AMEX Pre-Sale for A Tale of Two Cities OPEN!

[alfgiotir]

Posted: 5/7/08 at 3:46pm

*Edit* I think I spoke too soon. Whatever day and every amount of ticket I tried, none came up which probably means they are not on sale yet.

Now tickets are available for AMEX cardholders only. Tickets will be available to the general public June 7th.

Prices:
Orchestra: $99.00
Mezzanine (Rows A-P): $99.00
Mezzanine (Rows Q-T): $59.00

For performances beginning September 18:
Orchestra: $110.00
Mezzanine (Rows A-P): $110.00
Mezzanine (Rows Q-T): $59.00

Fridays - Sunday:
Orchestra: $120.00
Mezzanine (Rows A-P): $120.00
Mezzanine (Rows Q-T): $69.00

Updated On: 5/7/08 at 03:46 PM

[p.s.]

Posted: 5/9/08 at 3:44pm

They are NOW on sale to AMEX cardholders. Go to BroadwayOffers.com
It's easy with Gold card using promotion code from back of your card (Customer Service Tel #).

p.s. Most of the $99 seats come up on the side orchestra (D 5-7, for example). If you call Telecharge and speak to a person, you should get a better selection. I was offered center orchestra row B or row H. I chose row B for August 21st [$214.50 total charge].

pps: They said the tickets would be emailed TODAY.

[alfgiotir]

Posted: 5/9/08 at 6:12pm

I would wait to buy tickets because I am pretty positive they will have discounts released probably in early June.

[etoile]

Posted: 5/9/08 at 8:50pm

I would wait to buy tickets until James Barbour is no longer associated with the production.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 5/9/08 at 9:56pm

I wasn't really inerested in this show...

until Aaron Lazar was cast.

I might just see it, if only because I'm really not sure how long it will last.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 12:02am

You know Etoile, Barbour's profession is acting, musical theatre at that. So, why should he not be allowed to do his job...? Especially one that he has been working on for years, in Tale.
I am not getting why some posters here go about kicking him around, when everything is past and he has paid a hard price, while the rest of us are reprimanded when talking about the other party. I think people need to get past the "blacklisting" mentality, when it is obvious that this case had so many loopholes, it looked like swiss cheese.
Barbour is one of the reasons I WILL go to see Tale.
BTW, when was the last time you boycotted a movie because a certain actor was in it?

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 1:56am

Broadwaybabe2, I don't want to open a can of worms here and drag this down into a huge discussion about what Barbour did. Yes, he paid the price but this is an issue that people feel very strongly about. For the rest of his career people are going to strong reactions to him. That's simply the way it is. And for the next three years this CAN keep him from doing his job because he needs his parole officer's permission for any show involving children.

I don't want to see his career fail but, at the same time, I respect that there are going to people who don't want to have anything to do with him or help pay his salary in anyway. That's their decision.

And you weren't reprimanded. I simply requested that you not "blame" the victim. I just feel she's been picked on enough by Barbour supporters.

[FranklyMyDear]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:13am

May I suggest that the young woman has not fared that badly at the hands of either Barbour's "supporters" or his friends and family - many of whom could have specifically named the young woman on this and other sites and have never done so partly out of respect for Jim's wishes. This in spite of the fact that Jim has been called every vile name in the book (and then some) and treated like something akin to a serial killer by supporters of the young woman. There were even a few personal attacks on Jim's wife on this board. So I agree that it would be nice if everybody could move on from this.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:25am

Eris, again, my apologies...but, like you said, if people don't want to support him, fine, but PLEASE, do not spoil it for the rest of us by keep bringing it up every time we talk about Tale. It is in bad taste by now, and really frustrating. Let's just focus on the play, which deserves to be supported, and let those who don't want to see it due to the issue, not go. Again, if they believe he's a bad apple, remember "one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch", OK?
And, I think it is highly inapropriate for anyone to be talking about parole officers, etc...that is being taken of by the people who SHOULD know better, and are ALREADY involved in this matter, so let's leave it to them to do their job.
I really do not want to "open" anything, but people just won't quit! I was not exactly blaming the "victim", I just stated that there were circumstances which should be taken into consideration here.
Sorry, but I did feel like I was being reprimanded, while others can say what they want...

