CHORUS LINE Tickets - $301.25. DISGUSTING!- Page 4

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/8/06 at 11:24pm

Who cares about the premium seats. If people will buy them then the producers found a way to make a buck. I don't fault them for that (except when there are more than a few seats being sold at that price). The problem is that the cheapest seats are unaffordable. A modest family from NJ or Conn. can't handle that. Young theatre professionals can't handle that. No one's denying the fact that producers need and should make some money but if ticket prices are so freakin expensive that no one can afford it, then maybe the audiences should use their imagination a little more rather than expect a 3 million dollar set with moving mirrors. The "mirrors" moved splendedly back in the days theatre was cheaper.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:21am

I agree that it's disgusting but... *giggles* how funny is it going to be when it doesn't win the best revival Tony?

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:22am

Well it certainly better not be Les Miz

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:24am

I think we all know that, after that super Doyle snub last year, it'll be Company. ACL over Les Miz any day.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:24am

well Pajama Game won
and that was dreck
I hope the revival TONY goes to a rethinking of a show and not a wax Museum piece.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:30am

Again- Company. This isn't a Company/"damn you Tony people for giving it to Pajama Game" thread, so I very much agree with everyone else.

ACL is probably one of the most inexpensive shows to put on. The set is the fly mirrors, a piece of tape, and the finale backdrop. There's one huge costume.... and that's it. I hate the way the producers are being extraordinarily greedy. It's really destroying the essence of the show.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:33am

I can't even begin to explain how one justifies paying $300 for a single ticket, but I can say for sure that there are numerous people ponying up this amount for their ACL tix. I noticed a number of stubs this afternoon with that price prominently marked in bold, and it does seem that there are more wealthy foreign tourists and local aristocrats than one might think. It must be nice to have $300. I could eat for a month on that.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 01:33 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:48am

Actually, 300 bicks is pretty well what you would have had to pay in 1937 to see "Babes in Arms" from the front row of the Majestic Theater. The show's top price was $2.20. This in a time when a three-course meal was 25 cents in a diner. That's six-and-one-half full restaurant meals. At 60.00 with tax and tip nowadays, that comes to... 300.00.

According to the GDP, the buying power of $2.20 of 1937 money in 2006 is $327.91.

So really, it's all relative. You are seeing a live show, with a live orchestra in a one-of-a-kind setting and it gives you a memory you hold for the rest of your life. What's that worth to you?

That being said, it's still a ****load of money....

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 03:48 AM

[bschneid76]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 9:47am

I think that it is too much to pay for sitting for 2 hours. But why not buy seats that are farther away in the Mezz? I purchased the 25 dollars tickets for Drowsy Chaperone and still saw everything just as well as if I'd have purchased the Orchestra seating. I don't particularly like the Lottery system (probably because out of the three different times trying I didn't win). But if you want to see a show bad enough you will find the cheaper ticket prices. I once purchased the partial view seats in Chicago for All Shook Up and only missed 1 small detail at one point but saw the entire show. But unless you have the money to spend such as 300 dollars for a seat, then by all means spend the money. For my money, the show had better be well worth it.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 9:58am

But why not buy seats that are farther away in the Mezz? I purchased the 25 dollars tickets for Drowsy Chaperone and still saw everything just as well as if I'd have purchased the Orchestra seating.

bschneid76, the point that people are making is that there are no $25 rear mezzanine tickets for A CHORUS LINE. The cheapest seats are $86.25.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 09:58 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 10:23am

As a child of obscenely rich parents who is probably spoiled rotten by seeing all these shows, even I think that's too much. When it gets to the point that only old rich people, eletists, and their children can see shows, Broadway just isn't reaching enough people, and eventually it will collapse on itself.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:06am

First of all, theatre is an art AND a business. There are many dichotomies in this world and the business of art is one of them. Get used to it. When you see a blank canvas with a $10k price tag, you will suddenly realize that gouging patrons is not a practice exclusive to the medium of theatre, nor is it anything new.

Second, I don't need to sit in premium seats to enjoy a show. If I could afford $300 or whatever for "premium seats", then maybe I would buy them, but probably not. Why would I pay two or three times the ticket price to sit a couple of rows away from the regular price seats? Producers are banking on the fact that there are a lot of vain idiots in the world.

