| re: but did they say why? It's not always that the show wasn't allowed/invited | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:04 pm EDT 06/07/24 | |
| In reply to: re: but did they say why? It's not always that the show wasn't allowed/invited - jjbkvm 12:07 pm EDT 06/07/24 | |
|
|
|
| Ha, I'm not sure that they are required to pay any week's salary negotiated over minimum... I think there are 2 reasons they didn't have Bette perform... 1) to not "give it away", to encourage more to buy, 2) to not risk it seeming less than everything-you've-heard-and-hoped-she'd be... Both are absolutely foolish and I think it's sad and embarrassing that they robbed millions of people from seeing a piece of her performance who'd never have been able to get to nyc to see it, or pay for it, regardless of "giving it away"... and robbing posterity from a professionally produced piece of her performance. Just terrible producing, and terrible marketing, unreasonable for people in the present and inconsiderate of people in the future. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: but did they say why? It's not always that the show wasn't allowed/invited - jjbkvm 12:07 pm EDT 06/07/24 |
| Next: | re: but did they say why? It's not always that the show wasn't allowed/invited - OriginalTopherP 07:25 pm EDT 06/07/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.055464 seconds.