re: Neverland and producer seat-filling theories

[EchoParker]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:43am

For the second time, I've seen a reference in the message thread re: weekly grosses to a theory (I'd call it a conspiracy theory) that the producers of Finding Neverland are somehow masking the actual non-success of their show by... (here's where I get fuzzy) buying the tickets themselves, and then, what?, giving them away for free? 

I don't think the theorists are trying to claim that there aren't butts in all those seats (ask an usher or anyone in concessions about how full those houses are, and the 98.4% sold this past week will not sound to them like an exaggeration). So.. what exactly is the claim? That there's some percentage of the audience who got their tickets free from Harvey Weinstein? Every week for 18 weeks? And also... signed a non-disclosure form and pledged to never mention it to anyone who might share that interesting fact with anyone else?

And this scheme is being played out to what end? I have friends who were in town this past weekend, catching as many shows as they could. They looked into Neverland tickets (in advance, not at TKTS) and found the prices too prohibitive, so saw other shows instead. (I think TKTS is a different story; I've seen the show up on the board many times.) So the producers are filling up the house with non-paying people, only to prevent other people from actually paying for those seats?

When I hear what sounds like a conspiracy theory, I usually ask myself - why does someone need to believe there's an alternate explanation? Are some people so convinced (based on whatever criteria) that Neverland was doomed to flop, that they see $1.1 million in box office week after week and have to find some theory other than... the show is selling $1.1 million in tickets each week?

Or am I being too cynical? I admit to naivete (and ignorance) when it comes to the production side of theatre. Is it possible this theory holds water?

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:57am

The producers buying their own tickets theory is interesting and fun to believe, but in all probability I doubt that's what's really happening. As of now, this is just one of the lucky few shows to truck past poor reviews and a lack of nominations in order to be a hit in its first few months. (As for the future of the show's success, only time will tell.)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 2:05am

"Is it possible this theory holds water?"

No. You get it. Haters gonna hate and conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

[skies]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 2:10am

It's almost an affront to some that Finding Neverland hasn't curled up and died.  

Granted it's still far from recouping it's costs, but I doubt that it's going to falter drastically before  the end of summer.  With no Tony awards/nods,  no overwhelming critical buzz it could be earning it's keep though word-of-mouth.

If it remains strong in the fall and winter months then some will have to admit that maybe audiences actually like the damn thing.

[skies]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 2:10am

NM

Updated On: 7/21/15 at 02:10 AM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 9:35am

The show was hugely enjoyable, it did what it set out to do and that was entertain, is it the best thing ever, far from it, could it have better, yes! 

Plus that jaw dropping peace of stage magic towards the end of act two was simple yet breath taking...

[Stew123]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 10:04am

The show put me to sleep.  I couldn't wait to get out of there.  The stage magic at the end of act 2 was the only highlight.  They should have saved it for a good show instead of wasting it in this one!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 10:17am

I went last week and it was definitely entertaining for the most part, and the people around me were having a good time. It's far from the worst thing I've seen.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 10:27am

I was at the first preview and I had a wonderful time. I thought the show was beautiful, moving, and touching. Was it the best thing I have ever seen? Probably not. I was never bored at any point during the show.

[Back Row]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 10:28am

It should not surprise anyone that the show is a commercial success, any more than it should surprise people that it was a critical failure. Weinstein's single minded mission to cram as many commercial gimmicks into one package pretty much guaranteed both results. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 10:49am

"re "Weinstein's single minded mission"...

Now, poor Harvey is not only blamed for various and sundry producer shenanigans, but also credited with creating and staging the show! And poor Diane Paulus, who was paid all that money just to sit and take notes from Harvey. 

[juice23]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 12:30pm

The only thing that confuses me is that Harvey stated to critics not to judge the ART run bc that was the 2 million version of what would be a 14 million dollar broadway production.

i saw the show at ART (where I enjoyed it much more, possibly because I sat front row at student price and because I went in blind), and then saw it again on broadway. Thephysical production  did not seem that much bigger or better. Most of the set pieces looked exactly the same, as did the costumes. Does anyone know specifically what they spent that money on to "improve" for ny?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 12:35pm

Give me a free ticket and I am there .Free is free so nothing to lose.

