When Others Walk Out of a Show- Page 3

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 3:45pm

"so am pleased you again wasted your money and contributed to my beloved Dame Ednas' excentric wardrobe and acerbic[look it up] wit !"

 

 

So pleased you're pleased. And by the way, you should look up "eccentric."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 4:43pm

Well, I think you're conflating good reasons to disturb someone (sickness or emergency) with a bad reason (you're not having a good time).

Well, I think you're conflating your opinion of what is a good reason and what is a bad reason with mine.    The point being that as you said yourself, you make an assumption regarding why someone is leaving and the actual reason is unknown.  But either way, if someone gets up in your row and chooses to leave, are you going to ask them why and if the answer is unsatisfactory, prevent them from exiting?  If a person wants to leave, they will leave.  If they need to get by you, then it is your choice to assist in their exit or to make it more lengthy and disturbing, but the reason they choose to exit is actually moot at that point.  And just to be clear, I have rarely left a show before intermission (I can only think of twice at the moment) and the reasons weren't simply "having a bad time".  If the show is causing me to literally get up and walk out without waiting for intermission (one of the two times was a show that didn't have an intermission), that is a level of discomfort that is far greater to me to potentially endure for...an hour, perhaps, than the discomfort of allowing me to exit, which takes a few seconds.  Why do you want to disturb someone by trying to force them to sit through something that they feel they can't endure?  Either way, someone is going to get disturbed, and either reason for the disturbance could be viewed as understandable or selfish.  Personally, I think the option that only disturbs people for a few seconds is preferable, but to each their own.

As for late seating...things happen.  It's life.  Twice I was seated late due to the ineptitude of the box office staff (and I used to work box office for 10 years, so I don't use the term lightly).  One of those times was the final performance of the 1776 revival on Broadway.  The one guy in the box office kept insisting I didn't have tickets in Will Call.  I gave him the reference number, I gave him the name, I spelled it several times.  I then asked him to look up the credit card number and he said he couldn't look it up that way.  It was the Ticketmaster system and I used to TRAIN employees how to use it.  I told him exactly how to do so and he typed it into the computer, then reached into a slot right next to his head, and pulled out the envelope with the tickets that were sitting there the whole time.  I wasn't seated until "The Lees of Old Virginia" and it wasn't like I could come back another day.  So yes, sometimes things beyond just being responsible and leaving early happen to people.

The other time it happened was the Chicago production of Billy Elliot.  I arrived about a half hour early to pick up my tickets from Will Call.  Every ticket window was selling tickets to future performances and exchanging season tickets for subscribers.  There were NO dedicated windows for picking up Will Call tickets.  As time went on, I kept asking if we could pick up Will Call, but nobody in the box office would respond and the lines were getting longer with frustrated people.  I asked an usher if we could speak to the House Manager, who never arrived.  About 20 of us did not get our tickets in time to be seated and had to be seated after the opening number.  By that time, we were told there was nothing to be done except go back and speak to the box office.  My mother begged me not to make a fuss, so I didn't.  I wrote a letter to the theatre management and to the producers, which was ignored.

[SweetLips]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 5:14pm

After Eight said: ""so am pleased you again wasted your money and contributed to my beloved Dame Ednas' excentric wardrobe and acerbic[look it up] wit !"

 

 

So pleased you're pleased. And by the way, you should look up "eccentric."

Glad you ARE following so closely all that you have writ[deliberate] and NO---won't change the spelling just to prove I am fallible-unlike yourself. You really are going to hurt yourself one day when you fall off that very tall pony/draft horse--hopefully into a big pile of steaming hot doodie[just made that up but am sure you know what I mean.]

 

Are you keeping track of all comments about yourself ? I bet you are--a scrap book FULL or at least wall papering your abode.

I'm done--still read with interest your comments anyway. Is that double standards?--who cares--I don't !

 

"

 

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 5:38pm

kdogg36 said: "Theater_Nerd said: "Huh? Unless you have an idea as to why an audience member has arrived late I suggest you show a little kindness as well as compassion and above all tolerance and let that person/those people take their seats. I am sure it was not on their agenda to ruin your evening."

From past threads about theater etiquette, this seems to be a rather polarizing point. Obviously we're on opposite poles. :)

That would be correct.

While I can't know why someone arrived late, I do know this: if I'm ever late for any reason, I'll ask if I can stand or take an empty seat in the back until intermission. If that's not possible, I'll just miss the first act. This isn't a radical notion; in fact, it's the policy of some productions (Cats and Fun Home come to mind). I'd prefer it to be the policy of all productions.

Unfortunately (for you) this doesn't seem to be a widespread policy, and in those instances where the policy is not instituted you cannot expect people to do as you would.

