Seano Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 My biggest critiscism would be with the producers who lack the imagination to find a script which is not based on a film which was based on a comic.So, does this seem a bit more like it then? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seedage Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 If anything, I would have expected the majority of Blue Roomers to be commiserating with the Tech Problems. It's productions like this that take the risks on new and unproven technology that ultimately pay the way to make it available to the rest of us. What is new, high tech, and currently a bit unreliable is going to metamorphose via a few design revisions into equipment that will, in 5 or 10 years time or so, most likely be affordable and available to Am Drams with budgets and lower end Theatre. Not just the big-boys (and girls). As with all such ventures (Chitty, Mary Poppins, etc) the first few nights are always a pain, and with a preview, if it can go wrong, it generally will. The overwhelming tone I sense in this thread is one of some glee that things have gone wrong. Surely we should be commiserating with our brothers in arms across the pond on a bad preview and hoping that they can get things sorted, and that the show doesn't close and they get to keep their jobs. Maybe eventually, it will transfer to the West End, then embark on a World Tour that will potentially give some of the Blue Roomers some work... Just a thought... Cheers Smiffy Amen to all that Mr S.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightsource Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Amen to all that Mr S.. But would you have the same attitide when in discussion about the technical problems with the people who provided the $65M Dollars to stage the show? I'm sure the people who financed this show, would be a little 'pi55ed off,' What is new, high tech, and currently a bit unreliable is going to metamorphose via a few design revisions into equipment that will, in 5 or 10 years time or so, most likely be affordable and available to Am Drams with budgets and lower end Theatre. Not just the big-boys (and girls). At who's expense? the producers of this show? I'm sure they will be comforted by the fact their millions will provide affordable technology to Am Drams in the next decade. This was a big budget show, and people fu**ed up. Not that I can ever see it getting it's money back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 This was a big budget show, and people fu**ed up. But, to repeat what people are saying above, this was a preview, and that is one of the things that previews are for. I agree that it seems that they weren't really ready for the preview (I did hear that they hadn't had a dress rehearsal before) but it still shouldn't be expected to be a perfect, complete show. I haven't heard anything about the previews since, I assume it still isn't perfect, but it would in interesting to know if they can now do the whole thing without stopping! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Lightsource. You don't honestly think the investors in the show went into this without an idea of what it was going to cost them and how challenging the technical aspects were going to be did you? It was a preview, and hitherto quite well behaved bits of kit decided that as there was an audience in, they were not going to work. From the lighting programmer via twitter Preview #2 was a huge improvement. Cast and Crew are working their butts off. so I would imagine things are well on their way to being solved. I'm in no doubt that the investors would be a bit narked about things, but then that wasn't what I was saying in my post was it? I can't see the show ever paying for itself either, but as it stands, it's going to be getting people into the Theatre that wouldn't normally necessarily go, it's developed technologies that will filter out to the rest of us, and most importantly it's kept a lot of people in work, and given rental companies revenue. It's bad news that there were issues, but to suggest that I wouldn't be concerned by the issues if I was the guy that had to explain it all to the investors is madness. It's not what I said in my post, and it's not even the subject of my post. You're putting words in my mouth. Cheers Smiffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 It's interesting that.... a) people are speculating based on reports in the Media, and we all know how reliable they are and... b) who was it said there is no such thing as bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 According to the BBC they've taken one million dollars in tickets since the first preview, so I concur with Brian's b) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 According to the theatre's web site they have "just over 1932" seats (that'll be 1933 then?) The seat prices seem to range from $76 to $289. Taking an average of $150 that's about 225 full houses to recoup the $65M. Far from impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackerr Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 According to the theatre's web site they have "just over 1932" seats (that'll be 1933 then?) The seat prices seem to range from $76 to $289. Taking an average of $150 that's about 225 full houses to recoup the $65M. Far from impossible. As long as you don't count the $1,000,000 per week in operating costs. Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 But look on the bright side. A decent proportion of that 65 million dollars was/is spent on technician folk and technician gear; in hires, R&D, buys for props etc etc, consumables and of course salaries. Perhaps it is best to think of it as 65 million dollars that got distributed...to some deserving folk who then redistributed it further. The 225 perfs needed to break even is a fairish estimate but because of ongoing outgoings it won't be quite so quick to recoup the investment. And anyway, if you could afford to put big bucks into the deal in the first place then I have no doubt you have an accountant matey who will offset some of your "loss" against tax. Who knows but maybe it was designed to be a loss, ** laughs out loud **. There again, it could turn out to be another "Springtime for Hitler"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 There again, it could turn out to be another "Springtime for Hitler"...DAMN YOU!!!!!!!!!! I now have THAT song spinning through my mind!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerJonny Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 According to the theatre's web site they have "just over 1932" seats (that'll be 1933 then?) The seat prices seem to range from $76 to $289. Taking an average of $150 that's about 225 full houses to recoup the $65M. Far from impossible. As long as you don't count the $1,000,000 per week in operating costs. Mac A bit of further maths, taking into consideration the running costs, shows they will break even if they have roughly a years' worth of Full Houses. Taken from an 8 show week, not taking into account holidays, breaks ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I've fixed the subtitle, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightsource Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Lightsource. You don't honestly think the investors in the show went into this without an idea of what it was going to cost them and how challenging the technical aspects were going to be did you? Eerm, The shipping companies who's insurers (Lloyds) are paying Somali Pirates.The Space Shuttles who killed their Astronauts through human error, that was well known, argued, due to financial pressures, rather than safety interests. The various stage collapses that have killed / injured prople over the year Define 'preview' from an investors point of view who have invested millions ......Please include all the small print But look on the bright side. A decent proportion of that 65 million dollars was/is spent on technician folk and technician gear; in hires, R&D, buys for props etc etc, consumables and of course salaries. Perhaps it is best to think of it as 65 million dollars that got distributed...to some deserving folk who then redistributed it further. But there's the point.... take what you can get, and who cares how it's spent? There's something seriously wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiLL Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 According to the theatre's web site they have "just over 1932" seats (that'll be 1933 then?) The seat prices seem to range from $76 to $289. Taking an average of $150 that's about 225 full houses to recoup the $65M. Far from impossible. Just my luck would be to buy a ticket and be the guy in that half-seat (ticket number 1932.5), stuck behind a pillar, with a followspot hanging over my head, probably beng hit by falling wires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.