"SPAMALOT" TOUR CHEATS LA/SF THEATRE-GOERS — Page 2

Yes - my analogy is a bit much, but I think it all becomes a slippery slope... who knows where it will end... I was simply using an extreme example to show what could happen if things continue unimpeded...

I got a news flash for you, LA Guy, if a sultan wants a show and pays more than a tour would, you bet a producer would put a show in that palace! It might not be good, the performers might hate doing it, but i can probably say that about a show on Broadway right now. I wouldn't want to see or be in a show in vegas myself in particular, but I wouldn't turn down a job nor do I think it's unfair that Vegas gets a show and some other city doesn't. It's America, the market will hold what the market can bear.

Just as the films have a cult following which the theatrical show is exploiting ( or in their own words "ripping off") Vegas will actually be a perfect venue for the large number of middle aged (and younger) frat boy types who worship this show & usually do the "bits" as or they are being done on stage.Python, Babes, gambling & booze. Sounds like heaven to a buncha guys I know!

LAGuy says, "This is about ONE thing - MONEY."

Yes it is. That's why it's called show BUSINESS.

---

Will someone explain to me why this is a huge issue? So Spamalot will play Vegas and won't come to LA. When did the concept of "fair" hold any bearing over shows? I don't mean to be snotty, but I honestly don't get it. Spamalot is not obligated to play Cali and you don't deserve to have it come to you just because you want to see it.

---

It's an issue because it is doing a carve out just for CA, AZ and Nevada. It's one thing if it is a nationwide exclusive or if it is only playing on Broadway or London, but because it is touring to other cities it reeks of favortism to Wynn at the expense of fans.

Granted, money talks, but as I posted earlier, it is setting precedent and becoming a slippery slope. If all shows go to Vegas because they feel they can make more money, then your local theatre presenters and theatres could go bankrupt, without new shows to fill their seats. Pretty soon show no longer tour, local theatre dies, and you can only see shows in NYC or Vegas.

And yes, you can say that it's ridiculous, but now we have TWO examples of it happening, with the past TWO Tony-winning shows. It is beginning to be a pattern...

Believe me, having a "sit down" is in NO WAY done for the benefit of the actors, the stage crew or the sound design... so to me, that is a specious argument.

And if the rest of the US will see "Spamalot" on tour, why can't I as a citizen of the second largest media market in the country?"

I live outside the most powerful city in the world, and we're very often skipped over when it comes to tours, so there's no reason California should feel more obligated to have a touring show than the rest of the US. Everyone else deserves entertainment as well. Where's the post where the Dakotas are lamenting over not getting their own tourstop because of greedy producers?

Vegas is no farther away from LA than NYC is from where I live, but instead of waiting for touring companies to drop shows in my lap, I get off my ass and go see it.

---

Updated On: 7/25/05 at 03:29 PM

Orange - there is a slight difference. Broadway is historical the place shows start. Naturally, they want people to come see the shows there in the city, for it is what drives the economic engine, and you don't want to cannabalize your own market. Shows eventually do tour, even to places as close as one hour to NYC (New Haven and Philadelphia).

This is slightly different, as Vegas is trying to carve out "exclusives" that aren't trying to protect the property, they are simply trying to make it a "package" deal, with a theatregoer having to pay much, much more than just the cost of the ticket.

And having a tour stop in LA, or San Fran or San Deigo, Phoenix, Tucson, etc. is not going to cannabalize the market in Vegas.

As for wanting shows to "drop in my lap," that is ridiculous. You said you live outside the city, so New York is YOUR local theatre. And I am not asking the tour to camp out in my backyard, or even at the nearest theatre. Los Angeles is the second largest city in the country, and as such, YES, deserves to have a tour stop by if there is an audience that can financially sustain the show (a case, sadly, that could not be said for the Dakotas - and I do not celebrate that fact).

Vegas is an hour by plane, four-five hours by car, and prohibitively expensive on weekends for lodging, when most California and Arizona folk could go see the show.

The reason there is a TOURING industry is specifically to bring theatre the the rest of the country who can not afford, or can not make a trip to New York to see a show. So why should they discriminate against JUST California and Arizona?

Come on California and Arizona theatre fans! Speak up and help me out!

Updated On: 7/25/05 at 03:50 PM

ChiChi, the decline in touring shows IS hurting theatres and disappointing audiences.

In LA, for instance, this year's "Broadway Series" includes, ANNIE, WHITE CHRISTMAS, and JOSEPH...DREAMCOAT, and last year we had LES MIS, non-equity MISS SAIGON, KING AND I, non-equity OKLAHOMA...

So with the dearth of First National Co. touring shows, we are stuck with retreads of old shows, non-equity shows and the like. This should be appaling to any theatre-lover that the new original stuff is not making its way to wider audiences. If this trend continues, all you will see are retreads and revivals... So if that's what you want, then keep supporting VEGAS sitdowns.

I never said that I outside NYC, because I live 4 hours away by car. Definitely far enough away to not be in their bubble of Broadway exclusivity.

And Hollywood does just show movies in LA. They're the ones I always see advertised as being shown "In Select Cities", which basically means that only NYC and LA are going to be showing it. The rest of the country has to either get there to see it in theaters, or wait for it on DVD.

And there's no comparison between a touring company setting up shop locally and a DVD that costs $15 at Best Buy, so I'm not even going to argue about that.

---

Skittles - sorry you live 4 hours away, so are you saying that there is no other local market that tours come to?

Second, I was simply using the DVD's as an example. You see, theatrical presentations in movie theatres are what drives DVD sales. The same is true of B'Way, it drives tours and tour ticket sales. I was simply trying to show how DVD's deocoratizes movie going, because anyone can see a movie when it comes out on DVD, and tours are sort of the "theatrical" equivalent of DVD's. So how would you feel if a DVD of a movie you wanted to see was available nationwide, but just not in your state?


And Hairspray - I totally agree, and I am all for more people working in theatre. But like you, I think that they should simply have both, Vegas and California/ Arizona stops (and Vegas stops for other tours). Everybody wins, no?

Updated On: 7/25/05 at 04:14 PM