Young Frankenstein face price is $451 on weekends- Page 5

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:40pm

And also becuase this $100 higher than the highest premium price on Broadway (Jersey Boys).

[misschung]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:43pm

No, I dont think its set in stone - yet. I certainly don't mind sitting in the rear orchestra/front balcony myself, I just dont want to pay more than $100 to do so. But whatever

$120 is definitely not more than other premium seats (Company's premium seats are around $250, if I'm not mistaken).

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:46pm

No, the $451 seats are $100 higher than Jersey Boys' premium seats, which are currently the highest. I was saying that as a reason why people are slightly angry at this.

[uncageg]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:51pm

Just got off of the phone with a friend in NYC who is the head concierge at a hotel and he told me that brokers are now asking, and getting I assume, $650.00 per tivket for "Spring Awakening". I would assume these aren't part of the premium seating but that's still a lot. So yes, people will pay it if they have it. I do agree that it is ashame that the premium seating takes up a lot of the orchestra section. That just reeks of Mr. Brooks wanting to make as much money as he can. My friend says he gets a lot of premium seating for guests. All from out of town or overseas. It seems like a bit of a smack in the face for all of us who attend theatre on a regular basis. I had planned on seeing the show this November, but if I can't pay the regular price to sit in a good seat, I will not see it. But I guess that is the "business" in show business! Just my random thoughts!

[Weez]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:53pm

I feel I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread, but why stop now?

Did you actually get confirmation that it was Mel Brooks himself setting the prices? If so, then boo-hiss-to-Mel an' all that. If not, then let's give the Brooks-hating a rest. It'd make a nice change!

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:54pm

Well, Brooks is a producer, so it is possible he set the price.

[misschung]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 5:55pm

oh, sorry wizard - I totally misread what you wrote. WOW, Jersey Boys are 350? This is like the tickets for the Police this summer...

I remember going to Jingle Ball in 1997 with my best friend. Her dad got us 6th row seats, and being young and naive, I assumed they were like $250 or something. Wrong. They were probably more than $500 a piece. I mean they're loaded, but the point is that if people can, they'll buy them. It just wont be me, lol

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 6:49pm

Before I say anything, I want to say that the realistic and logical truths of this day in age for Broadway musicals is quite saddening for theatre lovers-- but, there is hope.

First of all, let's not entirely go out for blood with Mel Brooks. It's not ONLY Mel Brooks when it comes to the soaring price of tickets. The cost of putting on a show have really gone up; Actors' Equity along with the other labor unions continue to increase minimum salary requirements, and the value of commercial real estate space has brought the cost of running a theatre to new heights as well.

Now let's imagine that you're Megan, Sutton, Shuler, Andrea, etc... You're lucky enough to be cast in "Broadway's next HUGE hit." Why do you think it's going to be a hit? Well, because Producers was such a huge hit! Now come on guys, do you think ANYONE is giving Mel a price break here? I assure you, it's not so. Everyone looks at Mel and sees dollar signs, and EVERYONE is charging him a pretty penny, you can be certain. So, if HE has to pay a premium for what he wants, it's only fair that we should too.

The fact remains that it is not out of reason to pay $500 or even $1000 for a ticket you want if you have that kind of money. Perhaps many on this board don't have those funds or priorities, but a lot of people do. What I fear will happen is that shows will raise their prices up and up and up until they are over $1000 a ticket. What happens then? Well, fewer people can afford it, so they shows run less time, which saves the producers money. This is a way they can get fewer people in, spend less money running the show, and take the biggest profit. It's a question of efficiency, and, from the pure business standpoint, it's a great idea.

Now, I did say there was hope. The fact is, many true theatre lovers can't afford $500 for a ticket... but maybe can afford $100? $75? $50? You see, there will always be a place for people to spend the money they want to spend. If enough theatre goers find themselves in need of reasonably priced quality entertainment, I wouldn't be surprised if a whole "second tier" of Broadway came into the world, taking some steps back, financially, and being there for people who can't attend the mega hit $500 musical. I honestly think we're headed down that road-- but we'll see.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 6:53pm

And what if the show is as bad as THE PRODUCERS?

[misschung]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 6:55pm

good points, bway boi - and I love your avatar. I heart her

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 9:35pm

Isn't Mel rich enough???

Oh well. Here's hoping for a bootleg! :-/

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 9:53pm

"Lower ticket prices - I mean SERIOUSLY lower ticket prices (like 50-60 dollars) and people will be coming in DROVES to the theater."


That's actually one of the points on my nine-point plan for fixing West Side Story. Make it affordable, and families will come see it, thus creating a new generation of theatergoers. Spring Awakening should try that. How much could it cost to run?

[cooperross]

Posted: 6/23/07 at 10:43pm

I'm seeing it twice in Seattle as well..and seats in the first 5 rows center orchestra. And I paid less for both tickets than the cost for one of the premium seats.

[NYC4Life]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:11am

"And what if the show is as bad as THE PRODUCERS?"

It does not matter as long as people will still see it. I am willing to see it at $451 bc young frankenstein is a great film and the people involved in the show are great.

[ben4]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:40am

The problem with escalating ticket prices is that it eventually alienates the audience you were going for in the first place.

I personally don't anyone who's dumb enough to pay more for a Broadway show than they would for an airline ticket to London. And my personal feeling is that if you are willing to pay over 100 dollars a ticket on a regular basis to see any show... than you are in serious need of sorting out your priorities.

Go to the TKTS counter or rush. There are many options and if you still can't find an affordable ticket than just don't go. I really don't think I'll die if i don't see Young Frankenstein.

Brooks can charge whatever he likes, but I don't have to pay it and no sane person would.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 11:52am

I've been thinking a lot about $451 since this was originally posted the other day. I began reviewing in my head where that amount of money went in some of the things I did and purchased.

