a question for those who felt mistreated at a HAIRSPRAY screening- Page 3

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:30pm

re: "it about New Line's PR"

so... what difference does New Line's PR mean to anyone except individual and Wall Street investors. do you see a film because it was distributed by New Line, or because you want to see what's on the screen?

and trust me, Wall Street is DELIGHTED that people are pissed off because they waited in line and didn't get in.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:33pm

If you want to see the movie, see the movie. So you got screwed over by the corporate world? Well, boo-hoo.

Just see the damn movie if you want to. You obviously do if you tried going to an advanced screening.

By the way, I can say that a movie theatre can only do what they are told. Telling THAT many people to bugger off because their passes won't work is not easy. And, trust me, no theatre manager gets satisfaction out of turning people away. It means more bad than good will come of it.

P.S. I am glad Shaiman cares. Updated On: 7/17/07 at 02:33 PM

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:34pm

Case in point:

"Just ask Isaah Washington if that's true, and I'm sure he'll disagree. While his antics where not the fault of Grey's Anatomy, it didn't increase ratings. On the contrary, they got worse. "

I've never heard of Isaah Washington, and I've never watched Grey's Anatomy... but now that you've mentioned both, I might google Washington and even watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy to see what the fuss you're talking about is all about...

(and by the way: was this recent? isn't the show in reruns? are the ratings supposed to go up during the summer?)

[DrTheatre]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:36pm

I waited in line since 9am that morning. All I ask for is better communication. As I said before, I think people would have been more calm and understanding if they had tackled the issue right away. Simple-as-that.

In regards to your question Marc, I think that if there are future screening, whether it will be HAIRSPRAY or other movies that will mostly likely be popular, everyone at NLC and or the theaters, should do their research. Make sure you know who is coming and who is invited to the screening. If the EVITES were and were always never vaild, then AMC staff or NLC should have told us that and send us on our way.

oh yeah and the "First-come, First-serve" does not even work in this situation, since I was third in line with the EVITE pass, and I still did not get in to see the movie. When I got into the theater, there was still another 100 people inside still looking for seats. That is what pissed me off.


Just better management is all I ask for.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:40pm

Perhaps first come , first serve was restricted to people with the e-vite passes only. Meaning, those people with those passes would be let in in the order they arrived. But priority was given to other people.

Capitalism is a pain in the ass when it comes to freebies, isn't it?

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:48pm

LOL

the LAST thing you want if you're releasing what you hope will be a 'summer blockbuster' feature film is a 'calm and understanding' audience waiting in line.

this might be the case if you're releasing an intimate, low budget independent feature and someone ACTUALLY MAKES A MISTAKE and upsets people who brought Harper's magazine to read while waiting on line. But you all seem to be under the impression that film distributors have never thought about what the damage to Frank Campbell's did for the grosses on the Valentino flicks they re-released. (And do you think Campbell's was all that upset in the long run either?)

[Ftworthguy]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 2:49pm

Marc --

You totally ROCK!!! Thanks for caring. I was at the Dallas screening, watited about 90 minutes. Some of the people in line were ABSOLUTE morons!!! They were complaining about not getting in and spending $10 on dinner. The AMC management was kind enough to offer free passes to everyone (which they didn't need to do) and people were trying to get more than he offered (saying they were with a party of 4, when there was only 2, crap like that.)

I was MORTIFIED at the behavior of some of the patrons. The pass CLEARLY said limited seating, blah blah blah. So you didn't get in and have to wait 4 days, it was disappointing, but not catostrophic.

I wish that it would have been added to the evite passes that it was seating AFTER the invited guests, but no big deal.

Thanks for asking though Marc. I'll be seeing it Friday for the first of many viewings, I'm sure!

Take care.

[ChicagoPLAYer]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:00pm

Marc, you are a real class act. Thanks for posting your concern.

I was one of the VERY few people with the internet Evite who got in to see it in Chicago last night. I was very grateful to get a sneak preview of the film.

I LOVED it! It surpassed my expectations and thought it was a great, fun experience. The performances were incredible and I loved the new material and orchestrations. The audience was smiling and tapping their feet the entire time. Congrats, Marc.

I was excited to see the free preview, but I will also be taking people to see the film this weekend when it opens.

[benjaminthemusical]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:01pm

Let me tell you what happened to me in D.C
My mother and I got to the AMC Theater at 5pm for the 7:30 screening we were maybe about the 50th people in line.
at 6:20 some man announced that people with black and white card board tickets got to go in first and people with e-mail tickets would have to wait till all the other "tickets" got in. That cause an uproar, when the line started moving the man who had made the first comment about the tickets starts letting people with out any tickets in ahead of everyone else with tickets, it basically became a free for all with the random man who said he was from Alli(sp) just started letting who he felt like in. After they told everyone to leave two woman came up with a little girl who didn't have ticket and who had not been waiting and asked to go in and he let them! That was the point I yelled " THATS HORSE CRAP!" and the rent-a-cop started yelling at me and I started yelling back...LOOOONG Story short the Alli man let us in and told us what had happened, that three different promoters had all been told they were the only one who had that theater so 900 people had ticket to a 300 seat theater.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:01pm

"I've never heard of Isaah Washington, and I've never watched Grey's Anatomy..."

