#1
Posted: 1/31/07 at 10:50am
I managed to get stage seats for the 17th at 2PM. I'm wondering why they're cheaper than the stalls, though - anyone know? Either way I'm keeping them!
#3
Posted: 1/31/07 at 10:59am
I'm assuming you're seeing this for dynamic writing in a drama??
#4
Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:05am
Absolutely!! I also need to sit close when I see plays due to bad hearing.
As far as drama, I saw the movie in the 70s and loved it; the chance to see it onstage with great actors, as well as Daniel Radcliff's versatility as an actor, is worth a trip to London.
Besides, Perez Hilton has booked the entire front row already.
As far as drama, I saw the movie in the 70s and loved it; the chance to see it onstage with great actors, as well as Daniel Radcliff's versatility as an actor, is worth a trip to London.
Besides, Perez Hilton has booked the entire front row already.
#5
Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:29am
I sat in stage seats many times during the Broadway run. It made the show even more engrosing.
How many years ago was that?
How many years ago was that?
"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)
#6
Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:57am
Where on the stage are they situated? The seating chart for Delfont just showed me two lone rows, A & B, with my seats highlightedbut from that you can't tell where on the stage they are.
#7
Posted: 1/31/07 at 4:49pm
Judging from the racy publicity shots for Equus, this production seems aimed at pedophiles and people who crave the novelty of seeing "Harry Potter" naked. It's hard to take this production seriously when all of them feature him bare-chested and imply his nakedness.
Nothing wrong with seeing someone naked on stage, mind you, but I find something disturbing about a star of children's films getting naked on stage.
Nothing wrong with seeing someone naked on stage, mind you, but I find something disturbing about a star of children's films getting naked on stage.
"It does what a musical is supposed to do; it takes you to another world. And it gives you a little tune to carry in your head. Something to take you away from the dreary horrors of the real world. A little something for when you're feeling blue. You know?"
#8
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:00pm
Who wants to be up close while Daniel Radcliff is having sex with a horse?
#9
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:36pm
"Judging from the racy publicity shots for Equus, this production seems aimed at pedophiles and people who crave the novelty of seeing "Harry Potter" naked."
Here we go again. First, Radcliffe has reached the age of consent, and therefore the pedophile remark is wrong (not to mention inaccurate, since a pedophile is defined as one who is attracted to a pre-pubescent boy or girl, and Radcliffe certainly has long since passed pubesence). Second, it's very clear that they know people will be flocking to the theatre, not out of hormones to see Harry Potter naked, but to see if he really can act. If you were in a marketing dept., would you advertise this any other way?
Here we go again. First, Radcliffe has reached the age of consent, and therefore the pedophile remark is wrong (not to mention inaccurate, since a pedophile is defined as one who is attracted to a pre-pubescent boy or girl, and Radcliffe certainly has long since passed pubesence). Second, it's very clear that they know people will be flocking to the theatre, not out of hormones to see Harry Potter naked, but to see if he really can act. If you were in a marketing dept., would you advertise this any other way?
#10
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:37pm
BB6,
Do you even know the script?
Do you even know the script?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#11
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:44pm
I must say, I like these new pictures, and not just because I find them aesthetically pleasing on a personal level. They're far from paedolicious, no matter how I beat myself up for fancying a younger man, as that is NOT the figure of a young boy, and Radcliffe is over the UK age of consent. Also, I'm not having sex with him, I'm watching him perform a role in a play. :P
But seriously, waving these pictures around is a GOOD idea. When you go to book tickets on the Delfont Mackintosh site, you're confronted with a tiny bit of blurb saying "Please note - Equus has certain scenes that may be unsuitable for children". Now what's *that* supposed to mean? Depending on your definition of "unsuitable" and "children", you could just as easily say this about 'Mary Poppins' or 'Wicked'. By thrusting these pictures across the world, the production company are preparing people for the fact that firstly, this is NOT Harry Potter poncing around onstage, this is Daniel Radcliffe playing what is, let's be fair, a pretty sexual role. And secondly, if you were a parent thinking "well, they probably just swear a little bit, I'm fine with little twelve year old Amanda hearing swearing, because she's too sweet and innocent to adopt swearing into her vocabulary, and she's SUCH a big Harry Potter fan, I'll take her anyway", then these images let you know EXACTLY where you stand. The last thing I want, as a fan of Peter Shaffer's work (and PLEASE make the newspapers stop saying it's Anthony XP), is for idiotic people to decry this admittedly disturbing but very powerful work as filth, just because they couldn't be bothered doing a little research before taking their naive young children to see it.