Finally, I usually buy my tickets at TKTS unless there is a show or cast that I think is unmissable and the show is likely to be sold out when I am in town. And given the lines at TKTS on a daily basis, producers anticipate this budget accordingly. Well, good producers do, if they know the business.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 11:59am

That price may make you ill, but who is holding a gun to your head to buy the ticket at that price? Don't go....

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:18pm

that wasn't the point. Of course he's not gonna go.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 12:22pm

ghostlight - and they pay their receptionists $9.00 an hour. I interviewed for a staff job there a couple of years ago and was blown away. People can't live on that, and yet look what their execs make! Revolting.

allofmylife, that is very interesting. I feel better now about not being alive during "The Golden Age."

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 1:59pm

There is nothing more to be said about this than what Rath eloquently states on page 1. As long as people are willing to pay that much money for seats, they will be sold. As long as producers are able to sell them, shows will recoup their investments faster. As long as money can actually be made from producing on Broadway, theatres will be filled. As long as theatres are filled, new theatres are built. As long as new theatres are built, Broadway stays a booming business. As long as Broadway is a booming business, artists will be working.

What's the problem again? If you can't afford premium seats, buy standing room.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 3:12pm

The issue really is the false sense of demand. When a show reserves over 50% of its orchestra seats as premium (*cough* Spamalot *cough*) then it reduces the number of seats people can afford at other prices, substantially. Example: Say I want to buy a top price orchestra seat ($112), but the box office can't find me a seat in that range. So then I start going down in price for seats until I find one. So all the less expensive seats start to sell out because people who would have paid the normal top price are told there are no seats left, when in fact the bulk of them are selling for $300 and have yet to be sold. Then, with all the *demand* for tickets, people see there are VIP tix available and purchase those, because the show is so *hot* they have no choice. Personally, I feel it is time to regulate this premium VIP seat nonsense, and enforce the ticket re-sale law. But also, while a good percentage of VIP ticketholders for newer shows are probably the well-to-do rich people, I would hazard a guess that these seats, when not released at normal prices, are occupied by corporate drones.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 4:01pm

I just think that if you're going to charge $301.25...you should have a show that at least one major critic really liked and you should be able to say "We're otherwise sold out until February" and actually mean it.
Just sayin....

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 5:11pm

Not to defend producers, but they're simply pricing Broadway tickets to reflect supply and demand and to fall more in line with the sort of pricing other entertainment forms have been getting away with for many years:

-- Courtside seats to see the Knicks go for $2500 a piece and tickets in the sections nearest to the floor (the equivalent of orchestra seats in a theatre) are $350. Even tix two levels up are $100-$250. You have to go at least three levels up before you can get a seat for under $100 (and frankly from there the view is so bad, you end up watching most of the action on the jumbotron screen above the court).

-- At the Metropolitan Opera, orchestra and parterre (1st tier) tickets range from $120 - $375 for most operas. For seats less than $100, you have to go 4 levels up (to the balcony)

-- Concert ticket prices can be truly outrageous, depending on the performer (Streisand is charging up to $750; even the worst seat in the house is at least $100).

There is an enormous market of people out there who are willing to pay practically any price to get prime seats for live entertainment when they're in town, so Broadway producers would be stupid not to take advantage of it. We live in a city where the average cost of a one bedroom apartment is more than $1 million, a single night in a hotel room can cost $1000+ and there are thousands of tourists and businessmen on expense account in town every week for whom $300 per ticket is mere pocket change (or a tax write off).

For myself, as a person who enjoys live theatre, concerts and opera (and even the occasional basketball game) and who isn't as financially fortunate as those named above, I'm somewhat taken aback by the ever-escalating prices of the these things that I enjoy. But, on the other hand, I completely understand that this is just the way things are and charging whatever the market will bear is simply sound business and the way American capitalism works. It's not as if there's some constitutional right to see theatre for a cheap price. And hey, if you're an investor in a Broadway show, considering what a total crap shoot it is (and that typically only about a third or so of them in any season end up recouping) then you deserve to see a return on your investment in any way possible (keep investors happy and they'll be more willing to risk more money in the future on other shows). So, while I'll personally never pay $300 to see any play -- and, unless I hit the lottery, will be scouring the internet for discounts for the foreseeable future -- I don't begrudge producers charging what they can get. However, I do wish they'd use some of that extra income from the premium seating to subsidize a few more reasonably-priced seats.

