Distorting quotes to hawk theater: how far are they allowed to go?- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 1:44pm

"I wonder how many people actually end up seeing awful or mediocre shows just because of pull quotes that have been manipulated. "

Except the quotes are about a piece of performing arts- even if something is derided by critics and most audience members, the quality remains subjective. The quotes are only an opinion- not a guarantee.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 1:47pm

"I miss the intra-thread fighting!"

How can you miss something that never went away?

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 1:55pm

Didn't mean to start a fight I knew it was a long-standing tradition in the show biz world, but it probably struck me this morning that as a journalist, I'd never be able to get away with it! And honestly, I belong to the Atlantic, but the way they advertised Threepenny like this did take away some respect there...

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 1:58pm

"as a journalist, I'd never be able to get away with it!"

Nor should you. They aren't practicing journalism, though.

There is a lot of nuance/information about contextomy, that I'll link, if you want other examples of where this is used, etc.
Contextomy on wiki

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 2:03pm

"Except the quotes are about a piece of performing arts- even if something is derided by critics and most audience members, the quality remains subjective. The quotes are only an opinion- not a guarantee."

Of course, all opinions are subjective, but it still could be disappointing if someone paid to see a show thinking it got great reviews when it actually didn't.

(As an aside, years ago, I saw, and really enjoyed, R&J, which is about four students at an all-male prep school who read and ultimately become obsessed with Romeo and Juliet. A family of four from the Midwest also showed up at the performance and, based upon what they'd evidently been told at the TKTS booth, they were expecting a conventional staging of Romeo and Juliet. They walked out during the first act, and I understand the Dad got into an argument with a guy in the box office about getting a refund.)

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 10:00pm

There' s been a big blowback over the past few years in London theatre regarding misleading quotes. Apparently they're cracking down:

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/118086-New-European-Directive-Outlaws-Misquotes-of-Critics

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 11:33pm

I feel it's really a desperation move by the promoters as they probably know they're in deep do-do if a show gets slammed. Unless it is a pre-sold show with some name attached for a limited run (movie stars on vacation, as it were), I don't think it's going to affect the long-term chances for any show -- look at Spider Man and Young Frankenstein once word got out about how awful they were -- the box office take dried up and they both closed at a tremendous losses. Bottom line -- they both lost fortunes.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 11:40pm

I don't know about Young Frankenstein's recouping, but it did run for 15 months or something, so it hardly "dried up" once word of mouth spread.

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 11:46pm

Wow, TimeSquared, I had no idea they are no longer allowing this kind of stuff in London! Thanks for posting that article...funny how we can come to accept a practice that is patently dishonest but one to which we've become accustomed...and nice to know that they've decided not to tolerate it over there.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/9/14 at 11:57pm

Not sure we should turn this into a nanny state issue, where we need to protect people who can't be bothered to read more than 5 words of a review selected by the person selling tickets. Don't do your research? Oh well, the information isn't that hard to sort out.

Then again... If people did some research, I wouldn't have been able to convert my standing room Mormon ticket to a premium orchestra aisle after Hasa Diga Ebowai not once but twice, so I guess I'm OK with people who don't know what they're getting into.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/10/14 at 12:04am

There's a difference between selective editing (which I think is creative and, when executed respectfully, acceptable) and flat out lying. Take the current revival of THE FANTASTICKS off-Broadway. Their website says it's "the world's longest running musical - running for over 52 years in Manhattan." Even if you allow them to fudge the numbers and pretend that they are the same production as the original (which I wouldn't), that still only comes to 42 years plus 7 for the current revival. It's also a silly thing to lie about -- what makes 52 any more impressive than 49? Who the hell knows.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 4/10/14 at 2:42pm

Well, this is really shocking for me. I have always believed as I know many others do as well, that pull quotes in an ad designed to sell a show represent a comprehensive and balanced representation of what critics thought about that show. I know I sometimes thought it was odd that there was never, ever a negative pull quote presented, but I just chalked it up to the fact that maybe the shows were THAT good and after all, to make it to Broadway, a show has to be really good right? Oh sure, with the internet and sites like "Did He Like It", it's never been easier and quicker to read the actual reviews and get a full picture but why spend the time to do that when you can get the same thing by just reading the pull quotes. I mean it's not like dropping $400 for 100 minutes of entertainment is any kind of major investment, right?

So needless to say, this discussion has hit me like a ton of bricks. It appears I have some real thinking and reassessing to do given my current approach. But that will have to come later. Off to catch an afternoon movie. Going to see the Schwarzenegger flick SABOTAGE. "Ain't it Cool News" says it's quite possibly the finest action flick of the decade so it's gotta be pretty great, right?

[tazber]

Posted: 4/10/14 at 3:01pm

You are gold FishermanBob.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 4/10/14 at 3:14pm

Then again... If people did some research, I wouldn't have been able to convert my standing room Mormon ticket to a premium orchestra aisle after Hasa Diga Ebowai not once but twice, so I guess I'm OK with people who don't know what they're getting into.

LOL. Same here.

And people are STILL writing letters to the editor about the language in Jersey Boys... https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-letters-jersey-boys-20140408,0,2237545.story

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 4/13/14 at 12:39am

Picking out truthful quotes that say nice things in an otherwise overwhelmingly negative review is probably ok. For example, suppose the review says, "This is such a piece of junk that I don't know where to begin. First, the one positive thing: Susie Smith can sure dance." The theater quotes, "Susie Smith can sure dance."

In contrast, leaving out the ellipsis or a later chunk of the quote in certain circumstances may result in fraud, e.g., changing "You won't waste your money if you're smart" to "You won't waste your money," or, worse, "This is not worth seeing" to "This is worth seeing." Even a change to "This is ... worth seeing" may be fraudulent.

It's hard to imagine a regulatory body, such as the FTC, coming down on a theater for false advertising. If the organization receives grant money, however, especially from a government agency, the agency may be able to do something. Also, a critic whose words were mangled may POSSIBLY, under the right circumstances, be able to sue the theater under some form of libel theory. For example, if the theater misrepresents what a critic said, and the critic's reputation suffers because of it, a libel suit may be possible. Still, it's an unlikely scenario