4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 17, 2017 8:44:27 GMT
Just search "[name of play] ntlive download" and have a search, you'll see clear evidence of wrong-doing. (Pick your play wisely though, something like - oh, just snatching a 100% random example out of the air - Coriolanus is going to be much more evident than something like The Magistrate. It'll forever be a mystery as to why though.) Ahem. You may also want to be aware that some versions of that inexplicably popular Shakespeare play have english subtitles, and some are very large file sizes indeed. Apparently for some reason fans of that particular play are willing to set it to download overnight to get the very best quality picture.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 17, 2017 12:58:28 GMT
Regarding this particular conversation, moderators may find it useful to delete it once people have the necessary details. Discretion/valour and all that...
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 17, 2017 13:03:21 GMT
Regarding this particular conversation, moderators may find it useful to delete it once people have the necessary details. Discretion/valour and all that... Yes, absolutely. And if anyone/mods would rather anything I might've contributed to this particular discussion not be shared on this forum, please feel free to delete/remove, no questions asked from me!
|
|
748 posts
|
NT Live
Aug 18, 2017 12:21:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 18, 2017 12:21:52 GMT
Angels were uploaded to YT (yes, the entire thing!) and the were taken down only 5 days after.
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Aug 18, 2017 13:03:08 GMT
I have a list of links to most of them (even The Magistrate) but I guess I can't share it on here as it's a bit illegal which is a shame really. The way I look at it is these plays aren't on anymore and there's no other way of watching them so why shouldn't we share art with the people who are so dedicated to it that they spend their spare times on forums like this! I know lawyers have a different take
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 18, 2017 13:42:08 GMT
Have to agree. I'm not being ungreatful or anything but maybe NT should consider realising their past productions (sorting out rights shouldn't be a problem - The Globe does that so as RSC) in X years time.. i know it for a fact that I'll want to rewatch Angels, Frankenstein, Magistrate, Othello, Beaux', etc. in 10 years time and i live too bloody far from NT Archive to afford a trip just for that matter (and frankly speaking, when i'm in London, I would love to see live theatre anyway). I'm not going to watch this illigal stuff at home INSTEAD of going to NT Live screening, that's clear, but i see nothing criminal in having an officially licensed DVD in my collection after all Encore screening end. I also presume NT coild earn a helluva money through that and considering they talk a lot about being under-funded this could be a smart move. Just my opinion though.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2017 13:54:15 GMT
(sorting out rights shouldn't be a problem - The Globe does that so as RSC) Is it an issue with living / dead writers?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 14:11:52 GMT
From what I've heard in various interviews/Platforms, actors/directors aren't keen on NT Live being turned into DVDs because theatre doesn't translate well to screen; the theory being that watching a live transmission in a cinema is an event - it's not the same as being in the theatre but it's a good facsimile in a way that watching a DVD on your telly at home never can be. Which I get - I've bought DVDs of plays I really loved when they became available but then I never watch them because they don't work in that format, and it starts to make me wonder whether the production was as good as I remember. The transitory nature of theatre is one of its charms - it's there, it's gone and then it lives on in the memory. But I know that I'm lucky to live somewhere with access to a wide range of theatre - I might not find it so charming if it was hard for me to get to the NT, RSC, etc.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2017 14:25:50 GMT
I'm lucky to live somewhere with access to a wide range of theatre I don't, and it's even more of an issue for those with mobility or disability issues like my Mum, carers or those with young children - and anyone else who doesn't live near a city. A lot of friends who are aware of NT live but find it too expensive or have children are delighted by the BBC broadcast of Hamlet news. We all pay for London's theatre subsidies - London gets the lion's share of arts funding - and it seems only fair that they should therefore make productions as widely available as possible. Releasing a production on DVD some months after the end of the run isn't likely to impact theatre ticket sales and will allow those who for whatever reason don't find theatre physically accessible to enjoy it.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 18, 2017 14:43:59 GMT
