3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 5, 2019 16:40:31 GMT
I want to hear about you 'slut dropping' to this moving play about grief and loss... No worries. I just hope I get through this unscathed.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jul 5, 2019 16:50:04 GMT
The New York Times article is an interesting piece with some new info ... That "deal memo" may well not be legally binding - it sounds like contractual heads of terms, which set out the bare bones of the deal but are generally expressly stated to be subject to contract, and are not of themselves a legally binding or enforceable contract. Helpful in the context of interpreting what the parties intended the deal to be, but not the last word. All depends on what the document actually says though, as second hand reporting of an excerpt of it doesn't tell you that.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 5, 2019 18:11:23 GMT
I just had to google 'slut drop.' That's going to look great on my search history.
Apparently even royals like Prince William have been seen engaging in this dance move, David.
I thought I hadn't bought tickets for this because I didn't want to stand, but I see that I managed to get two seats (possibly after a glass of wine? ) And paid quite a bit for them. Hmmm....
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 5, 2019 18:39:27 GMT
Erm this is a thread about a scandal and we're meant to say nice things and trivialize a matter which must be truly all-consumingly awful for the two ladies at the centre of the affair?
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 5, 2019 18:47:57 GMT
That's not what's happening (have you read the previous 12 pages?) Just an attempt at a light-hearted sidebar as a bit of an impasse had been reached. But no one is stopping anyone writing about the scandal so if you have something to add, do.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 5, 2019 19:34:04 GMT
The New York Times article is an interesting piece with some new info ... That "deal memo" may well not be legally binding - it sounds like contractual heads of terms, which set out the bare bones of the deal but are generally expressly stated to be subject to contract, and are not of themselves a legally binding or enforceable contract. Helpful in the context of interpreting what the parties intended the deal to be, but not the last word. All depends on what the document actually says though, as second hand reporting of an excerpt of it doesn't tell you that. Digging around "deal memo" seems to be a standard term in theatre and film for an agreement between performers or writers and producers or venues. I presume those insiders on the forum could comment with more knowledge! There's some guidance on the uktheatre site which includes: So your suggestion could well be correct.
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 5, 2019 19:42:39 GMT
I just had to google 'slut drop.' That's going to look great on my search history. Apparently even royals like Prince William have been seen engaging in this dance move, David. I thought I hadn't bought tickets for this because I didn't want to stand, but I see that I managed to get two seats (possibly after a glass of wine? ) And paid quite a bit for them. Hmmm.... Oh dear, if Royalty are doing this, the bar has been set very high for me. I’ll do my best! I’m in 2 minds whether to post my thoughts post show in this thread or create a new one specific to the show itself so as not to derail the discussions about the important issues surrounding the creation of the piece.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jul 5, 2019 19:44:42 GMT
This thread mentions the scandal in the title so it might be better to keep discussion of the show itself separate so people don't have to wade through thirteen pages to find the things they're interested in.
|
|
18,845 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 5, 2019 19:53:47 GMT
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 8, 2019 20:38:26 GMT
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 8, 2019 20:41:21 GMT
Loving the TWIST! Are there any true innocents in theatre?
Am I being unreasonable in thinking that Henley should have got a credit if she created dialogue? The most interesting point was that she apparently had money for days that she could have used to sue Giant Olive*
*Nearly called them Big Olive, which is a much better name. Don't @ me.
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 8, 2019 22:08:35 GMT
Loving the TWIST! Are there any true innocents in theatre? Am I being unreasonable in thinking that Henley should have got a credit if she created dialogue? The most interesting point was that she apparently had money for days that she could have used to sue Giant Olive* *Nearly called them Big Olive, which is a much better name. Don't @ me. Yeah, if she created dialogue for the play, then some credit is probably due...
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 8, 2019 22:33:48 GMT
I am not sure they have added anything to our understanding of what has happened - other than the fact that nearly a decade ago, there was a dispute within a different production.
|
|
487 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 9:23:13 GMT
Loving the TWIST! Are there any true innocents in theatre? Am I being unreasonable in thinking that Henley should have got a credit if she created dialogue? The most interesting point was that she apparently had money for days that she could have used to sue Giant Olive* *Nearly called them Big Olive, which is a much better name. Don't @ me. Yeah, if she created dialogue for the play, then some credit is probably due... Find it a little hard to believe that a demand for a credit was what brought down the whole production though, no?
