emaxman said: "And LOL critics? You're a bunch of people posting on a chat board. That hardly makes you a reliable source."
For the record: I was using the word "critics" in the casual sense. As in, "people who are criticizing the show." Like when people say "oh well so-and-so had his critics but most people liked him"
Every word of your post reveals a blatant and fundamental misunderstanding of what trigger warnings are, and what they're for. And for that matter, a misunderstanding of what "trauma" actually is. I would really encourage you to re-read the arguments in this thread more carefully, and go do some research on the nature of trauma, and how trauma triggers work. I understand it doesn't help that so many people misuse the words "trigger" and "
emaxman said: "You DO realize this is basically the, what, third week of previews? You DO know how much can change between now and opening night?"
These days, very few shows ever make any meaningful changes in previews. They may fine-tune it. But if someone hates a show in previews, it's very unlikely their mind would be changed by seeing it again after opening.
"Not all shows have to be a Hamilton or a Wicked or so
musikman said: "Because different seats sell at different prices. In some cases, a seat will sell at a premium price far in advance. If that hasn't sold a few days before the performance, they'll drop it down to regular full price. Dynamic pricing is also very much in play these days, so ticket prices will fluctuate. Additionally, various shows - even the big hits - have to comp or discount certain seats for trade/media/PR/employee purposes, which would mean lost revenue one
I have question for the industry-savvy here (Hogan, perhaps?):
What accounts for the fact that grosses fluctuate for shows that are consistently sold out without discounts? I understand that there is often a discrepancy between the gross and the attendance due to the fact that many shows have steep discounts and/or comps. But what about shows like Harry Potter? It's never on TDF or TKTS, and as far as I know, they don't have any promo codes, and they haven't been
The Distinctive Baritone said: "Also, if you put a sign out in the lobby that says there's say, rape in the play, or a violent death...um...spoiler alert?"
I hear this argument a lot. And I have a few responses to it:
1. The content warnings could potentially be optional for those who know they have triggers. As you said, it could be up to the audience member to be proactive and find out for themselves, but at least the theatre could hav
bk said: "it didn't exist in this context two years ago."
That statement is entirely false, as even the smallest amount of research would have shown you. What you meant to say was "I've never heard of it before two years ago"
Also, thank you for proving my earlier point - these days, most of the times I hear the word "trigger", it comes from people complaining about how often the word is used, or people b
The Distinctive Baritone said: "Can we just call “trigger warnings” something else? Like “content advisory?” I get that people have triggers but the term “trigger” or “triggering” has gotten overused so much I roll my eyes now whenever I see or hear it."
Actually the term "content warning" is starting to become the more commonly used expression among my circles. I think a lot of peop
I have a ticket to see this tomorrow night! I had no idea it's been so well-received. I just bought a ticket because I'm in town, and it's my favorite musical, so I'd like another chance to see it live. Glad to hear it's been getting raves. I have to say I'm a bit skeptical though. In the past I've found that SF Playhouse casts its shows very well, but they tend to be a little spotty when it comes to production value. And Sunday is a show where visuals are ver
But all this business of accusing the show's fans of being Ken Davenport or his employees is kind of ridiculous. It's one thing to call out a super obvious shill, but to just blindly accuse people of being Ken Davenport just because they like the show is excessive. Even if it's supposed to be hyperbolic, it's still a cheap and juvenile way to dismiss people's opinions and posts.
WhizzerMarvin said: "Technically I believe a show has to be closed for three(?) years before it can officially be considered a revival."
That's just according to the Tonys though, right? I think if, in theory, a completely new production of, let's say Great Comet, were to open on Broadway this year - we as audiences would have to consider it a revival - even if the Tonys deemed it ineligible.
TheSassySam said: "In recent memory, Motown had a pretty quick turn around with its closing on Jan. 18 2015 and restarting performanceson July 12 2016.
Same with An Act of God - An Aug. 2 2015 closing with a June 6 2016 restart date."
I definitely don't count those as revivals. Those are what I've sometimes heard referred to as a "remount" or a "return engagement." For it to be a revival, IMO, it h
Unfortunately, good musical theatre books are few and far between these days. It seem that for almost every new musical, it's always the same thing: "the [score/staging/acting] was great, but the book..." I know writing a good musical book is difficult, but it's really pathetic how few good ones there are these days. That said, here are some recent ones that I actually think are good:
We need to stop thinking of Broadway as the be-all-end-all place to see theatre. If you look to the Off-Broadway non-profits, you'll find a massive variety of shows that are frequently better than what's playing on Broadway. And they have built-in, monthly turnover rates!
10086sunset said: "Off topic but related, did anyone else think the Tygen Billows character was borrowed straight from the movie Dodgeball?"
Yes, I thought the exact same thing. Tygen Billows is virtually a carbon-copy of White Goodman from Dodgeball. They even both have a scene where they attach electrodes their muscles, don't they?