[flamenco_girl]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 5:30pm

I'm finding this conversation really interesting. I'm coming to NYC for the first time next month and have been looking up Broadway shows and tickets prices.

The main difference I've noticed between West End and Broadway ticketing is that, firstly there are no premium tickets for London shows. The top price is usually £55 (= $100) and there are several level of ticket prices, so as to accommodate for people on a variety of budgets. For instance, at Wicked there are £15 and £25 ticket for the rear of the Circle/Mezz. This is a steal in comparison to Broadway, especially when the fabulous Idina Menzel is leading the show at the moment over here. There are also 'day seats' available, which are like rush tickets.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 5:54pm

Hmm It seems that theatre in London is alive and well AND they have reasonable prices for tickets.

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 5:55pm

Theaterboy33:

I almost do not know how to respond to your moronic statements to me. But let me give it a try.

I think out of the many sickening comments I've already read on this subject, the most absurd has to be the comment that theatre is some sort of priveledge for those who can afford the absurdly high prices.

I think the more absurd comments are the ones damning those who can afford these seats, or save for them and buy them because they do not live in NYC and want to insure they have a good seat for when they are visiting, as brainless and unappreciative of theatre. Thanks to TKTS, rush seats and discount codes, there are just as many poor dopey people in those theatres wondering why Oprah is not in Color Purple or where Nathan Lane is after they sit and read their Playbill at the Producers.

What I have to say to you, Flaunt, is if you had any idea about the history and origins and rich traditions that the current theatre, no matter how absurd, are descendant from, you would realize that theatre IS for the masses, was created for the masses, and is an art form created for the purpose of passing down stories from generation to generation.

Musical theatre was invented in America less than a century ago. It is an entertainment. Let’s not make it more than that. It is not. Trust me, I work full time in the theatre industry and it is 70% about business and 30% about art.

I dont believe anywhere in Aristotles poetics is there a chapter on the cost and location of premium seats in the amphitheatres.

I don’t remember reading anywhere that one needs theatre to live. Nor do I remember that theatre was ever defined as shows that happen only on Broadway. As far as I can see, there is theatre in all price ranges all over this world. The stories are being told. Have no fear, the art form will live!!!

And YES, it IS SAD that theatre has gotten to the point that it is at, and even more disappointing for a show like A Chorus Line, a production with no major stars, no costly sets, and originally devised at the PUBLIC theatre, to be seemingly leading the way in charging absolutely overpriced, outreageous ticket prices.

Your grammar and spelling are a little sad, but that is beside the point. Your forte is theatre history and corporate greed, not the English language. Please remember that an ad, stagehand, playbill, costume, theatre, lighting instrument, orchestra member, dresser etc… all cost as much for a revival as it does a brand new show. Get your head out of the clouds and live in the real world little boy. "A Chorus Line" is certainly NOT the leader in the movement to sell Premium Seats, it has been happening for years now. It is not going to stop. When a show is hot, it will have high ticket prices. When it cools down, those premium seats will go down. As for shows being cheaper in London, blame the unions here in America for keeping costs very high!

The only thing that i can possibly feel towards your comments, besides the thought that you must be some sort of f-ing moron with zero taste, is the slight happiness i can take in the fact that you admit to saving your money for months on end to spend it on premium seats for the trainwreck glitzy disaster that was "The Boy From Oz."

Thanks for the judgment. I had a great time at the show. Not only because I was not expecting it to be anything earth moving, but because I was seeing friends who were in the show. And the hug from Hugh afterward made it all worth it.

Updated On: 10/9/06 at 05:55 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 6:34pm

Corporate drones who may be able to write it off as a business expense meaning we wind up paying for it in the end

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 6:41pm

huh? How do we pay for it in the end? If you have any type of sales job or essentially any job where entertaining clients is part of the description (and there are tons) you too can write off premium ticket prices.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/9/06 at 6:58pm

As far as England is concerned (and Australia, for that matter), other than Idina's ridiculous salary, their lead actors are paid FAR less than ours. I'm guessing it's the same for all the unions over there.