Obviously, I do stand up to let latecomers to to their seats when called on to do so. Not doing so would just escalate the disturbance. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it.

Of course you don't have to approve of it, but the kind thing to do is to stand up and allow them to get to their seats anyway, which I am glad you do albeit begrudgingly so.

 

Updated On: 10/5/16 at 05:38 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 8:16pm

Mister Matt, thanks for your detailed response and thought-provoking anecdotes (no sarcasm). You make some good points. I will be happier in the future assuming that latecomers have encountered something beyond their control. :)

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 10/5/16 at 8:28pm

edit: wrong thread

 

Updated On: 10/5/16 at 08:28 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 6:57am

What I find striking in the various responses in this thread is the almost total absence of empathy for those who wasted their time and money on something they were expecting to enjoy. Instead of expressions of sympathy for those who were---- let's face it ---- ripped off, we hear whining about having to stand up a total of ten seconds to allow someone to get by. Where's the compassion?

But if something positive is to be found in these anecdotes, it's seeing that the general theatregoing public is not always willing to swallow the party line that the critics, media, and yes, many of the posters on this board are constantly feeding us. Playgoers across the country walked out on Hamilton, Sweeney Todd, Falsettos, Spring Awakening, Book of Mormon? Well, it's sad that they were lured into going to them in the first place; but it's heartening to find that they saw that the emperor had no clothes, and asserted as much in their early exits. There's a great wide wonderful world out there, with a lot of discerning theatregoers. That's good to know.

It would be most welcome if posters informed us  regularly of walkouts in their future reports on shows.  

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 7:01am

After Eight said: "Playgoers across the country walked out on Hamilton, Sweeney Todd, Falsettos, Spring Awakening, Book of Mormon?"

Just in case you didn't take the bait with Sweeney, here are some other shows After Eight is also willing to discuss! Somehow forgetting Fun Home, though.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 7:05am

I remember responding to the original thread.  But anyway, I would never walk out of a show on Broadway.  After all, I have traveled thousands of miles to get to NYC, spent hundreds on hotels and a good amount on theatre tickets.  There's no friggin' way I'm going to waste my money by leaving.  I did leave once at intermission during a national tour stop of "Spamalot" at the Dallas Music Hall (2012?)   Granted, the super fan behind me was quoting lyrics and dialogue left and right (at least when I do it in "Chicago" on Broadway or on tour in the front row, I do it silently).  But, the whole first act experience was kind of mind numbing.  That sort of British humor struck me as too precious and not really amusing (just my own personal opinion).  I did love "The Lady In The Lake", though.  I debated my decision right around intermission and rushed for the exit.  I thought I made the right decision.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 7:28am

"I will be happier in the future assuming that latecomers have encountered something beyond their control. :)"

To hopefully add to your happiness, here is my story: 

I usually fly to NYC on my theatre trips either wed. morning or thurs after work, usually having between 2.5 and 4 hours of leeway between the expected arrival time in midtown and the first show time (on a one hour and twenty minute flight).   I've probably done about 20 trips this way, with only one incident where a 3-hour time window wasn't enough.  First the flight departure was delayed by 2 hours as they fixed a some broken window trim that was purely aesthetic and non-functional (by their own admission on the announcements).  Then upon landing, there was a drastic delay in going through the tunnel, resulting in a 2-hour trip from Newark airport to the theatre district.  After that, i arrived at the theatre with only 20 minutes left in the first act, and i told the ushers who were chatting in the lobby that i preferred to wait in the lobby until act 2 rather than go in so late in act 1 and disturb people.  But one of the ushers said "you'll go where we tell you" (yes, a literal direct quote), and told me that i was not allowed to wait in the lobby but had to go inside and be seated.  At least they put me on an aisle seat near the back entrance, so no one had to stand up, but i felt very bad for the person sitting behind me who must have been distracted.  

Anyway, if i am not enjoying a show, i wait until intermission before leaving, but usually i don't leave but hope that it will get better in act 2.  If i really am despising the show, i might check out and just go over to-do lists in my head or think about happy memories rather than stand up during the act and disturb those around me. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 8:59am

The posturing troll would have us believe it was surprised that it didn't like any of the shows it listed. If that were the case (it wasn't-it either did not see the shows, saw them to troll about them or is willfully ignorant.)

The bottom line is that the only poster here who regularly castigates others for their taste is the posturing troll. Over time it has decided that finding a pretext for discharging its bile is more fun than doing it straight up. But the perniciousness is no different. After Eight is not harmless, because its sentiments are damaging to the theatre and theatregoers and art and art lovers.