[MOUSTACHA]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 12:38pm

This theory, on the scale they're talking about, is pretty 'out there.'  But, it's worth saying that all producers, on some scale, buy tickets to fill in the house.  Rather than comp in someone, they simply buy their ticket at face value and it's reported as a regular ticket.  The vast majority of this is on a very tiny scale, but that doesn't mean it isn't effective in pushing GP reporting from, say, 87% to 90.5% with a handful of strategic buys to a group of people who are likely not going to buy a ticket anyway (like industry people). 

But these theories are claiming it's being done in the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth? Unlikely.  Keeping all those people quiet about it would be, in all practical terms, would be impossible.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 12:44pm

I've been the booth countless times since spring, and it's always up.  Sometimes at different discounts, but it's never impossible to get a reduced price ticket to this show. It does nicely, 8 times a week. Look for weeknights to be the big challenge to fill come fall.  But the show doesn't need conspiratorial shenanigans: it's got a TV star, a title tethered to an iconic cultural archetype in its very design, and you can take kids. Aladdin isn't easy; and most families have done Lion King and that show about witches, the title of which escapes me. This isn't The Visit, why shouldn't it be doing well enough?

Updated On: 7/21/15 at 12:44 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 12:53pm

Rotten reviews and no Tony nods may be a few reasons

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:00pm

Have you seen it Roxy?

it sometimes can be a surprise to some, that some people like a show and others do not, reNt to me is still one of the most over rated shows ever, the first act of Wicked is piss poor, and I thought Wolf Hall was the most thrilling day of theatre....Go figure,s ome don't agree and that's fine..But the one thing is, I have seen those shows on stage and not via a bootlegged copy! 

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:05pm

I know a ton of people who go to New York and just want to go see a show on Broadway because it's a part of the New York experience. Many of these are people with families, who would want a show that could appeal to both adults and kids. Most of these people will not know or care anything about what the reviews were or who got nominated for a Tony. They've probably never heard of Fun Home or Hamilton. (Believe it or not, most non-theater people outside New York have not heard of Hamilton at all...  When I was talking to people about my recent trip only one person knew anything about it and that was just because Obama's visit was in the news.) They do, however, know Matthew Morrison and Peter Pan, and when you get to Times Square you can't escape the gigantic video ads showing his face that seem to be everywhere. I'm not at all surprised it's doing well with that crowd. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:09pm

"Rotten reviews and no Tony nods may be a few reasons"

 I thought you don't pay attention to reviews and reviewers.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:11pm

I have not seen it nor would bad reviews stop me from seeing any show.Did not care for Rent,BOM or Wicked. Like Wildhorn and enjoyed Dr Z

[EchoParker]

Posted: 7/21/15 at 1:48pm

"It's almost an affront to some that Finding Neverland hasn't curled up and died. ... If it remains strong in the fall and winter months then some will have to admit that maybe audiences actually like the damn thing."

First of all, thank you to everyone who responded to my question! Elfuhbuh, Hogan and Skies particularly. I appreciate your insight and intuition. And Skies, your above quotes made me laugh.

And thanks, Augie27 for giving your TKTS perspective - your observations sound right to me - and also for the phrase "conspiratorial shenanigans" which I shall be using in the future.

And thanks, Mr. Roxy, for accidentally summing the whole thing up, by responding to Augie's question ("This isn't The Visit, why shouldn't it be doing well enough?") with this explanation: "Rotten reviews and no Tony nods may be a few reasons".

Mr. Roxy, you just held up the never-reliable argument that reviews and Tony nominations determine the box office success of Broadway shows...  in response to a question that referenced The Visit.  I think your argument just collapsed on itself as you were making it.