He was FIRED because of all the publicity he brought to Grey's Anatomy...and none of it was good. In fact, new viewers from the controversy didn't come close to the number of people who were fleeing the show, so the point you're trying to make is moot. And bad publicity can harm anything, even movies.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:06pm

PR isn't just about investors, it's about the public, too. A lot of the people who were not let into the screening are, as you see, not happy. They are telling others about it, too. Bad PR. If the media does do stories about this, it will get even worse. There are many people who would boycott a movie just because of how the company treated people. I'm not saying that it's a good move, but it's realistic to expect it.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:07pm

"I was MORTIFIED at the behavior of some of the patrons. The pass CLEARLY said limited seating, blah blah blah. So you didn't get in and have to wait 4 days, it was disappointing, but not catostrophic."

Have you read the threads? People went in with the understanding that at least some of the "evite" people would get in, hence why people were up at 9 am waiting in line. I don't remember hearing anything about people with "special black Sebastian passes" already being invited, thus already filling up all the seats. Not to mention, at some locations (not all) ALL THE EVITE PASSES WERE DEEMED INVALID - the "first come, first serve" issue isn't in effect here.

Would it have been so difficult to mention that this was going to be a private pre-screening for people who worked at salons? No, there was no mention of it.

This whole thing is a rigged PR stunt. In order to build hype to make this movie seem way more popular than it is (don't take that in a negative way), someone scammed people into believing that these evite passes would actually work for a select few people (when in fact in some places they were all invalid).

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:14pm

Yes, it is the worst PR one could hope for. I considered going to see it, since it was free and we got to get an idea of how well it was done. I liked the original version very much. I planned on seeing it up where I live on Saturday but now, I won't.

It is just so easy to print out a sign that informs people that it was a hoax or mistake. People expect things to go wrong. Performances get canceled for all types of reasons.

Just knowing that so many people who really wanted to see this Movie were treated so poorly and by New Line? Kudos for the Theaters who gave out passes. I'll make it to the Metro in SF this Summer but to see another Movie. Any Movie but this one.

I am very sorry Marc. Maybe you should contact the Company that issued those passes and email free passes to those who stood in line for hours, honoring their agreement? At least those people were steadfast in trying to see your Movie. It is as easy as it was the first time, to issue new passes, the same as they did the old ones.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:20pm

Whoever said they won't be buying Sebastian products is being very ridiculous. The Sebastian company had NOTHING to do with the screening. They were merely invited. It just doesn't make sense to boycott them for something that wasn't their fault. Why punish them because you are a sore loser?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:23pm

"I dont care for char-donnay."

If the dirty minded brains behind BWW would let us spell the word correctly, you might like it.

And if Marc serves you char-donnay, you should drink it and be happy. After all, he's doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:23pm

I was the one who mentioned the Sebastian products. I realize it wasn't their fault, but also, their attitude at the very beginning was horrible.

And no, I'm not a sore loser.

Updated On: 7/17/07 at 03:23 PM

[Anakela]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:28pm

If the dirty minded brains behind BWW would let us spell the word correctly, you might like it.

I *just* got why you have to spell it like that- hee.

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 3:30pm

re: "In fact, new viewers from the controversy didn't come close to the number of people who were fleeing the show, so the point you're trying to make is moot."

i would like you to prove this point by providing nielsen and arbitron numbers, please.

also, you neglected to answer the questions about when this incident happened, and if it happened within the last couple of months, whether or not ratings are expected to go up during summer re-runs.

has grey's anatomy been cancelled? and what would the dude's firing have to do with that? was he carrying the program? and if his comments upset a core audience, does or does not the act of removing him show that core audience that the producers of the program are concerned with their sensibilities?

wouldn't it stand to reason that abc would have to wait until after new programming without him was aired to determine whether or not anything really changed?

also, does this isolated incident in the domain called 'publicity' disprove the rule? (which is admittedly flexible, more of a generality... and you'd be nit-picking to think otherwise). is there something axiomatic about the poor behavior of this particular actor and the general effect 'bad' publicity has on the performance of all television programming, or all actors' careers?

and if you are going to continue this dialogue, please try to differentiate between 'publicity,' 'alienating one's core audience' and 'sheer stupidity.'

ADDISON
What do you take me for?

EVE
(cautiously)
I don't know what I take you for
anything...

ADDISON
(moving away)
It is possible - even conceivable -
that you've confused me with that
gang of backward children you've
been playing tricks on - that you
have the same contempt for me that
you have for them?

EVE
I'm sure you mean something by that,
Addison, but I don't know what...

ADDISON
Look closely, Eve, it's time you
did. I am Addison deWitt. I'm nobody's
fool. Least of all - yours.

EVE
I never intended you to be.

ADDISON
Yes, you did. You still do.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 4:13pm

"i would like you to prove this point by providing nielsen and arbitron numbers, please."

Do it yourself. It was in practically every article about the controversy that ratings were declining significantly.