[hork]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 11:22am

PattyLuponeFanatic - You made the right call regarding Spamalot. The first act is much better than the second act, so if you didn't even like it, there's no reason to see the second act.

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 11:36am

Are we expected to feel empathy for audience members who did not like a show and then decided to leave? 

I mean, they aren't victims of anything. 

It happens. It doesn't warrant this much scrutiny. 

Updated On: 10/6/16 at 11:36 AM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 2:26pm

Couple next to us left near the end of Act One of "American In Paris" and young woman apologized for interrupting. She whispered to my wife her boyfriend did not want to stay any longer. We felt bad for her and I thought he was kind of a jerk for not at least waiting until intermission.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 2:51pm

Are we expected to feel empathy for audience members who did not like a show and then decided to leave?

Moot question.  After Hate has concocted a persona in which opinions that differ from his are invalid and are dismissed.  In the real world, we assume the risk when purchasing a ticket that our own personal tastes may not reflect those of any critics, media or others who have offered opinions on a show.  Whether we enjoy it or not cannot be determined until we see it.  So no, there are not "victims" because the risk is acknowledged and accepted when committing to purchasing the ticket and attending the show.  We can hope to enjoy a show and be disappointed when we don't, but personal enjoyment cannot be guaranteed based on the subjective opinions if others.  If it were, then I would have loved Spring Awakening.

Updated On: 10/6/16 at 02:51 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 10:18pm

"Are we expected to feel empathy for audience members who did not like a show and then decided to leave?"

Absolutely, when they were "taken," as it were.

"I mean, they aren't victims of anything."

People who have been taken are the victims of having been taken.

[Oak2]

Posted: 10/6/16 at 11:42pm

After Eight said: ""Are we expected to feel empathy for audience members who did not like a show and then decided to leave?"

Absolutely, when they were "taken," as it were.

"I mean, they aren't victims of anything."

People who have been taken are the victims of having been taken.

 

"

That's not really true. It was your responsibility to do the research on the show to know what kind of show it was and whether you might like it before you pay for it. If you paid money for it and still didn't like it, that's your own fault for not doing sufficient research. Either that or it means you did the research, knew it would be the kind of thing you'd dislike based on reviews, synopses, genre, etc., but then decided to go anyway, in which case you're either a masochist or an idiot. 

I've never paid for a show I've disliked, because I do my research first. I look up the general tone, I listen to bits of or the whole cast recording, and most importantly, I pay attention to not just what people are saying about the show, but WHICH people - I only pay attention to the reviews/opinions of people who either already know my tastes (when they're actively recommending to me), or people whose tastes I know. If someone whose tastes I already know align with mine, I can be safely confident I will enjoy it. If it's someone who, by previous history, I already know has polar opposite tastes, and I see they love a show, I usually take that as a sign that I probably will not enjoy the show (or conversely, if they hate a show for something they dislike but I enjoy, I know I will probably like the show).

You've already shown that you have a distaste for what most people on this board like, like Fun Home and Hamilton and the like. You already know that these people have tastes that are opposite of your own, so you should know beforehand that if they really like it, you probably will not like it. So if you, with that knowledge, buy a ticket to see it anyway, then you're a complete idiot and deserve to be unhappy, since you should have known you were just wasting your money on something you would dislike, but you went ahead and did it anyway. So again, you're either a masochist or an idiot.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 6:15am

agreed, it's 2016. you can find out if a show is good or not on this little thing called the internet.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 6:41am

It's hard for me to feel too much empathy for people who spent a great deal of money for luxury entertainment without doing their homework.

In this day of review compiling websites, backstage interviews, YouTube clips and free online streams of cast albums there are ways to learn if a show is within your realm of interest before buying  a ticket.

If you dislike it and decide to leave, or stay, the long term consequences are small.

Updated On: 10/7/16 at 06:41 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 7:46am

All art requires risk. There's no guarantee that when you walk into a movie theater you're going to love the movie you select, regardless of how much research you've done. When you walk into Strand to buy a new book there's no promise of a refund if you aren't digging it by the halfway point. I don't get to call Directv and ask for a 25 cent credit on my bill because I didn't like this week's episode of Empire. 

Any ticket buyer must assume the inherent risks that come with frequenting live theater performances (or watching movies & tv shows or purchasing books). If a press quote on a new book promises that the text will make you laugh and cry does anyone feel empathy for someone who reads the book and doesn't laugh and/or cry? No one is being "taken" by this endorsement. It's one (possibly paid) person's opinion that is clearly being used to market the novel. It is by no means a guarantee from the author or publisher that you will laugh and/or cry- it's not even a guarantee that you will like the book at all.

