Equus- A Low Advance?- Page 3

[Weez]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 7:09pm

In that case, why stop at Harry Potter fans? Why not go the whole hog and say 'Equus' should make more money in America because there are more people in the whole country? Oh, wait...

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/17/08 at 11:42pm

In that case, why stop at Harry Potter fans? Why not go the whole hog and say 'Equus' should make more money in America because there are more people in the whole country? Oh, wait...

That's a silly analogy. You can sell millions of books because you can create an unlimited amount of duplicates. A production of Equus is only happening in this one theater in this one city for a finite amount of time with a finite number of seats. Not the same at all.

Also, I think we're arguing different points here. Harry Potter is more popular in the UK (bigger percentage), but the series sold more in the US (bigger number).

[Weez]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:13am

That's a silly analogy.

And that's my point. :3 While Radcliffe is obviously well-known for being Potter and has garnered quite the fanbase for being so, you really can't crossover 'Harry Potter' fans and 'Equus' audience members. There is a crossover - I'll stand and be counted if needs be - but it's not as simple as people are making it out to be - I'll stand again and be a fan of HP who went to 'Equus' as a Shaffer fan - so quite a lot of things in this thread are silly and irrelevant.

Did that confuse you to read as much as it confused me to write?

[Patash]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:15am

Maybe this is slightly off topic and maybe it's not representative enough to mean anything, but I can't believe how many "theatre -- not movie" people I've mentioned Equus to and said Daniel Radcliffe, and they had no idea whom I meant until I said Harry Potter. I really don't think that would happen at all in England. Even if Harry Potter is wildly popular here, I think Daniel Radcliffe is less so in the US.

[ashbash1990]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 2:55am

I don't know if anyone has seen the Harry Potter movies, but the acting is not fabulous. Why would somebody pay over $100 for tickets to a play which hasn't been reviewed by US critics yet, and which may include questionable performances.

I also remember reading that many of the Three Days of Rain tickets were bought up by scalpers and when Julia Roberts got bad review, the scalpers had trouble getting rid of them.

Updated On: 8/18/08 at 02:55 AM

[winston89]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 4:32am

Patash, I agree that Radcliffe is more known in England then he is in America. I was talking to my friend about this particular show. I was talking to him about how I felt like I was in a minority. Because, I want to see this play because of the play. Not, because Daniel Radcliffe is in it or because he has a quick nude scene.

My friend gave me a strange look. He didn't know who I was talking about, even asking me who Daniel Radcliffe was. Yet, when I quickly replaced Radcliffe with Harry Potter understood who I was talking about.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 7:45am

Why is Daniel Radcliffe more famous here in the UK than in the US...Did i miss something?

Hes the guy from Harry Potter who got his kit of in a Play (Thats what the UK know him as)

Hes the guy from Harry Potter who is about to get his kit off in a play (Thats what the US know him as)

The films and books have been worldwide success, we don't have an alter to Harry Potter here because it's British you know, and we don't really talk about Danial here as he aint done out to talk about except this play (The UK critics didn't exactly fall over themselves to give his performances in HP raves, in fact most thought his acting was limited at best)

[Patash]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 8:53am

songanddanceman2, I'm not sure what your question is, but my point which was also supported by winston is that while nearly everyone in the UK knows the name of the guy who plays Harry Potter, far fewer in the US do. Sure they know the movies, but they don't know the name of the actor who plays HP.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 9:01am

I would say thats the same in the UK, to most hes just known as the guy who plays Harry Potter

[Patash]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 10:39am

No, you're not listening to me. As you say, in the UK most KNOW the name Daniel Radcliffe as the guy who plays Harry Potter. In the US far more people would say "Daniel who?" and not even recognize the name at all. They'd have to be told he plays Harry Potter. That's a BIG difference when a play is being billed with a couple of actors whose names are meaningless to the bulk of the population. Most people in the UK immediately know WHO Daniel Radcliffe is -- even though it's "only" as the guy who plays Harry Potter. But in the US, lots more people don't even know that.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 10:42am

Sorry i didn't put that across properly

Most people wont know the name Danial Radcliffe here in the UK, his name only started to grace more newspapers etc when he did the play (if you had asked me who played Harry Potter in the films i could not have told you before his name started to pop up in the press about the play)

It's no different here in the UK in regards to him as the US

[winston89]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 10:48am

Songanddanceman,

The difference between the two is this. In England people know the name Daniel Radcliffe and would be able to recognize him just on name alone. True, that he is the guy who plays Potter, but they can name the actor who plays the role and know him by name.

In America it isn't like that. As I have said earlier I have gotten strange looks when I talked about this play and said that Daniel Radcliffe was in it. They didn't know who the hell I was talking about. Once I replaced Daniel Radcliffe with Harry Potter they got a better realization of who it was I was talking about.

I feel that if I was talking about this with someone from England, I wouldn't get a strange look if I said the name Daniel Radcliffe. They would know who I am talking about.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 10:52am

Winston you have obviously not read what i just put

His name is not a household name in the UK, like the US the ones who will know his name are the ones who like Harry Potter, to anyone else here he hasn't done anything else to justify anyone knowing his name here.