[etoile]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:32am

You know bwaybabe2, there are many professions in which the choices you make, the bad choices, the criminal choices, the morally repugnant choices have consequences that affect one's ability to continue in a profession that one has worked at for years. In some professions, when you commit and are convicted of a criminal act, then the price you pay goes far beyond a mere slap on the wrist plea agreement sentence. In some professions your career is over.

Behavior has consequences!

And explain to me how there are "loopholes" in a case when the defendant accepted a plea agreement. Is there some confusion over what constitutes a plea agreement? Trust me, I don't need a recap of the case. If there were such "loopholes" in a case then a man would be a fool to accept such an agreement and might consider suing his attorney for malpractice. If I were an innocent man charged with a crime riddled with "loopholes" I'd break the bank to take the case to trial so these "loopholes" could be exposed. But then I don't now, nor have ever had, a history of diddling with juveniles.

I feel that Barbour's plea agreement was a gift - a GIFT - and an ability for him to get out of having to register as a sex offender. I have every right to that feeling and have learned to let my money do my talking. I'm a consumer with a comfortable discretionary income. I'll not knowingly put a dime of my money in this man's pockets. I also question the judgment of any producer not able to see him as a box office toxin.

Certain professions are literally and figuratively in the spotlight. If the light shines too brightly, then perhaps it's time to bow out.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:51am

Eris, see what I mean? I rest my case. But not before reinterating to Etoile that her/his opinion is just that, an opinion. The reasons why someone might agree to a plea are so vast, that they are not for anyone to be SPECULATING on here, without really knowing for sure. There WAS a judge on the case, and now you are questioning their decision.
I am going to have more class, and not go any further into pointing out the many loopholes in this case, and what I think about the "victim".
FranklyMyDear, thank you for your post.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 9:57am

"BTW, when was the last time you boycotted a movie because a certain actor was in it?"

I don't know about anyone else, but it will be a cold day in hell before I see another Mel Gibson, O.J. Simpson or Michael Richards film/tv show. I can't even watch reruns of Seinfeld, a show I loved, since Richards' horrific outburst.

As for Barbour, I would choke watching him in a musical about standing up for what you believe, doing the right thing and justice. How could you NOT think of his legal issues while watching a show that has everything to do with that?

If YOU can do that, fine, but don't you DARE put people down for feeling so strongly about it that we might RUIN it for you.

[whatever2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:34pm

bwaybabe2: yup, definitely see what you mean. i wonder if *you* see what you mean, though?

every discussion of TOTC devolves into this becuase a good number of people have strong feelings about a very sensitive topic. strong feelings, sensitive topic ... you can bet that this is exactly what's going to keep happening to every discusion of TOTC for as long as barbour is associated with it. you might have a shot at moving on if only one or two malcontents felt this way, but the number of people with a visceral reaction is large enough that ANY discussion of TOTC (here or elsewhere) is almost ALWAYS going to end up right in this place if he's attached to the performance.

you dont have to like this, but it's the reality -- he will be a distraction from now til the show closes (and i wish it a long run). the nature of the crime just bothers too many people too much. the producers ignore this at their peril.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/11/08 at 2:16am

Sueleen, I NEVER put anyone down. I simply stated that this case was resolved in court, and now it is time to stop bringing it up every time. How you or anyone feels about it, that is your prerogative--if you don't want to see him perform, fine!However, don't YOU or anyone try to get others to agree with you and drag Barbour into the mud over and over again (is HIS name that has been dragged mercilessly, NOT the other party), when he has paid for and suffered this long enough. LEAVE HIM ALONE, for God's sake! He's ALREADY on probation, for your satisfaction!
And, please, do not compare him with a possible (...) murderer.
As for Gibson, I'd like to see everyone start to shed their social "masks" and start pouring out what they REALLY feel about controversial subjects--some will surprise you!
God is gracious, let's pratice it ourselves.