   

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 8:48am

A trusting person seeks guidance on a show, so naturally--- and logically --- turns to the designated "experts" and "authorities" in the field: the critics and award givers. Then the person finds that these "experts" have unanimously proclaimed such-and-such to be one of the greatest masterpieces of all time, a judgment upheld by a truckload of prestigious awards. That constitutes research aplenty. Then the trusting person goes to the heralded opus in question and finds that it is so godawful, so unendurable, that he/she has to flee before it ends. That person has been taken alright --- taken and burned.

I empathize with that person and with all those who've been similarly ill-served. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 9:25am

After Eight said: "A trusting person seeks guidance on a show, so naturally--- and logically --- turns to the designated "experts" and "authorities" in the field: the critics and award givers. Then the person finds that these "experts" have unanimously proclaimed such-and-such to be one of the greatest masterpieces of all time, a judgment upheld by a truckload of prestigious awards. That constitutes research aplenty. Then the trusting person goes to the heralded opus in question and finds that it is so godawful, so unendurable, that he/she has to flee before it ends. That person has been taken alright --- taken and burned.

I empathize with that person and with all those who've been similarly ill-served. "

Once again proving you are nothing but a posturing troll. 

Why?

1. You have been preaching for years how much you despise the opinions of the very people you putatively continue to rely on. You only pay attention to their recommendations as a means of collecting fodder for your universally maligned ego-centric posturing. 

2. While one might be inclined to view the nonsense you spout here as the droppings of a crotchety old coot, it is not "harmless" because the idea -that one's own opinion is "right" -underlying it is anathema to any art form. As we have learned in other contexts, the bile of a person suffering from NPD is toxic.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 10:31am

^

Not to mention the persona of the posturing troll has not one shred of credibility.  Just a poorly-written one-dimensional character.  The comments are so ludicrous and moronic, there is no reason to believe they are anything more than the sadistic game-playing of an internet troll.  The persona may be unique to BWW, but the method is not.

[Oak2]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 11:39am

After Eight said: "A trusting person seeks guidance on a show, so naturally--- and logically --- turns to the designated "experts" and "authorities" in the field: the critics and award givers. Then the person finds that these "experts" have unanimously proclaimed such-and-such to be one of the greatest masterpieces of all time, a judgment upheld by a truckload of prestigious awards. That constitutes research aplenty. Then the trusting person goes to the heralded opus in question and finds that it is so godawful, so unendurable, that he/she has to flee before it ends. That person has been taken alright --- taken and burned.

I empathize with that person and with all those who've been similarly ill-served. 

 

"

No, that person has not been taken. What the critics and professionals say does not matter at all, because they have no way of knowing your own personal taste. The only person who knows that is yourself, and those who already know you. It's up to you to research the critics and what they tend to like, , find out that they tend to like stuff you dislike and dislike stuff you like, and realize that m eans you should not see stuff they recommend.

The natural and logical way to get advice on what show to watch is to ask people who know your own tastes, or to ask experts while letting them know what your tastes are, so they can better tailor their recommendations to you. To do what you suggest, and just base it off of people who you have no way of knowing whether their opinion matches your tastes, is complete idiocy. Reviews only matter once you get to know the reviewer enough to know whether they match your own tastes, and to get finer appreciation for other parts of it.

I have nothing against your personal taste - if you dislike those shows, fine. But again, it seems clear that you already know that your tastes go the absolute opposite of the critics and most media. So you should know, through basic logic, that if the critics love it, you will hate it, and vice versa. So you have no right to complain if you pay for a ticket anyway. That's your own fault for being an idiot.

However, I do take offense, as others do, with your assertion that your taste seems to be the end-all/be-all. It doesn't matter whether it's the view of the majority/critics, or of someone who disagrees with the fold, like you - all tastes and opinions in entertainment are valid. To have a taste that doesn't align with most critcis and professional opinions, or even with most people on this site, is fine, as long as one treats it as an opinion. (For example, I don't personally like a lot of the Sondheim works a lot of people love, like Sunday in the Park with George and Company). That doesn't mean I just outright say those works or bad, or that people are "tricked" into seeing it. They're just not my cup of tea, and as long as people respect that I don't personally enjoy those shows, things are fine. But to act like one particular taste is fact, no matter what it is, is evil. Your evil in trying to position your taste in art as fact, combined with your idiocy in paying for things you should logically know you will not like, show that you are both stupid and evil, and thus are dangerous. It sounds like it might be best to block you as well.
 

Updated On: 10/7/16 at 11:39 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/7/16 at 12:08pm

 

In this picture, the Phantom represents After Eight, and Christine represents this thread.

Updated On: 10/7/16 at 12:08 PM