(sorting out rights shouldn't be a problem - The Globe does that so as RSC) Is it an issue with living / dead writers? Frankly, I think it's just a rather lousy official excuse they talk about to make the whole "NTLive to DVD conversation" die out. Nobody bothered about right when they released 50th Anniversary Celebration. I talked about it personally to Daniel Rosenthal (was lucky to catch him in Moscow last summer) and he expressed an opinion very similair to what @abby was saying. That these filmed versions are designed for a big screen and sitting in the dark with the audience sharing the same experience, they should be seen as an event, etc. I can totally relate to that but then again.. it's accessibility in question.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 18, 2017 15:18:43 GMT
From what I've heard in various interviews/Platforms, actors/directors aren't keen on NT Live being turned into DVDs because theatre doesn't translate well to screen; the theory being that watching a live transmission in a cinema is an event - it's not the same as being in the theatre but it's a good facsimile in a way that watching a DVD on your telly at home never can be. Which I get - I've bought DVDs of plays I really loved when they became available but then I never watch them because they don't work in that format, and it starts to make me wonder whether the production was as good as I remember. The transitory nature of theatre is one of its charms - it's there, it's gone and then it lives on in the memory. But I know that I'm lucky to live somewhere with access to a wide range of theatre - I might not find it so charming if it was hard for me to get to the NT, RSC, etc. Yes, having *ahem* acquired a copy of the Coriolanus broadcast, I then found I couldn't actually bear to sit and watch it on a 15 inch laptop screen. It just didn't have the same immersive effect and I couldn't concentrate on it at all (probably the subtitles didn't help with that). And I say that as someone who has managed to watch archive recordings at the NT and V&A before. It's something to do with watching it at home - it's inherently distracting.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 18, 2017 15:37:15 GMT
Interesting. I watched a couple of Digital Theatre recording on my laptop - didn't find it much harder to concentrate on than with a regular film/TV show (just for the record: when I watch anything I do not tweet/chat/play guitar/cook/etc at the same time and like to have my lights switched off as well)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 15:51:21 GMT
I'm lucky to live somewhere with access to a wide range of theatre I don't, and it's even more of an issue for those with mobility or disability issues like my Mum, carers or those with young children - and anyone else who doesn't live near a city. A lot of friends who are aware of NT live but find it too expensive or have children are delighted by the BBC broadcast of Hamlet news. We all pay for London's theatre subsidies - London gets the lion's share of arts funding - and it seems only fair that they should therefore make productions as widely available as possible. Releasing a production on DVD some months after the end of the run isn't likely to impact theatre ticket sales and will allow those who for whatever reason don't find theatre physically accessible to enjoy it. Totally take your point; sometimes I think it's only theatregoing that keeps me paying a fortune for a tiny flat in London - I have dreams of working part time somewhere cheaper and getting off the treadmill... But to be controversial - does everything have to be accessible to everyone? Sometimes physical or geographical limitations mean you just can't do something; a few years ago I hurt my back and wasn't physically able to get to or sit in a theatre for three months. It sucked but that doesn't mean theatres are obliged to put out versions of their productions that don't do them justice or that the people involved aren't happy with to make up for that. Theatre is something that happens live and is by definition exclusive - you're either in the room when it happens or you're not. I don't think impact on box office is the main objection to sticking it on DVD - it's whether it devalues a production by showing it via a medium it wasn't made for.
|
|
6,326 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 18, 2017 15:56:30 GMT
I have a list of links to most of them (even The Magistrate) but I guess I can't share it on here as it's a bit illegal which is a shame really. The way I look at it is these plays aren't on anymore and there's no other way of watching them so why shouldn't we share art with the people who are so dedicated to it that they spend their spare times on forums like this! I know lawyers have a different take It's theft, even if these productions have finished. Sharing what is copyright material without paying for it shouldn't be encouraged!