A couple of weeks ago I went to Le Bec Fin for dinner in Philadelphia. It's one of the best restaurants in the country, and one of the most expensive. If you've ever been there, you know it's quite an experience. Dinner takes about 3 hours, and there are only about 60 seats in what must be one of the most beautiful restaurant rooms in the world. Our 6 course dinner for four, with two bottles of wine and a cocktail came to $350 per person with tip.

I flew first class last year for a very special occasion. I never fly first class regularly. The flight was $2,300 round trip.

I buy a couple of custom suits every other year from Thomas James. They're between $600 and $800 each.

It suddenly hit me that although I was appalled by Young Frankenstein charging that kind of money for a theater ticket, I was guilty of spending far more than I needed for all sorts of things, and on a pretty regular basis.

And I'm not a super rich person. I would guess that the producers have done some solid research about the spending habits of full price ticket buyers, and learned that the threshold for prices was not an issue if there was considerable demand.

But then I thought about when I first started going to the theater. My first obsession was Sweeney Todd, and I bet I saw the original production a dozen times. An orchestra ticket was $15. If there had been premium tickets back then, and I had to pay $60, there's now way that I would have seen ST that many times.

For fun, I checked out an online inflation calculator, and found the $15 I paid in 1979 was the equivalent of $44 in 2006. Even a "regular" priced orchestra seat today is almost 3 times as expensive as my Sweeney Todd tickets were in the center orchestra on the aisle when factoring in inflation. The premium ticket is 9 times more expensive.

What's bad about all of this is that it prices lots of theater lovers out of a great experience in great seats. And it defines the socioeconomic demographic of the premium seating area to a pretty narrow range.

But the bigger question is the value of the experience. Will Young Frankenstein be on the same level as my once in a blue moon dinner at Le Bec Fin, or having endless leg room and privacy on a first class flight, or being fitted for perfect suits that I wear for years?

That's the issue for me. Short of being the most transformational theater experience of my life, there's no way, even with my other spending excesses, that I will pay $451 to see Frankenstein sing Puttin' on the Ritz.

OK, I'm finished. And yes, I've had way too much coffee this morning!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 12:13pm

Make it affordable, and families will come see it, thus creating a new generation of theatergoers. Spring Awakening should try that. How much could it cost to run?

For the record, a premium ticket to SPRING AWAKENING is $176.50. That is THE most expensive ticket in the house, while a regular full price ticket is $111.50. In terms of what FRANKENSTEIN ($451.50) and JERSEY BOYS ($351.50) are charging, I don't think anyone can be giving SPRING AWAKENING a hard time.

And my personal feeling is that if you are willing to pay over 100 dollars a ticket on a regular basis to see any show... than you are in serious need of sorting out your priorities.

Again, you're assuming $100 means the same thing to every person. Every single person does not have the same income. $100 to one person could be like $5 to another. Money is relative.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 12:47pm

And my personal feeling is that if you are willing to pay over 100 dollars a ticket on a regular basis to see any show... than you are in serious need of sorting out your priorities.

ExCUSE me? I'm sorry, would you rather I take up smoking, drinking, or drugs instead? I LIKE going to the theatre, and if I want to pay £50 or so for a really good seat for a show I'm very keen on, that's my prerogative. It's not like I'll ever spend so much on theatre tickets I won't be able to afford rent or bills (thanks to standing orders) or food (thanks to my self-preservation instincts) so uh... stfu pls. ^_^

Updated On: 6/24/07 at 12:47 PM

[dented146]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 12:54pm

The shows producers will always charge what they can get. Jersey Boys did not establish premium seating until it had won the Tony and was so wildly popular that the scalpers were making the big bucks.

Many visitors to your city are happy and eager to pay the premium price in order to get seats relatively last minute. No one from out of town makes reservations to see Wicked or JB six months in advance. Word of mouth drives the purchase of seats costing $400.

If Young Frankenstein is fantastic than it should be Brooks (as greedy as it sounds) who should get the money. If Young Frankenstein isn't great, people will just pick another show and the $451 price will become moot. As I see it, the only real negative is that it establishes a level for the next mega hit and even then it could be argued that it's really the scalpers who set the premium seat price.

[NYC4Life]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:02pm

"if you are willing to pay over 100 dollars a ticket on a regular basis to see any show... than you are in serious need of sorting out your priorities."

I want to see it and I have the money to do it so why do I need to sort out priorities? everyone has little things they want to pay a lot for. I pay money for sports tickets too.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:11pm

Premium seating isnt that big a thing in the UK- yet- im sure! How does it work?

[keen on kean]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:12pm

My Met Opera subscription is $215 per seat. But I generally feel I am getting my money's worth. I am more frequently disappointed to spend $11 for a movie seat and not get much for it.

[dented146]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:13pm

How much does it cost to attend a Yankees game? And how many average Joe and Janes go the ten or twenty or more games during a season. It truly is a matter of priorities. And the Yanks don't exactly do student rush.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:20pm

Basically, a section of the orchestra - and mezzanine? - (that's stalls and circle ) is set aside to be sold for inflated prices. Pretty simple. Because the prices are inflated, they don't sell as quickly as normal seats, so if you're after seeing 'Wicked' in New York in a hurry and cost isn't an issue, you may be lucky enough to get a premium seat when the rest of the theatre is sold out (and the lotto is SWAMPED). They're not great for regular theatre-going though, unless you're Donald Trump or equally rich. ^_^

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 1:25pm

I know that Sadlers Wells does/did premium seating as did the Theatre Royal in Bath at some time. Its just a thing that, thankfully the UK theatre hasnt taken up. As you say i guess if moneys not an object then get your wallet out, though i wish i was in that leauge.