For some strange and bizarre reason you guys seem to think that everyone in the UK knows the name Danial Radcliffe, and as someone who lives here i can tell you that they don't.

His name only became more known when the British tabloids started to pay attention because of the role his was playing in the play, the same thing will happen in the US

[Weez]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 10:59am

C'mon, Winston only reads a post if he's going to reword it slightly and repeat it minutes later. As your post goes against everything he has been erroneously repeating for the last couple of pages, you couldn't possibly realistically expect him to take it in, could you?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 11:00am

I'm pretty sure that SongAndDance is saying that the same IS true in the UK.

And while I adore the HP BOOKS, I've only seen one or two of the movies and only when the hit cable. I want to see EQUUS for two reasons:

I LOVE the play AND
The reviews FROM the UK about the production have been intriguing.

Am I curious how he actually performs? Yes. Do I think that based on the HP movies he's great? No, but promising.

Question to those of you that LIVE in the UK (or spent any discernable amount of time there): How are PLAYS received in London in relationship to Musicals? What is attendance and life expectancy of a play? TIA.

[Weez]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 11:31am

Plays generally are limited runs. You get things like 'The Mousetrap' or 'The Woman In Black', that run for yearsandyearsandyears, and sometimes something like 'The 39 Steps' or 'The History Boys' will crop up, that just refuses to go away (although the latter has finally gone to rest), but most plays only hang around for a few months before going elsewhere.

They're nowhere near as well-attended as musicals. While things like McKellen in 'King Lear' will sell out like crazy, as I fully expect Tennant in 'Hamlet' will do once the London booking opens properly, and the Donmar Warehouse and National Theatre operate under their own steam (I find that whatever I want to see at those two is what will sell out quickly), you'll be hard-pushed to find a play actually *in* the West End that has completely sold out. Including Radcliffe in 'Equus', Fiennes + Grieg + McTeer + Stott in 'God Of Carnage', Slater in 'Swimming With Sharks'. I think I even got my Stewart 'Macbeth' ticket surprisingly close to the date, and I went on a Saturday near the end of the run.

I chose to see 'Equus' because I love Shaffers, and I'm fascinated with the representation of horses onstage, and while there was a part of me that wanted to see how well Radcliffe dealt with it, despite being a big-ass Harry Potter fan, that was a very small part of me. Radcliffe wasn't exactly the pulling point for me, just a source of interest on the side of something that was otherwise fully interesting.

Updated On: 8/18/08 at 11:31 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 11:50am

Thanks, Weez for the quick reply.

I think I had a romanticized view that perhaps "across the pond" had more sophistication when it came to straight plays. I also love that not every actor on your TV shows is gorgeous and a size zero! Well...at least from what I see on BBC America, anyway!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 11:56am

LOL BBC America lied hehe

[Weez]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:01pm

Well, we do have a core of so-called sophisticated theatre-goers who love them some plays. They're the ones that ensure National and Donmar plays are sold out whenever I want to go see 'em. We also have excellent fringe plays, like the Royal Court and the Bush, and the regionals - like Stratford and Chichester and Bath - are only a couple of hours away by train, as opposed to eight hours by plane. We do have that so-called sophistication, but we have many more outlets for it than the few plays that actually make it into the West End. :) And even though it's not as sophisticatedly play-based as you may have dreamed, we're still infinitely more play-happy than Broadway.

Updated On: 8/18/08 at 12:01 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:10pm

This may have been mentioned. I tried to read most of the posts. But...I think the name Daniel Radcliffe is very well known here in the states. My thoughts are that along with the economy, we are a bit more worried about our youth seeing nudity onstage. From the pics I saw of the stage door in London, a lot of young people attended the show over there. I tend to think that the UK isn't as "prudish" about the nudity as we are. So all of those younger teens that know Harry Potter and Mr. Radcliffe won't get to see it because of the nudity. Look at the response to Spring Awakening. All of the questions parents had and there really wasn't any full on nudity. So I think that also plays into it. Just my thoughts. May not be on target but..!

[Patash]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:19pm

I guess some of us will just have to continue to disagree. There's no way to prove it, I guess, but I still maintain that if the name Daniel Radcliffe appeared in a London newspaper a MUCH higher percentage of people would immediately say "oh that chap who plays Harry Potter" while in the US a MUCH higher percentage of people would say "Daniel Who?"

[legally_wicked]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:30pm

lol this thread reminds me of numerous trips to the US where Americans ask you if you know their distant relative from England because clearly the country is so small everyone knows everyone!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:31pm

Patash are you from the UK?

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:33pm

Patash, you may be right on the whole. But for people who would go to see this show, I think they know who he is along with most kids and teenagers in this country.

[jacobson]

Posted: 8/18/08 at 12:39pm

Let's get to the 'meat' of the matter. Did anyone see this in London and can you describe his willy?