Walking out of a show....- Page 4

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 12:46am

I have never in my life left at intermission of a show simply because if it's bad and I'm going to tell someone later just how BAD it is, I want as much material as possible to complain about. When I saw "An Evening With Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin" (love those two, but a completely awful concert), I was horrified through Act 1, but wanted to see if it could possibly get worse for Act 2, and it did. And my vitriolic rants about it later were all the more supported because I had two acts of material. I suppose the only time I ever even contemplated leaving was a horrific tour of the Rockettes, but, even then, I stuck it out.

[Patash]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 8:27am

I'm still amused by the "wasting your money" idea when leaving a show. So if you buy a pair of $100 shoes and find they hurt your feet, look horrible on you, and are miserable to wear then you'll wear them anyway because not wearing them would be wasting your money. But being miserable is getting good use of your money? HUH?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 8:51am

You're REALLY bad at analogies.

[rarefizz]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 8:36pm

Three Penny Opera at Studio 54 (left at intermission).
Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson (left about 45 minutes into it--no intermission so couldn't wait and be polite--everything Book of Mormon got right BBAJ got wrong)

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 8:53pm

I know people who have left during intermission of productions of Into the Woods thinking the show was over--the end of act 1 could be deceiving, and the playbill did not list musical numbers. (HATE THAT.)

[rjm516]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 9:38pm

Yeah the only time I've left is when it's a bladder emergency, and I don't think I've ever done that until curtain call anyway. I hate leaving before curtain call is finished, but I figure if I am going to explode it's ok.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 9:45pm

People leaving during the performance are making a statement "I think this is a lousy show and want the rest of the audience to know what I think." Leaving at intermission is escaping for one's own relief.

[jwsel]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 11:25pm

@tobiasragg

"I saw The Black Rider at the Ahmanson and left about 10 minutes into Act II. I thought that MAYBE the second act would make more sense and give some sort of pay-off. I soon realized that it wasn't happening and needed to get out of there. On the way out, the ushers were all sitting with iPods so they wouldn't have to listen and one of them looked at me and said (no joke) "took you long enough..."

Probably a good 60% of the audience had left before intermission."

---

LOL. I knew we were in trouble when the driver of the shuttle we took from a local restaurant voluntarily told us that he would be running at intermission.

[musikman]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 1:32am

I've walked out of a few horrendously painful high school productions before, but the only time I ever came close on Broadway was when I went to see Rock 'n Roll.

I had to choose between staying for the second act, or waiting in Penn Station for an hour and a half while my parents finished seeing their own show. Turns out that waiting in Penn Station would have been far more entertaining.

If anyone can tell me what on earth happened in that play, I'll buy them dinner**







**I'm poor so it would have to be super cheap

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 2:05am

oh man.. The Black Rider! i completely forgot about that show! i saw it at the ahmanson and half the audience left during act I... it was pretty sad but I could definitely see why they left... when Act II hit the entire orchestra was pretty much empty so I moved up front... what an odd odd odd show

[Patash]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 12:10pm

"You're REALLY bad at analogies."

Ghostlight, can you explain that? Seems to me that sitting in pain to watch a show just to get your money's worth is a lot like wearing painful shoes to get your money's worth. Leaving the show you are in pain watching or taking off the shoes that give you a pain and letting either thing go is very much the same thing. You won't get your money back in either case, but you haven't suffered to get your money's worth. Get it?

It also reminds me of "the food was terrible, but since it was so expensive I ate every bite". Yea, that's another example of false "getting your money's worth". The bottom line is -- why is suffering through more of something you hate a better value than a little of it and giving up on it?

[GottaHaveAGimmick]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 12:25pm

Left at intermission of "High." Ouch! I felt like I needed a shower. The story and characters were a mess.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 12:53pm

"Ghostlight, can you explain that? Seems to me that sitting in pain to watch a show just to get your money's worth is a lot like wearing painful shoes to get your money's worth. Leaving the show you are in pain watching or taking off the shoes that give you a pain and letting either thing go is very much the same thing. You won't get your money back in either case, but you haven't suffered to get your money's worth. Get it? "

Certainly. I get what you're trying to say, and even agree with you. How are you getting your money's worth if you're not enjoying yourself? That makes no sense to me, though I do understand the exception that bway7000 makes. The problem is that you're using bad analogies to express your thoughts. For starters, I have never been "miserable" or "in pain" or wanted to commit suicide while watching a bad show. That seems like silly hyperbole to me to elevate your lack of enjoyment of a show to actual pain and suffering. That may be the kind of thing that Barney Stinsen is talking about when s/he says some people take themselves too seriously.

But we can leave that aside, because the real reason I find fallacy in your second analogy is for the same reason the first one was. A bad meal is almost never going to improve. Ill-fitting shoes will always be ill-fitting and cause pain. These things can't change gears, reveal a surprise turn, become something different from what they started out as. A show you aren't enjoying can, and often does, take a turn and become something you can appreciate.

"If anyone can tell me what on earth happened in that play, I'll buy them [a cheap] dinner"

I could, musikman, but it will take more time and effort than a cheap dinner is worth. I also loved Rock and Roll (and Parade, Titanic, Democracy, QED and Copenhagen).

Updated On: 6/8/11 at 12:53 PM

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 1:04pm

@Patash

I know I'm not the person your post was directed to, so feel free to ignore this one.

