Riedel: Press Take Revenge On Tony Awards- Page 2

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:46pm

I know Cry-Baby definitely did, they did $54 seats for all of previews. I'm sure there were more, but I don't know off the top of my head.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:50pm

"Of course I see those. I'm talking about the actual ticket prices being discounted for previews which is, what I believe, the article was talking about. "

I understand what you are saying. I'm just saying that for many shows, the previews and earlier performamnces are de facto discounted.

[BroadwayGuy12]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:55pm

Jordan Catalano, there have been several recent productions with lower ticket prices in previews.

iflip4musicals is right about CRY-BABY. The top ticket price of $54 (because the show took place in 1954) was raised to about $120 after opening.

ROCK OF AGES also had lower ticket prices during previews. I remember that they made a big stink in a number of their press releases prior to opening about how their top price was $99, lower than any show on Broadway. Now, that number has been raised to $121, which is appears to be the standard today. They also sold a large block of tickets in the Front Mezzanine and the Orchestra for $49.50 during previews, according to this article:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/ROCK_OF_AGES_Tickets_Available_for_Sale_25_Previews_Begin_317_20090204

I seem to recall A TALE OF TWO CITIES having lower ticket prices during previews as well, but only by about ten or twenty dollars.

And, the upcoming revival of FINIAN'S RAINBOW will have a top price of $75 during previews that will be raised to $115 after opening night (according to telecharge.com).

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:56pm

Please name me five shows in the past few years that have done this because off the top of my head, I can only think of one - Mary Poppins.

The only ones I can think of are the aforementioned Cry Baby ($54) and oddly enough, Tarzan, which had a top price of $76.50 in previews. Also, I believe Rock of Ages had discounted previews.

The problem with his argument is that the press is losing its platforms and has lost most of its power. Do you really think the Tony committee didn't consider a press backlash when they decided to do this? The New York Times is dying. The Washington Post is dying. The smaller papers in NY who still do theatre reviews are read by an incredibly small audience. The only reviewers who still may reach any kind of a sizable audience are on television and there are mighty few of those left outside of New York City. (DC had a weekly show that reviewed all the arts and it was cancelled last year. The only regular theatre/film critic lost his job shortly after that.)

Of course you would be for this nonsense. Your big budget, high profile, commercial, extremely tourable musical won the Tony for Best Musical this year.

I'm so glad Riedel is bringing this to people's attention. It's a bigger deal than some people are making it out to be, and will be the last nail in the coffin of the Tony's relevance (or lack thereof).

Updated On: 7/17/09 at 03:56 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 4:07pm

And actually LITTLE MERMAID offered lower prices for previews. So that's all Disney shows and one horrendous piece of poo that knew it wouldn't sell at regular price. And that's it. Every other show still feels free to charge top price for a work in progress.

[shkspr]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 4:41pm

Is it really the producers that are doing all of this? Are they in charge of this decision? I thought the American Theatre Wing wasn't run by the producers. Can someone explain please? I'm a little confused about the whole hierarchy. Thanks!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 4:46pm

The Tony Awards is a product of the Wing and the League. The League is made up of the producers / theatre owners.

During previews, Tarzan had a top price of about $75, raised to the standard $101 after opening. They also did fewer shows per week to allow themselves more rehearsal time with the technical elements.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 5:53pm

A lot of his comments make sense, and you have to wonder if the producers don't think that a critic's views are valid enough to get a vote at Tony time, does that mean that the producers will stop using quotes from them in ads??? Yeah, right.

The one thing that I violently disagree with Reidel on is his statement: "....the Wing's main activities appear to be pimping itself out to Visa (its biggest sponsor) and producing "The American Theater Wing Seminar," the most unwatchable television program in the history of telecommunications."

Unwatchable??? C'mon, Michael, ease up on the hyperbole.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 6:07pm

Riedel, ease up on exaggerations, hyperbole and outright lies?

Impossible.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:05am

It's so true, but the Tonys will never fix itself because there are too many people trying to control it, and those people don't give a **** about actual theater. What was the last Broadway show the head of CBS saw?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:10am

If the producers are really worried about giving out so many comps at Tony time lose the road presenters who make up 1/3 of the voting body. Their interests have traditionally run counter to what the true best musicals are/should be.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:11am

Agreed. Why cut out the people who actually LIVE in New York - at least the majority of them.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 4:16am

Wow....good for him. Puts some very interesting info out there!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 10:33am

What was the last Broadway show the head of CBS saw?

Actually, Les Moonves, president of CBS, is a HUGE theater fan. It's part of the reason his network still airs the Tonys ever year, despite shrinking ratings (though they went up slightly this year).
Updated On: 7/18/09 at 10:33 AM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 1:31pm

The ratings went up this year, at a time when the ratings for all other network programs are shrinking at an astonishing rate.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 3:36pm

Interesting! I didn't know that's why CBS airs the Tonys.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 10:56pm

Interesting how Riedel uses the term "hissy fit" to describe the entirely predictable reaction of the critics. The term is exactly on the money, and aptly sums up their maturity level.

I applaud this decision, and am very happy that the whole lot of them have been given the gate. The less power in their hands, the better.

[AlgonquinProd2]

Posted: 7/19/09 at 12:45am

While one applauds the sentiment behind Reidel's column, it seems a bit impractical. As much as Broadway shows need press, the press needs Broadway shows as well. It would be thrilling to think that the print space given to Jane Fonda and Angela Lansbury (for example) would otherwise be given to Off Broadway or lesser known shows if this were put in place but everyone knows that's not what sells papers. The amount of ink dedicated to "Spider Man" alone will probably dwarf all the other shows. The logic behind the recent decision is incredibly thin, and it would be nice to think the press had backbone enough to carry out some of Reidel's ideas here, but I just don't see it happening.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/19/09 at 12:49am

The less power in their hands, the better.

You'd rather it be entirely in the hands of producers, who have a vested interest?
Updated On: 7/19/09 at 12:49 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/19/09 at 9:00am

I don't think it would be entirely in the hands of the producers, since other theatre artists are included among Tony voters.

But if it boiled down to a choice between producers and critics, yes I would choose producers. Because the critics are not themselves without vested interested. Vested interested in their favorites. Vested interest in their agendas.

And the critics have power enough already. Far too much in my opinion. They have the power afforded them by their appearing in print, the power to turn audiences to and away from shows by their words. That's enormous power. And they also have their own set of awards. More power. Why isn't that enough for them? Do they need the cachet of the Tony Awards to give them more "prestige?"

Their "hissy fit" was entirely forseeable. They're like a bunch of spoiled, pampered, self-important brats who throw a temper tantrum when their lollipop is taken away. I for one, am glad. I just hope that the Tony Awards don't back down from this decision.

[sundaymorning6am]

Posted: 7/19/09 at 10:52am

my interview with Michael Riedel: http://tinyurl.com/kmonn9