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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:04pm

Come on LA Guy, isn't that analogy just a little much

And it doesn't say VEGAS will get an EXCLUSIVE contract for ten years....

It's not like the rights are being snatched up and hoarded. It's not like great art is being locked away never to be seen by the masses.

I mean, you always could buy a ticket to NYC... :)

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:09pm

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...

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:11pm

that is total BS if the show will not play Cali, that really screwed my day up!

[lildogs]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:21pm

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.

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:24pm

Exactly - and that is my point. At some point, someone has to say "Wait a minute..."

So I'm simply standing up and saying, "Wait a minute..." I think this is something that should be analyzed and debated.
Updated On: 7/25/05 at 02:24 PM

[sabrelady]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:31pm

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!

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:50pm

This is just stupid. Greedy producers piss me off. I have to go to Vegas to see this??? I bet more shows are going to do this and those of us in California are going to suffer. This is RIDICULOUS!!!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:52pm

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

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

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:55pm

You are right TheatreDiva, and I like money just as much as the next person.

However, I feel they can make their money in Vegas, but don't need to cheat LA/SF out of seeing the tour in their own city, as the rest of America will see it (if not in NYC).

Theatre is expensive enough without me having to fly/drive to Vegas to see "Spamalot" as well as accomodations and meals. 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?

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 2:57pm

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.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:00pm

I AM in Arizona, and I'm personally all for sit-down productions of shows in Vegas. It is simply more practical for some shows.

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:12pm

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...

[lildogs]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:15pm

ChiChi is right; in my experience of being in three national tours, the sit-down engagement is easier on the actors, but MUCH easier on the crew--the sound especially--it is very difficult to maintain a level of quality when you are constantly changing venues...i'm pretty sure most actors would rather have a sit-down than a tour...

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:18pm

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.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:24pm

In terms of local theatre houses, I KNOW how much the Executive Director of our Broadway house makes, and she has been causing a stink about shows setting roots in Vegas, and how it is going to hurt business. If she would reduce her salary by 100,000 a year she would still make more than most of us make in 3 years, and the decline in touring shows would not affect the centers chances at a profitable series.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:29pm

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

[Magdalene]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:43pm

In principle, I don't agree to the practice of "Las Vegas---no tour (or limitations on touring)", but money DOES talk. For 12 or 14 shows a week, they will have to have 2 casts (can anyone imagine Sara Ramirez working her magic for 12 show a week? She's lose her voice in 2 weeks!), and that means double the actors that will be employed. I don't agree with the part about shortening it---what are they going to cut??? I wanted to see Spamalot, so I got a ticket and went Greyhound (19 hours total riding time). I loved it so much (Tim Curry and Christian Borle didn't perform at the show I went to), I'm planning to go again in September.
My point being, if you want to see something, make the effort!

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:50pm

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

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 3:52pm

Oh and how would people feel if Hollywood just showed movies in Los Angeles? If you really wanted to see it, would you spend money to come see it? NO, you would probably wait for it to come to DVD... so that's all I am asking for, and to me, a "Spamalot" tour stop is the DVD I am asking for...

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 4:00pm

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.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 4:02pm

Who said they even HAVE to tour---just rent "MP & the Holy Grail.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 4:02pm

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.

[Hairspraydoll]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 4:09pm

I think we should look at some positives instead of focusing on the negatives. It is going to provide more jobs for working actors. It will increase the knowledge and accessablility (sp?)
of theatre/Braodway to people who might not have had the chance. Vegas is one of the largest tourists destinations in the world. Think of how many people are going to be exposed to theatre that normally wouldn't have. I live in Vegas and I'm so excited to see Vegas finally having good theatre and bringing culture to us. Vegas has become much more family oriented than gambling oriented. Parents can bring their kids to Spamalot or Hairspray, but not the topless shows. It creates more for people to do.
I do think it's unfortunate that the tour won't go to CA or AZ. I'm not sure that's right. But on the flip side I have to drive to LA to see tours because they don't come to Vegas and rarely have.
I don't know, I'm kind of rambling, but let's focus on the positives this will have for theatre and hope that they change their minds about the tour. Sorry to all the CA/AZ people. I know how you feel, cuz I feel like that everyone time a tour doesn't come to Vegas (which is almost every tour).

[LA Guy]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 4:14pm

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

[whiskedaway]

Posted: 7/26/05 at 12:19am

Okay, so my whole opinion on the Vegas shows and such is this. I live in southern California, and I don't get to see very many shows, like LA Guy said, we only have a few shows coming here, and a lot of them are old shows (Annie, Joseph) or shows that I just don't really wanna see (White Christmas, Dr. Dolittle). Down in Orange County, there are a few shows coming, including the Evita revival, Bombay Dreams, and Wicked. I do wanna see Evita, and Bombay Dreams, but even if I wanted to see any other shows, they usually only stop for 2 or 3 weeks, some times even less. So there's not a huge window of time to go up and see a show.

Which brings me to my point, I would like it if they could have a sort of "mini Broadway" in Vegas. I'll hardly ever get the chance to go to New York, so it would be nice to be able to take 1 or 2 trips a year to Vegas and see a bunch of shows all in one trip. Hopefully in a year or so, I'll be able to go to Vegas and see Avenue Q and Phantom of the Opera. Even if its a shortened version of Phantom, it will still be interesting with all the new effects and such. Like I said, I have no interest in seeing Spamalot, or for that matter, Mamma Mia, and We Will Rock You, and such. But im hoping that if Phantom, Ave Q and Spamalot do well, they will start bringing more original shows (and less jukebox musicals) over to Vegas, so us folks on the west coast have a shorter distance to travel if we wanna see a great show.