Anyway, I think the shoe analogy was bad as well. Sitting through a bad show "to get your money's worth" is not at all the same to wearing uncomfortable shoes to get your money's worth. The main (and most crucial, for me) is that tickets are sunk costs. You won't get your money back whether you see the show through to the end or leave at intermission. So it's pointless to sit through a really horrible show unless you're like the previous poster who likes getting more evidence to back up his negative rants (I do think that's a perfectly valid reason to sit through a bad show). Whereas uncomfortable shoes, if you don't like them, can be returned. Thus you'll at least get some of your money back. Even if the store you bought your shoes from closed the next day, you can still sell those shoes in a garage sale and get a small amount back for them. In essence, the difference is that your seat in a bad show is a sunk cost, but your expensive, uncomfortable shoes are not.

[simplylala]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 1:31pm

I really have an issue with it so I would wait for intermission but I have only felt like leaving once during the London version of The Last five years - unfortunately no intermission so i had to suck it up!

[justoldbill]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 1:50pm

Sometimes having no intermission can be beneficial. Had there been an intermission opening night at Nikolaus Lehnhoff's SALOME at the Met in 1989, I would missed the opportunity of boo-ing him and his creative staff - loudly. I also would have missed the opportunity of applauding and screaming my head off in praise of Eva Marton and the rest of the cast for their brilliant performances. Oh, the contradiction of it all!

[jbm2]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 10:39pm

I started this thread... and thought I would NEVER EVER walk out of a show... And then it happened. I went to see JUMP and couldnt stand to sit there any longer. Knowing there was no intermission, I walked out.

[Steel Pier Fan]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 10:45pm

I think if there is no intermission. Just don't make a scene also don't be sitting by the stage. I would feel bad for the actors. I haven't left a show without intermission but thats what I would do if I did.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 6/8/11 at 10:58pm

Some people left Mormon tonight and we grab their seats and intermission. Their loss.

Justoldbill more details please!

[Patash]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 10:30am

sorry, I ever brought up an attempted analogy. I always thought analogies were comparisons and have never heard of one where both the target and the subject are totally identical. If you didn't "get" the analogy presented by finding tiny differences between the two, then perhaps true analogies don't exist (they really are pointless if there are no differences between the subject and the target).

Never felt pain watching a performance? Go see Desperate Writers.
A meal never gets better? Really? You've NEVER had a meal where the dessert was the best part?

I never meant to imply that wearing shoes is IDENTICAL to sitting through a bad play to get your money's worth. Or even that the experiences of the two are that similar. I only meant to question that somehow sitting through 3 hours of a horrible play gives you MORE VALUE for your money than sitting through one hour of a bad play. Get it? More of something bad is NOT worth more money to me. Maybe to you.

[FrauleinKost]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 10:49am

It happened twice.

One time at Urban Cowboy. I had gotten insanely drunk at Don't Tell Mama's before the show. I wasn't planning on that level of intoxication, it just sort of happened. I left at intermission because the room was starting to spin...though I think I went BACK to Don't Tell Mama's that night! Oh to be young again...

Another time was Anything Goes, my first trip to London in 2004. I got the tickets for my first night there--big mistake!! I didn't realize just how tired I would be. I think I nodded off during the first act. I left at intermission, and second acted it the next day.

[singtopher]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:13am

I have left at intermission of a community theatre production of "Songs for a New world" and the tour of "Chicago" Both I didn't pay for, so i wasn't losing out monetarily. The first was just awful, the second was fine, but it's not like I hadn't seen Chicago before and I had plenty of better **** to do that day. I did walk out of the middle of a really bad jazz band concert in New Orleans, but it was truly dreadful and we only had one night in the Big Easy so me and my friends decided to cut our losses and run!

Once at a high school production of Kiss Me, Kate people left in droves. I would have joined, but I was, ya know, in it.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:49am

"Never felt pain watching a performance? Go see Desperate Writers.
A meal never gets better? Really? You've NEVER had a meal where the dessert was the best part? "

Didn't care for Desperate Writers, but I surely wasn't in pain during it. The only time I've been in pain watching a performance was when I had broken ribs and sitting for longs periods of time hurt - as in, you know, actual pain. Perhaps your sensibilities are more delicate than mine that a mere performance can cause you pain. And I don't eat dessert (nope, never), so no, haven't had that experience either.

"I only meant to question that somehow sitting through 3 hours of a horrible play gives you MORE VALUE for your money than sitting through one hour of a bad play. Get it? More of something bad is NOT worth more money to me. Maybe to you."

I got it the first time. I even agreed with you. Twice. Now I'll make it three times. To my mind, there are many reasons not to walk out of a show you are not enjoying at the moment, but the idea of not walking out solely because you want to get your money's worth makes no sense at all to me.

We're in total agreement regarding your sentiment - I just found fault with your analogies.

Happens that just last night I was at a performance that the thought occurred to leave, but it was a short show, a friend had gotten the ticket for me, and leaving would have been disruptive. Fortunately, it was so very bad that it was fascinating to watch.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:51am

I'm not saying the point you were making was wrong because of a bad analogy. I actually agree with you that you should leave if the show is unbearable. I was thinking in terms of costs, whereas you were thinking in terms of value. That was why I had a problem with your analogy.

The reason that I think in terms of costs is that people's rationale's for not walking out of a bad show is that they paid a lot of money for their seat, and they don't want to feel like they are taking a huge loss by leaving early. I agree with you that this is pretty stupid behavior. However, in the case with the shoes, the decision (to stop wearing uncomfortable) is much easier because you can get money back if you stop wearing them (by returning the shoe), and so the loss is not that big. That is all I'm trying to say.

In terms of getting more value by sitting through an awful show, I agree with your analogy completely.

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 6/9/11 at 11:57am

I really wanted to leave Memphis, but I stayed hoping to find something redeeming (I didn't)

I did leave Jerusalem during the second intermission because my back hurt so much. I was moving every other minute and felt terrible for the people trying to enjoy the show around me. I completely regret it, as I was loving the show, but my body wouldn't let me sit any longer.