Hairspray Screening Disaster - New Line Responds to the Plebians- Page 3

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:17am

It was spelled out plain as day in several places on the entry that you all voluntarily filled out.

Blatant lie right there. Prove it. Flaunt it, you're paddling without oars.
Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:17 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:19am

Did you not read my post?

I really don't think he is reading anymore. No one is that dense.

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:19am

The wording did NOT say BECAUSE it was first come first serve.. you interpreted it that way. Your bad!
Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:19 AM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:24am

Uh, anyone who has ANY sense of comprehension could understand that the seating was not a guarantee because it was first come, first serve. That's common sense (something that you seem to have none of).

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:24am

Arrive early. Screening pass does not guarantee admission. Theatre seating is limited to theatre capacity, and is on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Lie number 1: The pass says seating is limited to theatre capacity. That didn't happen. I saw people turned away from the screening when the entire first two rows went unused.

Lie number 2: Seating was not done a first come, first served basis.

Even if you want to use the seating does not guarantee admission argument, which is stupid since their next two sentences qualify how admission is administered, they still lied on two counts.




Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:24 AM

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:33am

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... we can argue this til the cows come home... the point is there was a disclaimer prined in 2 places on the entry... once in BOLD LETTERS over where you put in your personal info..and once at the bottom under the submit button.

So no one has any legal recourse here. There were no damages except hurt feelings and bruised egos.

Someday you might want to read the legal jargen on the back of a theatre ticket. THat wuld prevent you from ever trying to see another broadway show again.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:35am

Once again, I ask you did you NOTICE the:

seating is limited to theatre capacity, and is on a FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE BASIS

(emphasis mine)

or did you just not read that?

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:39am

Yes I saw that.. AND iI also saw the SEAING IS NOT GUARANTEED... that was a red flag to anyone WITH common sense. So I chose to not play this game of chance and who knew.. I WON.! My time was not wasted.

Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:39 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:40am

I'll take your Zzzz as confirmation that you've finally seen the light. Thank you.

No one on this thread has agreed with the one lawsuit suggestion so I think you're backpeddling to an earlier post to deflect attention from being wrong.

Also, on my screening pass, the not guaranteeing admission line isn't in bold and it's only written once. I'm still waiting for you to show me otherwise. Then they qualified the not guaranteeing admission with the first come, first served/theater capacity sentences. As has been said several times, had New Line left off the first come, first served sentences, they wouldn't have angered so many people.

PS -
Someday you might want to learn to spell jargon correctly.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:41am

The seating was not guaranteed because it is on a first come, first serve basis.

Is it really *that* hard for you to understand?

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 12:52am

I said it was written twice on the ENTRY FORM not on the pass! READ DOLLS... READ ALL THE WORDS.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 1:00am

OK I went back and reviewed the entry form. While it does say twice that seating is not guaranteed, it also says twice to arrive early and qualifies it with the theater capacity/first come, first served fine print. So they lied on the entry form and the pass.

[RobbO]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 8:43am

i emailed new line and alls i got back was a handwritten note signed from some guy named marc s. that said "suck it."

[artscallion]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 9:12am

Flaunt it, I think everybody here understands that seating was not guaranteed. I don't think anyone here thinks the pass gave them a right to a seat. We all understand that there was a chance that we would not get in even with a pass. Why are you so hung up on that one phrase when no one is disputing it?

The issue here, which you don't seem to be able to see, is that any reasonably interpretation of all the wording on the form, including the phrase you keep beating us over the head with, would lead any reasonable person to assume that at least a portion, if not all, of theatre would be for pass holders on a first come first serve basis. That implies that you have a decent chance of getting in if you get their early enough.

The reality though, is that only a tiny portion, or none at some theatres, was given to pass holders. So, the problem we have is not that we were denied a seat. The problem is that we feel the chances for getting one were misrepresented. Thus we made the choice to waste three hours of our lives in line based on the false impression given that we actually had a chance to get in.

If they did allocate some or most of the theatre to passes and we still didn't get in, I think there would be no complaints here because we do all understand that SEATING IS NOT GUARANTEED!

[avab802]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 2:45pm

Just piping in to say I got the e-mail as well, and have sent them my mailing address. I'm in NYC and the address I e-mailed was the one Marc gave - [e-mail]

[Christy323]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 4:04pm

Has anyone from the SF screening received an email? It sounds like they're only responding to NYC attendees.

[Anakela]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 4:41pm

I know someone (in NYC) who received the voucher in the mail, it's Hollywood Movie Money, admits one person, up to $10.50, to see Hairspray, before August 19, 2007, but, this is the part that made me laugh just a bit...it's good at any theatre *excluding* AMC.

Fyi it was sent from a company named Terry Hines & Associates, who I am guessing are the PR firm that handled that screening.

[JP2]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 4:45pm

So I'm gonna have to spend $0.50???? Outrageous!

[Lois]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 10:08pm

I was at the San Francisco screening fiasco and didn't get in, of course. I sent an e-mail, but have received no response.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 12:43am

I was at the San Francisco screening fiasco and didn't get in, of course. I sent an e-mail, but have received no response.


I am in SF and I wrote and heard nothing!

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 12:57am

"He is really fat and I doubt McDonald's would want him for the part anyway. They don't want fat people in their ads"

Here at McDonalds it's not just the food we super size, it's also the staff and the customers...McDonalds your health is not our problem!

If the ad went something like that, they might want him.

[Ivan the Wonderful]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 1:21am

My friend (BIG Mac (haha)) had a meeting with his lawyer and he thinks he can win. Something about loss of potential income versus a contractual promise? I don't understand it but he was very excited about it.

[vinnylin]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 12:01pm

"My friend (BIG Mac (haha)) had a meeting with his lawyer and he thinks he can win. Something about loss of potential income versus a contractual promise? I don't understand it but he was very excited about it."

Oye. I'm sorry, but your friend needs a reality check and a new lawyer. Given the disclaimers, he won't be able to prove a contractual promise. He'll have a very difficult time proving loss of potential income, since he'll have to prove he would have gotten the job. And there's no causation. He made a voluntary choice to go to the movie instead of going to the audition. It's not as if the folks at New Line knew of his audition and used the promise of the free screening to induce him not to go. Your friend's actions were extremely unreasonable. A judge will throw this case out, and if not, no jury will ever side with him.

He may want to consider not just the fact that he going to be wasting his time, but that this lawyer may be trying to use him for publicity. Also, you can be assessed attorneys fees for filing a frivolous lawsuit. I'm a lawyer and I wouldn't touch this case. Your friend needs to spend more time going to his auditions and less time wasting energy on this silliness.

[avab802]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 12:54pm

I know someone (in NYC) who received the voucher in the mail, it's Hollywood Movie Money, admits one person, up to $10.50...

Well that kind of sucks, as the screening passes were good for two people each so my partner and I only signed up for one pass for the two of us. But it's better than nothing, I suppose.

[cfmiller]

Posted: 7/27/07 at 1:36pm

Well said, Vinny. And people wonder why lawyers have such a bad rep! I have never practiced this type of law (I am a prosecutor) but anyone with the first semester of law school under their belt would know that cases founded on maybes don't generally do well. I think it is also sad some think every slight and bother we have to endure in our daily jaunt through society is an actionable tort if things don't go our way.

And I also remember hearing the guy who sued the dry cleaner (who is a judge by day) has found himself the source of an ethics complaint due to filing this extremely frivilous claim. As a profession, we should know better.