When Others Walk Out of a Show — Page 3

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.

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

edit: wrong thread

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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 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.

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