Also, look how much we're talking about this subject. You usually have to pay MILLIONS for this kinda publicity. :P
But seriously, waving these pictures around is a GOOD idea. When you go to book tickets on the Delfont Mackintosh site, you're confronted with a tiny bit of blurb saying "Please note - Equus has certain scenes that may be unsuitable for children". Now what's *that* supposed to mean? Depending on your definition of "unsuitable" and "children", you could just as easily say this about 'Mary Poppins' or 'Wicked'. By thrusting these pictures across the world, the production company are preparing people for the fact that firstly, this is NOT Harry Potter poncing around onstage, this is Daniel Radcliffe playing what is, let's be fair, a pretty sexual role. And secondly, if you were a parent thinking "well, they probably just swear a little bit, I'm fine with little twelve year old Amanda hearing swearing, because she's too sweet and innocent to adopt swearing into her vocabulary, and she's SUCH a big Harry Potter fan, I'll take her anyway", then these images let you know EXACTLY where you stand. The last thing I want, as a fan of Peter Shaffer's work (and PLEASE make the newspapers stop saying it's Anthony XP), is for idiotic people to decry this admittedly disturbing but very powerful work as filth, just because they couldn't be bothered doing a little research before taking their naive young children to see it.
Also, look how much we're talking about this subject. You usually have to pay MILLIONS for this kinda publicity. :P
#12
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:51pm
Hee Hee
You said, "THRUSTING"
Hee Hee
Hee Hee
You said, "THRUSTING"
Hee Hee
Hee Hee
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#13
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:53pm
Did I? O_O
Ooh, so I did! Goes to show where my mind was while thinking about the images in question, eh! ^_^
Ooh, so I did! Goes to show where my mind was while thinking about the images in question, eh! ^_^
#14
Posted: 1/31/07 at 5:57pm
I really agree with what you are saying, Weez. One thing that bothers me, though, is how people are throwing around this "age of consent" statement. I mean, although it's legal in the UK for a 17 year old to have sex with anyone older, and although I understand why the law had to be made that way, I don't necessarily feel that any 17 year old is ready for that kind of sexual encounter. I know that no one here is (most likely) actually going to have sex with him, but just because it's legal, doesn't make it right or okay, in my opinion. I mean, just because it would be legal for him to sleep with a 45 year old doesn't make it psychologically okay for him to do so, in my opinion. I don't know, I just don't like how people are throwing that statement around.
"You know, a little orphan girl once told me that the sun would come out tomorrow. Her adopted father was a powerful billionaire, so I supressed the urge to laugh in her face. But now, by gum, I think she might have been on to something!"
--Reefer Madness
#15
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:00pm
So, you're ok with not taking the law seriously, and casting your own personal judgment on what adults do with themselves?
*bangs head on desk*
*bangs head on desk*
#16
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:04pm
I also don't understand why people keep throwing the "age of consent" thing around, because he's not actually going to be having sex with anyone! He's going to be on a stage, *pretending* to be someone else who also doesn't actually have sex with anyone (although he does admittedly get a little happy on horseback :P). Feet = back on ground please. ^_^
Updated On: 1/31/07 at 06:04 PM
#17
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:04pm
When people are accusing the pictures of pandering to "pedophiles" and calling them "kiddy porn," the age of consent comments are more than justified.
The fact that he IS legal makes all of those judgments pointless.
The fact that he IS legal makes all of those judgments pointless.
Updated On: 1/31/07 at 06:04 PM
#18
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:05pm
"Besides, Perez Hilton has booked the entire front row already."
OMG please take advantage of the oppurtunity and air hole the queen.
OMG please take advantage of the oppurtunity and air hole the queen.
#19
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:09pm
The fact that the photos are promoting a major West End production rather than being distributed discreetly across the internet to dirty old men, and the fact that they're publicity shots rather than actual pornography renders the "pandering to paedos" and "kiddy porn" comments useless enough to me to not even have to get into "so how old does one have to be to legally boff?". ^_^
#20
Posted: 1/31/07 at 6:32pm
I don't understand all the discussion about the naked scene in Equus. I saw the show first in the '70 with Richard Burton and there was almost no discussion anywhere about the nude scene. Of course that was before the internet and teen-agers with too much time on their hands 
#21
Posted: 1/31/07 at 8:34pm
"So, you're ok with not taking the law seriously, and casting your own personal judgment on what adults do with themselves?
*bangs head on desk*"
Actually, no. That's not what I said at all. First of all, I do take the law seriously. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. And of course I'm casting judgment- but don't pretend like you don't. Get off your high horse. We all pass judgment.