|
|
6,326 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 18, 2017 15:59:32 GMT
I don't, and it's even more of an issue for those with mobility or disability issues like my Mum, carers or those with young children - and anyone else who doesn't live near a city. A lot of friends who are aware of NT live but find it too expensive or have children are delighted by the BBC broadcast of Hamlet news. We all pay for London's theatre subsidies - London gets the lion's share of arts funding - and it seems only fair that they should therefore make productions as widely available as possible. Releasing a production on DVD some months after the end of the run isn't likely to impact theatre ticket sales and will allow those who for whatever reason don't find theatre physically accessible to enjoy it. Totally take your point; sometimes I think it's only theatregoing that keeps me paying a fortune for a tiny flat in London - I have dreams of working part time somewhere cheaper and getting off the treadmill... But to be controversial - does everything have to be accessible to everyone? Sometimes physical or geographical limitations mean you just can't do something; a few years ago I hurt my back and wasn't physically able to get to or sit in a theatre for three months. It sucked but that doesn't mean theatres are obliged to put out versions of their productions that don't do them justice or that the people involved aren't happy with to make up for that. Theatre is something that happens live and is by definition exclusive - you're either in the room when it happens or you're not. I don't think impact on box office is the main objection to sticking it on DVD - it's whether it devalues a production by showing it via a medium it wasn't made for. I agree with this, I know London gets the lion share of arts funding but London gets a lot of money that other places in the country and that's because it's the capital and it has the most money and business. It's not fair but life isn't
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2017 16:21:06 GMT
but then again.. it's accessibility in question. I think a lot of theatremakers live in a bubble of likeminded people from similar backgrounds - more so these days than in the mid to late 20thc, when many actors and writers came from regional/grammar school backgrounds. Of my large friend group (Facebook etc), it is only the London-based Oxbridge-educated ones who work in the media / arts who regularly go to the theatre or (in the case of the one who moved out of London) NT Live broadcasts. The others only go if there's someone from Dr Who or Sherlock involved (I know that sounds like a cliche but it's true) - and I do pester them to go (the Royal Exchange studio theatre is only £12 full price, Liverpool's Playhouse studio not much more). TV or DVD availability would do so much to reach out to people - as it did to me when I was young and there were RSC plays on the BBC - and I don't know why some seem to dig their heels in about this. I know there have been a handful of plays on TV but it's mostly Shakespeare/Elizabethan (two Lears in two years, with the upcoming Hopkins one!) rather than something more modern.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2017 16:25:49 GMT
It's not fair but life isn't Stonkingly unfair! From the Guardian in 2014: "Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Arts Council England spending amounts to £68.99 per head of population in London and £4.58 in the rest of England. In terms of lottery spending on the arts between 1995 and 2013 the figure was £165 per head in London and £46.77 outside London. It also points out that the population of Westminster has contributed £14.5m to the arts lottery and received a benefit of £408m; while people in County Durham have given £34m and the area has received just £12m."
|
|
|
NT Live
Aug 18, 2017 17:08:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 17:08:40 GMT
It's not fair but life isn't Stonkingly unfair! From the Guardian in 2014: "Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Arts Council England spending amounts to £68.99 per head of population in London and £4.58 in the rest of England. In terms of lottery spending on the arts between 1995 and 2013 the figure was £165 per head in London and £46.77 outside London. It also points out that the population of Westminster has contributed £14.5m to the arts lottery and received a benefit of £408m; while people in County Durham have given £34m and the area has received just £12m." Sure. But there's a critical mass of theatre in London that there isn't elsewhere in the country and it inevitably feeds into each other and creates something dynamic that you can't replicate just because you want to. Britain is unhealthy in having a capital city that sucks everything into it (and is too expensive for people to live on an average salary) but it's going to take serious political will and long term planning to turn that around. A bit of ACE redistribution won't do anything.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2017 17:29:20 GMT
there's a critical mass of theatre in London There used to be in the regions, too, but many of the theatre spaces closed down and those that survived don't really have much in the way of ambitious programming - I was looking at a tweet this week about Gary Oldman being spotted by Max Stafford-Clark while appearing in a regional production of an Edward Bond play. Comments about it were can you imagine a regional theatre putting on Edward Bond these days? My home town (Liverpool) used to produce and nurture many famous actors (I wish I had a time machine to se the Everyman rep in the 70s!) but in the 80s there was a sense of everything being sucked down to London and a lot of the good stuff I've seen up here recently - mainly in Manchester - is by visiting/touring companies on flying visits or Royal Court co-productions like the Bruntwood Prize plays. Ironically I think what may change things is that London is pricing out all but the very richest young people - if the Guardian and Channel Four also (as rumoured) move to Manchester then I expect to see more emphasis on regional arts!
