Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Variety: "Pretty much everyone in the New York theater community believes the $450 'Young Frankenstein' ticket was a producerial blunder. It turns out producer Robert F.X. Sillerman thinks so too."
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
After reading the facts outlined in the article, it was interesting to hear that those ridiculously high ticket prices were announced before the show went into previews. The show could have been a major flop, but they still were willing to put large ticket prices on the show just because of Mel Brooks' name. Another thing I don't think the producer took into account was that The Producers had two big Hollywood stars as the leads in the show, while Young Frankenstein does not have names as recognizable as Broderick & Lane.
I'm glad to see that Sillerman regrets the high price tag for Frankenstein. When I first heard the number, I thought it was a little insane, not to mention disheartening. For such a socially driven art form, to limit tickets to such only small percentage of the population that can afford them is just silly, and I was glad that the Times made it a talking point. But the airline ticket model is interesting, and it is good to see that a great number of tickets are available at more standard Broadway prices (even if those are a little bit ridiculous themselves).
In my eyes, you're reaching the wrong target audience when the public knows and hears more about the ticket prices then the show itself. The only main-stream criticism I have heard about this show is regarding the unreasonable amount of money, not about the acting or the effects. This ultimately allows producers to pin the blame directly on the attribute of the show that received the most amount of attention. A $100 step-up is just far too high to demand in a current economy where most citizens can't afford health insurance let alone nose-bleed seats.
When I frist heard of the price I thought it was due to the demand of tickets. Or that someone wanted the show to seem like such a big hit just like The Producers hoping to get that same effect. But I'm glad that they have decided to come out that the price tickets were a bad idea. I think it might put some slack on all the critism that the show has been getting. Even though half that critism is about the show itself along with the outragish price.
4 comments:
After reading the facts outlined in the article, it was interesting to hear that those ridiculously high ticket prices were announced before the show went into previews. The show could have been a major flop, but they still were willing to put large ticket prices on the show just because of Mel Brooks' name. Another thing I don't think the producer took into account was that The Producers had two big Hollywood stars as the leads in the show, while Young Frankenstein does not have names as recognizable as Broderick & Lane.
I'm glad to see that Sillerman regrets the high price tag for Frankenstein. When I first heard the number, I thought it was a little insane, not to mention disheartening. For such a socially driven art form, to limit tickets to such only small percentage of the population that can afford them is just silly, and I was glad that the Times made it a talking point. But the airline ticket model is interesting, and it is good to see that a great number of tickets are available at more standard Broadway prices (even if those are a little bit ridiculous themselves).
In my eyes, you're reaching the wrong target audience when the public knows and hears more about the ticket prices then the show itself. The only main-stream criticism I have heard about this show is regarding the unreasonable amount of money, not about the acting or the effects. This ultimately allows producers to pin the blame directly on the attribute of the show that received the most amount of attention. A $100 step-up is just far too high to demand in a current economy where most citizens can't afford health insurance let alone nose-bleed seats.
When I frist heard of the price I thought it was due to the demand of tickets. Or that someone wanted the show to seem like such a big hit just like The Producers hoping to get that same effect. But I'm glad that they have decided to come out that the price tickets were a bad idea. I think it might put some slack on all the critism that the show has been getting. Even though half that critism is about the show itself along with the outragish price.
Post a Comment