Jump to content


- - - - -

Travelex Trauma


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#1 Tootsie

Tootsie

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Lots of great theatre please!!<br />

Posted 15 February 2007 - 06:40 PM

Having read the news from the national today, I was wondering who of us out there would be willing to pay a tad more for the travelex season? Nick Hytner has said each ticket at 10 is actually worth 12. I certainly wouldn't mind paying that. The Travelex is a great season and extends the audience of the national in a massive way. What do you think?

#2 Guest_Skylight_*

Guest_Skylight_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2007 - 06:57 PM

Any chance you could provide a link to what you're talking about?

#3 Guest_Alex_*

Guest_Alex_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2007 - 07:14 PM

QUOTE(Skylight @ Feb 15 2007, 06:57 PM) View Post
Any chance you could provide a link to what you're talking about?


its in the new section

i would quite happily pay a bit more for what has been some excellent and interesting theatre over the years

#4 Guest_Skylight_*

Guest_Skylight_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2007 - 07:25 PM

Thanks.  I thought the OP was referring to the NT website so I was confused.

I think they could easily make the tickets 15 and it would still be a bargain.  If a few quid is cited as the reason for dropping Travelex altogether then that's pitiful.  

I don't agree that it brings a wider audience in though.  Sure they may come for one show but they don't come back when they see the regular prices.  The same thing happens when tickets are flogged for 5 on popbitch (Market Boy anyone).  People will give it a go once but the regular audience at the NT always has been and will no doubt continue to be way outside the "yoof" demographic.

#5 Ian

Ian

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarborough, North Yorkshire
  • Interests:Theatre, cats and photography principally.

Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:01 PM

I agree that 15 would still be a bargain for the National Theatre. Though I wouldn't mind if they downsized the cast a little and upped the quality - UN Inpspector for example - if this helped to balance the books. Often I feel at the National that there are too many "extras" and a live band which are not really necessary.
The engine roared, the motor hissed,
And who could see that the road would twist

#6 Guest_albert_*

Guest_albert_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:20 PM

QUOTE(Ian @ Feb 15 2007, 08:01 PM) View Post
I agree that 15 would still be a bargain for the National Theatre. Though I wouldn't mind if they downsized the cast a little and upped the quality - UN Inpspector for example - if this helped to balance the books. Often I feel at the National that there are too many "extras" and a live band which are not really necessary.


i totally agree. lots of numbers but not much depth. well some of the time anyway

#7 Tootsie

Tootsie

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Lots of great theatre please!!<br />

Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:57 PM

Sorry - I was aware I should have posted a link but am a bit of a techno rubbish person and was in a rush. Glad it got sorted and glad most people are up for paying more - it looks like we may have to!

#8 Jaybee

Jaybee

    Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:56 AM

I always like the live band. But over-staffing the cast is often a problem at the NT. It's a big stage, that Olivier though and perhaps they feel the need to fill it with actors.

I remember Trevor Nunn's "Streetcar" in the Lyttelton 3 or 4 years ago, had all these extras come on wheeling barrows of their wares etc and they couldn't even get round the front of the stage so had to turn around and leave again each time between scenes.  Looked crazy.

12 - yep. 15...? Not at the back of the circle for a dodgy production. Too much if it's meant to be an udience development initiative.

#9 Moose

Moose

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 16 February 2007 - 12:00 PM

Most of the time the "ensemble" are the understudies though, so they'd get paid anyway. Didn't need all the people in "The Man of Mode" though. Far too much walking and not enough play!

#10 cupcake

cupcake

    Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 February 2007 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE(Ian @ Feb 15 2007, 08:01 PM) View Post
I agree that 15 would still be a bargain for the National Theatre. Though I wouldn't mind if they downsized the cast a little and upped the quality - UN Inpspector for example - if this helped to balance the books. Often I feel at the National that there are too many "extras" and a live band which are not really necessary.


Couldn't agree with you more about the extras.. Esp about the UN Inspector.. Although I alway enjoy the live band- perhaps they could incorperate them on the stage a la RSC.. Therefore keeping cost down but still filling the stage....?

I agree with Jaybee that 15 would be too much to be sooo far away and for a show that might not tickle your fancy....  but 12 is fine.. just don't have an ice cream in the interval!     biggrin.gif







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users