Tarzan Student Rush- Page 2

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 10:07pm

What student WOULDN'T be happy with a $20 ticket? As I said, you're lucky you're getting your foot inside the theater. Most theater's have partial view seats, and it's easier to get rid of them through student rush rather than having to sell them for full or high prices. Broadway is a business; producers want to make money. And it's the tourists who are giving shows their business. And it's sad to say this, but there's a lot of naive tourists out there who will shell out $100 for a ticket no matter what.

I can understand what you're saying that the producers should make the a student's night out at the theater a good experience, however you also have to be fair to those that do spend a lot of money on these tickets. It's also not fair to say that the producers are stupid and this is an insult to students and the less fortunate. The producers after all could easily just get rid of rush policy altogether.

Besides, who's to say that front row for Tarzan is always the best? Usually the best seats are in the middle of the orchestra center. Why don't they offer those for student rush?

Updated On: 9/3/06 at 10:07 PM

[Someday]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 11:24pm

Millie, I happen to know a student who would not be happy with a $20 ticket -- if the seat is awful and the show ends up being mediocre or bad.

Regarding the restricted view seats, it sounds like it's not the theater's fault but the production's fault that this is an issue. Broadway shows should be designed and directed for the spaces they play. They play the same house every night; it seems like this would be Design 101.

If a production team insists on playing much of the action fifteen feet in the air for artistic reasons, the producers should either find a theater in which that is workable or find a production team that is more willing to consider the audience -- all of the audience. There's just no excuse for craned necks, sitting in the aisles, and TV monitors on Broadway.

I do agree with you that theatre patrons shouldn't be expected to pay $100 for the seats in question. But there's really no good answer for who should be stuck with those seats. I don't think it's fair to tourists, New Yorkers, students, or anyone, really -- regardless of what they paid. Still, the students would get my last vote for who should get stuck with the worst seats.

You're right that producers don't have to offer student rush, although it is obviously the socially responsible thing to do. But if the producers offer student rush for the primary purpose of simply making money, they're probably already in trouble, in more ways than one. If they're going to do it, do it right and for the right reasons -- not to fill the worst seats for a poorly designed production by squeezing the littlest of the little guys, whom they should instead be nurturing as future audiences. Really, operating that way is rather cynical and, yep... insulting.

"As I said, you're lucky you're getting your foot inside the theater."

I'm not sure how to respond to that -- especially considering that we're talking about the tepidly-received Tarzan here. Uhhhhhh... thank you?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 12:28am

"I'm not sure how to respond to that -- especially considering that we're talking about the tepidly-received Tarzan here. Uhhhhhh... thank you?"

Well, taking into account the prices of Broadway tickets nowadays...getting into any show that price is worth it.

Sure it isn't "fair" that the students get stuck with the worst seats, but someone has to get them...and producers decided it be the students because they'd be paying the cheapest to get into the show.

Truthfully, I'd be upset too if I had to rely on TV moniters to see the action going on above stage. I wouldn't call it an insult to Broadway rush policy though

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 1:31am

Yes, that's what I meant, thanks Mistress

Oh well. There were some fun afternoons at the Richard Rodgers.

[LumBabsFan]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 9:55am

Truthfully, I'd be upset too if I had to rely on TV moniters to see the action going on above stage.

Ok this is all I'm saying on this, but that's the thing. You DON'T rely on the monitors at all. In the entire 2 1/2 hours, we only had to look at the monitor twice: for a little bit of the moth sequence and the first approx. 30 seconds of "For the First Time." That's all. If people spend the entire time looking at the monitors, it's their loss, IMO. But there's no reason to do so except for maybe those two points in the show.