Cock - Ambassadors Theatre

Grabbed £20 tickets that the theatremonkey seems to think are okay. Fingers crossed.

Considering a lot of commercial theatre producers have had little to no income in the 18 months, I think they're entitled to charge whatever they like for their productions because the alternative is no theatre at all.

I suspect there are different business models in play. This one is another smash-and-grab a la Amy Adams, etc; limited 14-week run, top names, notable play, etc - set some bottom line prices and let the dynamic algorithm do the rest.

It was never going to be priced like Macbeth as the Almeida is a subsidised venue and this is a commercial production. This sort of thing has been going on in commercial theatre for years and it's clear prices aren't going to come down anytime soon.

I just think theatre should be accessible to everyone no matter how well-off you are and the fact that the second price band jumps up to £55 is actually ridiculous, commercial theatre or not. The theatre is small enough as it is and to have a measly 30 or so £20 seats and nothing else for less rich people is pricing people out of what should be an artform for everyone. I'm not gonna blame the producers entirely because they're doing what they have to do to make back the costs (although I still feel like surely there was some kind of middle ground to squeeze another price band in between £20 and £55), I guess I'm just more mad at how we've gotten to the point where this is necessary.

Juicy
Surely the market will decide if it’s ridiculous or not? If it sells every ticket (which it will) will they be proven right? Surely commercial theatre doesn't have to be accessible to ‘everyone’ just like prime 30 day aged fillet steak isn’t, or SKY TV or fancy trainers-thats why we have subsidised theatre which tax payers pay for. And I guess you also understand that they could charge £39.50 for those £20 seats but chose to make them £20-basically subsidising those tickets themselves-at the expense of the authors, creative team, cast, theatre owner, investors and themselves in a clear effort to make it more accessible-every though they have no commercial reason to do so. It’s basically giving money away in a bid to be affordable for those that have £20 and no more.

The market will decide and I wouldn't be surprised if it decides this is over-priced, unless Taron Egerton is a bigger draw than I realise. Tickets for Amy Adams in one of the plays of the 20th century by one of the playwrights of the 20th century are hardly flying out the doors; this is Taron Egerton in a Mike Bartlett play at a similar pricing.

I think Jonathan Bailey may almost be a bigger draw to be honest. Bridgerton is a phenomenon, with a pretty hard core following and the second season may well be out around the same time as this, or even before. Pretty sure it was due to be Christmas but I know there have been covid delays.

Plus casting two of the hottest up and coming actors will attract the gay crowd too.

Likewise, there’s still tickets available for Henry V starring Kit Harington. Considering how small the Donmar is I’d have thought that would sell out almost immediately, but obviously not.

Game of Thrones legacy was pretty much destroyed by its final season, and Kit hasn't had the exposure since that Richard Madden has for example.

Star casting is interesting, just because someone is in a high profile show or movie doesn't always translate to people wanting to see them in person. I wouldn't say Amy Adams is as big a deal amongst the wider UK public that will drive people to fork out the cash to see her. If it had been Kate Winslet it would probably be a different story

I think when it comes to people "off the telly" (or movies), for many people it's just wanting to see them in the flesh once. I never liked Kit much in GoT, but wasn't sure whether it was him as an actor or the role. So I was very pleased to see him live on stage in Dr Faustus. But once I had seen him, I didn't feel much desire to see him again. I still went to see True West, because it was him AND Johnny Flynn (who I also like) - if it had been either of them with a partner I don't care for, I hadn't bothered. I definitely don't feel any need to see Kit once more though, especially not in a done-to-death Shakespeare.

Taron Egerton is a similar case, I've liked him in three very different movies (Eddie the Eagle, King's Men and Rocketman) and I am very keen on seeing him in the flesh on stage and am willing to shell out for it to a certain extent. He's definitely A-League enough for me to justify these prices and I think by making some seats available at £20, the producers have done enough to make it accessible.

I wouldn't overestimate the appeal of Bridgerton. Did it really appeal to anyone above woke Gen Z'ers? I hated it with a passion - and before you jump me, no, not for the colourblind casting, but for the rubbish trite predictable Mills & Boon plot. The only one of that lot who I could see shift tickets on stage would be Regé-Jean Page who also had the good sense to jump ship after the first season. But if we go with the premise that the show has plenty of fans who'd want to shell out to see Jonathan Bailey, then this adds even more to justifying the price. 

There are literally dozens of plays available all over London, many for very low prices and/or at steep discounts. If you don't want to spend a lot on one out of all those, then it's your decision. And the people who moan here about prices seem to be in the theatre virtually every week, so that adds up a lot, too. Personally, I often don't see a theatre from inside for two or three months, so I do have money available for the occasional treat like this or Cabaret from good seats. So that's my choice - rather see fewer carefully picked things for more money than gobble something every week.

This isn't meant to be judgy, btw, it's your choice, too, of course, but that's what I mean - it's about choices... see @kevin and Bonnie & Clyde, something you couldn't PAY me to sit through.