re: Neverland and producer seat-filling theories

For the second time, I've seen a reference in the message thread re: weekly grosses to a theory (I'd call it a conspiracy theory) that the producers of Finding Neverland are somehow masking the actual non-success of their show by... (here's where I get fuzzy) buying the tickets themselves, and then, what?, giving them away for free?

I don't think the theorists are trying to claim that there aren't butts in all those seats (ask an usher or anyone in concessions about how full those houses are, and the 98.4% sold this past week will not sound to them like an exaggeration). So.. what exactly is the claim? That there's some percentage of the audience who got their tickets free from Harvey Weinstein? Every week for 18 weeks? And also... signed a non-disclosure form and pledged to never mention it to anyone who might share that interesting fact with anyone else?

And this scheme is being played out to what end? I have friends who were in town this past weekend, catching as many shows as they could. They looked into Neverland tickets (in advance, not at TKTS) and found the prices too prohibitive, so saw other shows instead. (I think TKTS is a different story; I've seen the show up on the board many times.) So the producers are filling up the house with non-paying people, only to prevent other people from actually paying for those seats?

When I hear what sounds like a conspiracy theory, I usually ask myself - why does someone need to believe there's an alternate explanation? Are some people so convinced (based on whatever criteria) that Neverland was doomed to flop, that they see $1.1 million in box office week after week and have to find some theory other than... the show is selling $1.1 million in tickets each week?

Or am I being too cynical? I admit to naivete (and ignorance) when it comes to the production side of theatre. Is it possible this theory holds water?

"Is it possible this theory holds water?"

No. You get it. Haters gonna hate and conspiracy theorists gonna theorize.

NM

Updated On: 7/21/15 at 02:10 AM

The show put me to sleep. I couldn't wait to get out of there. The stage magic at the end of act 2 was the only highlight. They should have saved it for a good show instead of wasting it in this one!

I was at the first preview and I had a wonderful time. I thought the show was beautiful, moving, and touching. Was it the best thing I have ever seen? Probably not. I was never bored at any point during the show.

"re "Weinstein's single minded mission"...

Now, poor Harvey is not only blamed for various and sundry producer shenanigans, but also credited with creating and staging the show! And poor Diane Paulus, who was paid all that money just to sit and take notes from Harvey.

Give me a free ticket and I am there .Free is free so nothing to lose.

I've been the booth countless times since spring, and it's always up. Sometimes at different discounts, but it's never impossible to get a reduced price ticket to this show. It does nicely, 8 times a week. Look for weeknights to be the big challenge to fill come fall. But the show doesn't need conspiratorial shenanigans: it's got a TV star, a title tethered to an iconic cultural archetype in its very design, and you can take kids. Aladdin isn't easy; and most families have done Lion King and that show about witches, the title of which escapes me. This isn't The Visit, why shouldn't it be doing well enough?

Updated On: 7/21/15 at 12:44 PM

Have you seen it Roxy?

it sometimes can be a surprise to some, that some people like a show and others do not, reNt to me is still one of the most over rated shows ever, the first act of Wicked is piss poor, and I thought Wolf Hall was the most thrilling day of theatre....Go figure,s ome don't agree and that's fine..But the one thing is, I have seen those shows on stage and not via a bootlegged copy!

"Rotten reviews and no Tony nods may be a few reasons"

I thought you don't pay attention to reviews and reviewers.

"It's almost an affront to some that Finding Neverland hasn't curled up and died. ... If it remains strong in the fall and winter months then some will have to admit that maybe audiences actually like the damn thing."

First of all, thank you to everyone who responded to my question! Elfuhbuh, Hogan and Skies particularly. I appreciate your insight and intuition. And Skies, your above quotes made me laugh.

And thanks, Augie27 for giving your TKTS perspective - your observations sound right to me - and also for the phrase "conspiratorial shenanigans" which I shall be using in the future.

And thanks, Mr. Roxy, for accidentally summing the whole thing up, by responding to Augie's question ("This isn't The Visit, why shouldn't it be doing well enough?") with this explanation: "Rotten reviews and no Tony nods may be a few reasons".

Mr. Roxy, you just held up the never-reliable argument that reviews and Tony nominations determine the box office success of Broadway shows... in response to a question that referenced The Visit. I think your argument just collapsed on itself as you were making it.