"also, you neglected to answer the questions about when this incident happened, and if it happened within the last couple of months, whether or not ratings are expected to go up during summer re-runs."

I thought you were going to do it yourself? Weren't you going to do a Google search? Well, fyi, the initial incident, him referring to castmate T.R. Knight as a F****t, occured earlier in the season, and climaxed at the Golden Globes in January when he used the word again AT the Golden Globes. As such, the show, Washington and ABC tried damage control, but Washington, already known as a volatile personality, just did not know when to stay quiet. After careful deliberations, they fired him last month...and he once again lashed out, blaming his costar (who did nothing), the media, racism, sponsors...i.e., everyone but himself.

"has grey's anatomy been cancelled? and what would the dude's firing have to do with that?"

The show was not cancelled.

" was he carrying the program? and if his comments upset a core audience, does or does not the act of removing him show that core audience that the producers of the program are concerned with their sensibilities?"

No, but he was an extremely popular character. And the fact is, the show couldn't be discussed without mention of the incident with Washington, which is bad publicity, any way you look at it.

"wouldn't it stand to reason that abc would have to wait until after new programming without him was aired to determine whether or not anything really changed?"

If the only thing people associate with the show is the negative publicty, which certainly contributed to its lower ratings, then a SMART person would attempt to fix it. He was asked to make a public apology and he voluntarily sought counseling, none of which changed the public perception of him.

"also, does this isolated incident in the domain called 'publicity' disprove the rule? (which is admittedly flexible, more of a generality... and you'd be nit-picking to think otherwise)."

I was responding to your comment that even bad publicity is good publicity. For Isaah Washington, bad publicity got him fired from his show, on which he was a popular character, so clearly your statement is false. Whether or not it's good for the show remains to be seen, but I was talking about Washington himself. Whether it has ruined his career remains to be seen.

" is there something axiomatic about the poor behavior of this particular actor and the general effect 'bad' publicity has on the performance of all television programming, or all actors' careers? "

You need to stop generalizing. When you actually graduate high school and learn about the real world, maybe you'll see things as they are as opposed to assigning text-book criteria to the world.

"and if you are going to continue this dialogue, please try to differentiate between 'publicity,' 'alienating one's core audience' and 'sheer stupidity.'"

You're just being stupid. Publicity is anything by way of the media in exposing your show or personality. None of your "terms" is exclusionary. His actions were repeatedly published in the press and online, and therefore turned MANY people off of the show. His actions created publicity...BAD publicity. It wasn't good for the network, creator, sponsors and actors, who found themselves always on the defensive.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 4:25pm

>> This whole thing is a rigged PR stunt.

More likely, it was a screw up between two different departments within PR, folks who inadvertantly planned two events at the same theatre on the same day and didnt realize it until too late.

Maybe we should find the parties responsible and string them up in Times Square for all the grief they've caused.

(That's a joke, BTW)

[JRybka]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 4:58pm

I still cannot believe that people are complaining about this -- And Benjamininthemusical... How could you have gotten there at 5pm and been behind me when i got there at 600pm and I was about 50 people back. I was near the Rush Hour 3 poster.

I said it once and I said it again...

It is free. I understand being a little upset but there are much more important things to worry about..

...by the way, Marc-- Loved the Cameo! You rock! And I did love the movie.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 5:05pm

If you can think of a realistic way that New Line or Evite could "make it up" to you, write it here, and I will CERTAINLY pass it along.

Would "re-shoot all of Travolta's scenes with Harvey!" be "realistic"?

[JRybka]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 5:13pm

Ha! Ha! I think Marc and his lovely partner should come to Washington, Dc to my house and have the whole cast of Hairspray come and do a private performce for ME. And my friends.

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 6:40pm

fosse76, you are missing the point royally -- you think that publicity is something with an objective endpoint based on its initial impact, that once a certain effect has attained to the object of an particular comment, situation, scandal, whatever, that that's where it ends. gee... cyanide in the tylenol was a disastrous bit of publicity for J&J, wasn't it? why NO, it wasn't! in the long run, the handling of 'bad' publicity assured that 'tylenol' is not only synonymous with 'acetaminophen,' but the more commonly known term for the substance.

james joyce was a writer of 'dirty' books, wasn't he? and that hussy elizabeth taylor should never have recovered her reputation after stealing poor debbie reynolds' husband away... you're arguing on the side of the prodigal son's lesser known brother here.

now, when it comes to experience, ask yourself this question: are you winning something, or am i turning your scandal into my own little form of publicity? what makes you think that because i say i'm going to google this guy washington, i'm doing it because i'm engaging your (minor) argument? maybe i'm more interested in the bigger picture, which happens to be, "schlozinski!" who gives a rat's behind about 'grey's anatomy?'

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 7/17/07 at 6:55pm

and oh, by the way... in case you're looking for more grist to throw on my mill, recall that this started with a comment about a brilliant original thought i had, i.e., that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity.'

funny isn't it, how you've been arguing against that notion as though it WERE my own, original thought?

Updated On: 7/17/07 at 06:55 PM