My point is this: just because England renders a 17 year old a legal sexual partner to anyone of age 17 and older does not mean that I, personally, believe that 17 year olds are necessarily psychologically mature enough to be having sex with someone significantly older than them. I did not in ANY way refer to their partners as pedophiles. I'm not at all saying that they are. I'm just saying that the psychological implications are intense and so I don't necessarily agree when people say "He's the age of consent so it doesn't matter if people look at him as a sex target." I don't necessarily agree that 17 should be the age of consent. I'm not proposing a new law and I don't know exactly what the age should be. All I am saying is that I don't find that statement to be justifiable.
*bangs head on desk*"
Actually, no. That's not what I said at all. First of all, I do take the law seriously. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. And of course I'm casting judgment- but don't pretend like you don't. Get off your high horse. We all pass judgment.
My point is this: just because England renders a 17 year old a legal sexual partner to anyone of age 17 and older does not mean that I, personally, believe that 17 year olds are necessarily psychologically mature enough to be having sex with someone significantly older than them. I did not in ANY way refer to their partners as pedophiles. I'm not at all saying that they are. I'm just saying that the psychological implications are intense and so I don't necessarily agree when people say "He's the age of consent so it doesn't matter if people look at him as a sex target." I don't necessarily agree that 17 should be the age of consent. I'm not proposing a new law and I don't know exactly what the age should be. All I am saying is that I don't find that statement to be justifiable.
"You know, a little orphan girl once told me that the sun would come out tomorrow. Her adopted father was a powerful billionaire, so I supressed the urge to laugh in her face. But now, by gum, I think she might have been on to something!"
--Reefer Madness
Updated On: 1/31/07 at 08:34 PM
#22
Posted: 1/31/07 at 8:42pm
bring oats.
it will make the second act that much funnier.
it will make the second act that much funnier.
#23
Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:34pm
I just found out that the stage seats are in a horseshoe shape around the back and sides of the stage and are about 10 feet up. I'm in the front row and way way on the side. Will that be like sitting on the platform where "Life Support" in Rent takes place?
A sideview is fine for me, as long as I can see everything.
A sideview is fine for me, as long as I can see everything.
#24
Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:51pm
you people are all missing the point. This piece of theatre is perhaps the most brilliantly written script for the stage. If you dont know the script, and you dont know the story, you have no right making judgements about the fact that a 17 year old actor from a bunch of crappy childrens movies is being paraded around in naked pictures aimed at pedofiles.
The nudity is needed to complete the vulnerability in the script. This play, and this production in particular is not based around exploiting 17 year old naked actors. Its about the intensity and the drama that unfolds throughout the show. By the time the nude scenes come around, you are so drawn into the story that the nudity really becomes the secondary focus of the audience member. I think its great showing these pictures. They look spectacular, and it should also tell parents that they have no business bringing children to watch Harry Potter to this show. Harry Potter, and Equus are two separate entities showing perhaps the flexibility of one actor.
Everyone is overreacting over this. This play is just what is starting to happen - controversial. If you are planning on going to this show just to see Daniel naked, then don't bother going. This play is so much more than that. It is one of those shows that you should leave the theatre in silence and have a nightmare or 2. It IS appropriate to have this boy naked. Its crucial to the plot.
Having said that, when seated in the theatre, its going to be better to sit further from the stage than closer. Im not sure if they are using Napier's original set design, but if they are in order to get the full impact of the drama surrounding this play, it would be better to sit in the house then on the stage.
The nudity is needed to complete the vulnerability in the script. This play, and this production in particular is not based around exploiting 17 year old naked actors. Its about the intensity and the drama that unfolds throughout the show. By the time the nude scenes come around, you are so drawn into the story that the nudity really becomes the secondary focus of the audience member. I think its great showing these pictures. They look spectacular, and it should also tell parents that they have no business bringing children to watch Harry Potter to this show. Harry Potter, and Equus are two separate entities showing perhaps the flexibility of one actor.
Everyone is overreacting over this. This play is just what is starting to happen - controversial. If you are planning on going to this show just to see Daniel naked, then don't bother going. This play is so much more than that. It is one of those shows that you should leave the theatre in silence and have a nightmare or 2. It IS appropriate to have this boy naked. Its crucial to the plot.
Having said that, when seated in the theatre, its going to be better to sit further from the stage than closer. Im not sure if they are using Napier's original set design, but if they are in order to get the full impact of the drama surrounding this play, it would be better to sit in the house then on the stage.
#25
Posted: 2/1/07 at 10:22am
WORD.
I officially love you.
I officially love you.
http://community.livejournal.com/ltd_brands_suck/
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95