpaid" price back. Is that what you're saying? People pay full price all the time and fail to see a discount code. I'm not sure why that entitles them to get money back when they do so. Or are you saying something else?

TC

Patrick, My January 7th date did not fall within the original discount perimeters. Discounts were offered for all preview performance from November 17 up to Opening Night - December 21. I bought full price tickets for a post-opening show on Jan 7. All good so far. However, this most recent delay changed my Jan 7th show from a post-opening performance to a preview performance (a dress rehearsal).

I am saying that the producers of the show changed the classification of my tickets and therefore I am due a refund. Think of it like this, if you paid for orchestra seats, but found out you would really be sitting in the balcony, would you ask for compensation?

NeoPatrick

Ah. OK. I get it now. I wasn't thinking clearly about the dates to realize that it was the fact that all preview tickets were eligible for the code but your tickets weren't eligible for the code. So yes, you have a very good point. You were "forced" to pay full price for an actual performance which was now to be a preview which would have been available for less! But I'm kind of shocked that many tickets are left for those performances (or previews). This show has so much hype, I'm surprised any tickets are available at all.

TC

I'll be surprised if this show every opens.

HowardR

Good point, TC. I've been leery of the whole thing since I first read about its $50,000,000 budget. If I was a backer of shows, I'd be very reluctant to put my money into a show with such a high cost. I can't imagine how many years of sold-out performances (certainly, at least two or three) would be needed to get back the initial investment.
Then, all these postponements, injuries, etc., would make me even more nervous!

Kealalani

Oh it will open to be sure. Flying people over an audience is not easy, but cirque has been doing it for years, Peter pan has been doing it for what feels like forever. U2 and Taymor are not ganna make this happen, and happen big. Whether the public comes after they've built it? Only time will tell. There is still no logical explanation for Cats, now is there?

NeoPatrick

$50 million. Yea. And I think at last count it had now passed $63 million. And I thought Priscilla, the Musical was big budget when it hit London -- rumored to be the most expensive show ever there and now surpassing that cost for its upcoming Broadway run, but a fraction of Spiderman's cost.

Here's an interesting article about Priscilla, by the way. The LED (or is is LCD?) bus alone is worth the price of admission. So are the costumes.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117943941/

HowardR

Priscilla is #1 on our list of future shows to see. We recently saw the movie (again) on TV and loved it as much as the first and second times. When we read that Variety review a week or two ago, it made my wife and I want to see the show even more!

happytrailstoyou

The shows to see are simply the ones that interest you most unless the point of going to the theater is to brag about what you saw. In the latter case you should go to Wicked or some other show you know will arouse envy in your friends and relatives.

HTTY

NeoPatrick

Or maybe go to Wicked because you love it? I'm not sure why going to Wicked would arouse envy in others other than because it's a hard ticket to get. I think the shows that have famous TV or film stars are the ones most likely for some people to go to to arouse envy. I'm especially amused when someone says something like "I saw _______ on Broadway" using a person's name rather than the name of a play. Clearly in that case they went to see a celebrity, and not a production of a play.

starrs

"In the latter case you should go to Wicked or some other show you know will arouse envy in your friends and relatives."

I don't understand that. And I'm a HUGE Wicked fan. I go to see it (a lot) because I like it. I get more grief than envy on here for talking about how many times I've seen it What others think is the LAST reason for choosing a show. Why waste that kind of money because of someone else?


"I'm especially amused when someone says something like "I saw _______ on Broadway" using a person's name rather than the name of a play. Clearly in that case they went to see a celebrity, and not a production of a play."

I must be very amusing, because that's one way I pick a show. I don't get to as many Broadway shows as many of you, but when I'm deciding that is a factor. IMO that's nothing to apologize for.

Centralparkgirl

< IMO that's nothing to apologize for.>

Of course not.

Sometimes I choose based on the play, the actor(s) or sometimes both. Usually, it's based on the play, but sometimes I just can't pass on the opportunity to see a particular actor. I chose 'A Little Night Music' because I wanted to see Angela Lansbury again. Who knows how many more times I'll be able to do that. I would see Ian McKellan or Christopher Plummer in anything if given the opportunity. The other night when I saw MOV, a young girl sat in front of me. She flew in from Kansas by herself solely because she wanted to see Al Pacino perform. She was a theater major and this was her first time in NY and first time seeing a Broadway play. I was moved by that and excited for her even though she was a stranger to me.

starrs

I went to see ALNM for the same reason, cpg. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy the show the way you did.

I really wanted to see Sondheim on Sondheim even though some Fodorites didn't like it. I wanted to see Miss Barbara Cook. I'd heard of her all of my life - she went to high school with my mom and they were in a drama club together.

Heck, I pick a lot of plays because I recognize one (or more) of the names - and have even steered away from a play because of one of the leads.

One of my nicest surprises was going to see Caberet - because I wanted to see the play - and discovering that Neil Patrick Harris was in it. I would not have chosen the play because of him, but I was blown away by his performance. He was fabulous in the part.

Anyway, I think it's a mix for most of us. But I definitely won't apologize for narrowing down the choices based on who is starring. I think that's normal. In any case, it appears to be "amusing".

HowardR

Amen to starrs' comment about the silliness of someone wanting to see a show merely to have bragging rights.....especially with the price of theater tickets today.
But, I see nothing wrong with wanting see a show because of who is appearing in it. As a lover of Barbara Cook, I can certainly see starrs' longing to see her. And, over the years, we've been lucky to see her on stage many times. Sure, we weren't too crazy about the Sondheim show, but as I wrote previously, just her hear her sing Send in the Clowns made the experience worthwhile!
Like CPG, I too would go to a show just to see Ian McKellan....and, in fact, we did just that a few years ago when he and Helen Mirren appeared in Dance of Death(another favorite). And was that ever a rewarding theatrical experience. For me, you can also put Vanessa Redgrave in the same category. Hell, she could recite the phone book and I'd probably love the experience.
At the same time, the fact that a show doesn't have "star" performer would NOT discourage me from seeing that production. One of the sad realities of the theater today is that a non-musical just about MUST have a name performer to succeed, while musicals often have a tough making a go of it without that name person.

starrs

I totally agree with everything HowardR said