40 Celebrities Humble Bragging About Seeing 'Hamilton' — Page 3

"Most people in this country cannot afford a $177 ticket including myself."


I understand that. Broadway is a luxury that many cannot afford. I cannot afford a BMW, therefore I do not get to have it. See how that works? It sucks, but, you get over it at some point. You can see local and touring productions of shows much, much cheaper. Hamilton will come to you, or near you, someday. These are stats from the Broadway league from last year:

• Tourists represent 70% of all tickets sold. Domestic tourists purchased 49% of all Broadway tickets and international tourists 21%.
• Women generally represent about 68% of the Broadway audience. Moreover, women are more likely to make the purchasing decision than their male counterparts.
• The average age of the Broadway theatregoer was 44 years old.
• Almost eighty percent of all tickets were purchased by Caucasian theatregoers.
• Broadway theatregoers were quite affluent compared to the general United States population, reporting an average annual household income of $201,500.
• Broadway theatregoers were a very well-educated group. Of theatregoers over 25 yrs old, 78% had completed college and 39% had earned a graduate degree.
• The average theatergoer reportedly attends about four shows during this annual period.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:25 PM

"I can hardly afford transport and the money to rush a show with my salary and rely on generous friends to help me see shows like Hamilton."



Wow, it seems that you need some new priorities and seeing a Broadway show is probably what you need the very least. I hope your situation improves.

You invited us INTO your situation.



To someone that loves cars, the situation is EXACTLY the same.



This is why a trophy for everyone is weong.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:42 PM

Most people in this country cannot afford a $177 ticket including myself.

I certainly don't pay that much for a ticket and I've seen hundreds of shows, including Hamilton. It's a choice of what you can afford and priorities.

Mister Matt said: "Personally, I think the anti-hype is far sillier than the hype. The outrage by musical theatre fans over an original new musical achieving new heights in blockbuster status is getting ridiculous. The bitterness over cancellation tickets would make sense if it were something new and specific to this show, but it's been going on for decades. I don't remember any complaints before, but attach the name Hamilton to it and there's a brand new level of outrage. Anti-hype!



"

Bingo. It's obvious they are just bitter. These are the same people who constantly complain about juke box musicals and musical based on movies lol.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:52 PM

I agree that Margo's statement is condescending. What you enjoy spending your money on is your own business, and I'm happy that the theatre is a place that speaks to you.

With that said, Hamilton is just one piece of theatre. The producers and their investors absolutely deserve to capitalize on the hype surrounding it. They're the ones who took the risk of putting up the money for a summer transfer despite many critics stating that the hype would run out and that the show wouldn't last until this year's award season. In fact, I wish the ticket prices were higher so that they'd make more money and that less of it would go to scalpers.

I imagine there's a good chance that the investors of Hamilton will be pumping a lot of the money they make off of this show into new art, and that's most definitely something to celebrate. If they concerned themselves with getting everyone interested a ticket at a "reasonable" price, a lot of future projects would suffer because their profits would dwindle. Personally, I'd prefer that they milk this for all they can in order to allow them to continue to take risks in choosing what art to support.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 10:55 PM

ANewBrainn said: "But I do wish good art relied less on good commerce. I have major reservations and criticisms with the way capitalism is running in our country"

Commercialism is not a requirement for creating good art. However, it is the price we pay to enjoy splashy, big budget productions.

Updated On: 6/6/16 at 11:12 PM

I know it does not require it. I just wish money and art were completely separate and all (or at least some) art was government funded. Many other countries have much better government art programs than the US.

"If you have seen Hamilton, then who exactly are you arguing that it's inaccessible for? The homeless?"

Are we going to have ignorant and inaccurate generalizations about the accessibility of art & theatre thrown around on this board every other week? It seems to be a reoccurring trend. Let's lay down some facts for ANewBrainn:



1.) Art, and theatre in particular, is absolutely affordable and accessible. That accessibility is offered to you through the subsidization of government grants and private support from generous individuals; many of whom are probably producers of and investors in HAMILTON.



2.) Art is entertainment. Entertainment is a luxury and privilege. It is not a right.



3.) As previously mentioned, there is plenty of affordable -- or even free -- theatre, especially in the larger metropolitan areas. You complain about accessibility and affordability, yet fail to acknowledge the numerous initiatives and programs in existence that allow those of lesser means to attend live theatre.



4.) While you bemoan the HAMILTON producers, they're actually losing out on the opportunity to make more money by providing discounted rush & lottery tickets, as well as tickets (sold at-cost; i.e. no profit) to children of the New York City public school system. They didn't have to do that. They could have sold out these houses at full price but chose not to.



5.) When you go on and on about celebrities taking away seats from the general public, you make it seem as if they're being given these tickets over patrons who would be willing to pay for them. Let's be clear about one thing: these celebrities are paying full-price for the tickets. They are, after all, part of the general public. Their celebrity status only affords them the opportunity to pay for those house seats at the full price. To an extent, however, that is true of any Broadway production. Typically, to buy house seats of any Broadway production, you must be a member of the industry (unions and talent management agencies have access) or have a connection to the production in some way; whether it be a member of the cast, crew, orchestra, or staff.



That is all. Cheers.

Because a homeless person will be helped by seeing a broadway show?

dramamama611 said: "Because a homeless person will be helped by seeing a broadway show? "

I find this whole argument very offensive, you act like art should be only for you.

I disagree with Liza. You can't say that it's a fact that art is a privilege. I do not think it is at all. There have been many articles and scholarly essays written about how art is a basic human right. I do not believe in things being "exclusive." I'm sure it makes many people feel good that they get to see a show than many people desperately want to but are unable to but I really disagree with that type of feeling.

Most other major countries besides america treat art as much more of a right. The problem we have in this country is that everything has a monetary value placed on it. And all of the upper class people desperately want to keep these things for themselves and not for other people. I find it very pompous that you all are content with yourselves experiencing art but do not think everyone should. If you were on the other end and had no access too theatre because you couldn't afford it, you would have a different opinion.

I don't believe in "god given" rights. Whatever that means. But I firmly believe art is necessary for all people.

Updated On: 6/7/16 at 10:41 AM