|
|
4,038 posts
|
NT Live
Aug 18, 2017 18:44:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by kathryn on Aug 18, 2017 18:44:02 GMT
Stonkingly unfair! From the Guardian in 2014: "Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Arts Council England spending amounts to £68.99 per head of population in London and £4.58 in the rest of England. In terms of lottery spending on the arts between 1995 and 2013 the figure was £165 per head in London and £46.77 outside London. It also points out that the population of Westminster has contributed £14.5m to the arts lottery and received a benefit of £408m; while people in County Durham have given £34m and the area has received just £12m." Sure. But there's a critical mass of theatre in London that there isn't elsewhere in the country and it inevitably feeds into each other and creates something dynamic that you can't replicate just because you want to. Britain is unhealthy in having a capital city that sucks everything into it (and is too expensive for people to live on an average salary) but it's going to take serious political will and long term planning to turn that around. A bit of ACE redistribution won't do anything. While this is very true, it does seem problematic to me that companies who specifically get 'regional' ACE funding still seem very focused on working in London. It seems like they've admitted defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 21:24:16 GMT
Sure. But there's a critical mass of theatre in London that there isn't elsewhere in the country and it inevitably feeds into each other and creates something dynamic that you can't replicate just because you want to. Britain is unhealthy in having a capital city that sucks everything into it (and is too expensive for people to live on an average salary) but it's going to take serious political will and long term planning to turn that around. A bit of ACE redistribution won't do anything. While this is very true, it does seem problematic to me that companies who specifically get 'regional' ACE funding still seem very focused on working in London. It seems like they've admitted defeat. I don't have any evidence but I feel like the extent to which there's an arts-hungry audience outside of London gets massively under-estimated.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 19, 2017 10:56:36 GMT
Anecdotally (ok, based on me and a few I know), I live near Liverpool but most of my theatregoing is to London or Manchester because the sort of plays I Iike with casts I want to see are rarely put on locally, so I'm not really contributing much to the statistics in my native city! I have friends who will make the effort to travel to see a well-publicised play with a big name star in London but don't see much up here. When I was a teenager there did seem to be more stuff on up here with names I recognised as a draw.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 19, 2017 20:29:09 GMT
Same here, really - I live 10 minutes away from the local theatre in Southend and have been there all of twice in 8 years. It's mainly used for am-dram and the odd tour from London. I say that but I don't actually get the newsletter so I guess I could be missing fantastic local work with the stars of tomorrow - but I really doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 22, 2017 5:08:41 GMT
Manchester is arguably England's second theatre city. Just take a look at the autumn programmes at the Royal Exchange, Home and Contact. Then, there's the Lowry, Palace and Opera House, Hope Mill, and nearby Octagon in Bolton and Oldham Coliseum. And Manchester International Festival, which will have a new, year-round, venue, The Factory, in a couple of years or so.
Liverpool Everyman & Playhouse is also good, but the quantity and range is greater in Manchester.
I'm out of touch but Glasgow used to have the best theatre in the UK with the Citizens and Tramway - more exciting in the 90s than the London theatre scene. And Edinburgh's Lyceum Theatre under David Greig is rated as probably having the best programme of any single theatre now.
London has the quantity so people can pick and choose from the offers of an abundance of theatres and ignore the duds. But the theatres outside London have to hit the mark with every show because each production is so much more prominent in the local theatre scene.
|
|
3,072 posts
|
NT Live
Apr 14, 2018 8:00:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rory on Apr 14, 2018 8:00:45 GMT
Output has been very disappointing recently. They are showing Ant & Cleo from the Nash later in the year but the only formally announced show remaining is the panned NT Macbeth. There is so much good stuff they could be showing at the minute or lining up to show but not a dickie bird.
|
|
18,816 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 14, 2018 8:10:42 GMT
Merged
|
|
3,072 posts
|
NT Live
Apr 14, 2018 8:26:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rory on Apr 14, 2018 8:26:06 GMT
Sorry - the topic search function on the mobile has failed me again!
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 14, 2018 9:47:56 GMT
Interesting about the nether regions..oops sorry ..I mean outside London. I was brung up in Birmingham and we had a Rep! Saw brilliant stuff there. I think the variety of work and the high quality set the standard for me. And an Alec ( Alexandra ) for the stock drawing room comedies and I suppose touring stuff though I didn’t know how things work then as I was taken by parents and then the Hippodrome for the Pantos. And a decent 'amateur' The Crescent. Then other local stuff started up as I left. So not bad. I first went to Stratford aged 14. Again taken by parents ( who hadn’t a clue about Shakespeare but enjoyed a good play) and then I went on the bus, When I passed driving test drove mum's car. So I think I had a good shot at seeing Theatre and I reckon I was hooked early on. Catch em young. Nothing fills my heart with joy more than seeing kids in an audience!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 9:56:37 GMT
I would like there to be a few more NT lives or cinema broadcast of shows on Broadway or maybe just not so London centric. We can all agree NT live does a great job as spreading London theatre around the country and world. Maybe I am being a bit selfish being London based but I would love more cinema broadcasts from else where ( there are also some shows I would love to see but don't think I will be able to)
|
|
3,072 posts
|
NT Live
Apr 20, 2018 8:27:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rory on Apr 20, 2018 8:27:34 GMT
Surprised and very disappointed that no screening was announced yesterday for The Lehman Trilogy. I'd love to know how they select the shows.
|
|