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 9, 2019 10:38:57 GMT
I doubt the Lottery grant would have got Gun/Knife Crime on tour very far.
|
|
487 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 12:25:00 GMT
Possibly, but Giant Olive say that
'Following the production, Sarah Henley threatened litigation, demanding co-ownership, rights and basically making the project a non-starter with her unreasonable and disproportionate demands. These were the type of demands that make a production financially unviable to mount.'
So (IF true and correct) that doesn't sound like simply demanding a credit for creating dialogue to me..
|
|
2,349 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 9, 2019 12:33:05 GMT
Possibly, but Giant Olive say that 'Following the production, Sarah Henley threatened litigation, demanding co-ownership, rights and basically making the project a non-starter with her unreasonable and disproportionate demands. These were the type of demands that make a production financially unviable to mount.' So (IF true and correct) that doesn't sound like simply demanding a credit for creating dialogue to me.. True but I'm not sure what a 10 year old dispute has to do with things. It feels a bit... odd.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 9, 2019 12:35:53 GMT
You don't get a credit for creating dialogue, unless contractually agreed ahead of time. It's not uncommon for actors to come up with lines of dialogue in rehearsals and they'd never receive a credit for it.
The threat of a lawsuit can absolutely scupper a production. I worked on a WIP at a major new writing theatre and a whole element had to be ditched because one audience member threatened to sue, even though the production was covered by disclaimers and would certainly have won in court. Legal action is so expensive it doesn't matter who's right or wrong.
I supported the women and I still do, but this new twist is worth looking at.
|
|
18,845 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 9, 2019 12:42:30 GMT
The whole controversy seems to have died a death anyway, as many suggested it would.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jul 9, 2019 12:47:27 GMT
This is the concern I always have with social media. It allows put-upon underdogs to get everyone on their side to fight for justice, but it also allows people to play the part of put-upon underdogs to get everyone on their side to fight for the very opposite of justice. And unless you know all the facts — and the public never does know all the facts — you have no idea whether you're the good guy or the bad guy.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 9, 2019 13:18:28 GMT
You don't get a credit for creating dialogue, unless contractually agreed ahead of time. It's not uncommon for actors to come up with lines of dialogue in rehearsals and they'd never receive a credit for it. The threat of a lawsuit can absolutely scupper a production. I worked on a WIP at a major new writing theatre and a whole element had to be ditched because one audience member threatened to sue, even though the production was covered by disclaimers and would certainly have won in court. Legal action is so expensive it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I supported the women and I still do, but this new twist is worth looking at. An audience member? Wow. Fascinating.
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 9, 2019 13:55:03 GMT
I am not sure they have added anything to our understanding of what has happened - other than the fact that nearly a decade ago, there was a dispute within a different production. Sure but does it not highlight 'previous' in this field and contributes to a better understanding of the defendant and any motives on a similar production, m'lud?!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 9, 2019 14:09:01 GMT
If you haven't heard the BBC Radio 4 Front Row interview it's available on: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006lny It's the first interview so you don't have to wade through a lot. Both the Tree and the Giant Olive blogs were eye-opening to me, I suppose in part because I hadn't thought about how complicated and messy workshops and 'based on' productions could be.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 9, 2019 14:29:55 GMT
You don't get a credit for creating dialogue, unless contractually agreed ahead of time. It's not uncommon for actors to come up with lines of dialogue in rehearsals and they'd never receive a credit for it. The threat of a lawsuit can absolutely scupper a production. I worked on a WIP at a major new writing theatre and a whole element had to be ditched because one audience member threatened to sue, even though the production was covered by disclaimers and would certainly have won in court. Legal action is so expensive it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I supported the women and I still do, but this new twist is worth looking at. An audience member? Wow. Fascinating. Inspired to sue the Southbank Centre for not enough Alex Jennings at The Light in the Piazza.
|
|
487 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 14:34:58 GMT
If you haven't heard the BBC Radio 4 Front Row interview it's available on: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006lny It's the first interview so you don't have to wade through a lot. Both the Tree and the Giant Olive blogs were eye-opening to me, I suppose in part because I hadn't thought about how complicated and messy workshops and 'based on' productions could be. Thought it slightly odd when they were listing the things the current production had in common with their ideas, and they described the protagonist 'going to South Africa for the first time after the death of a parent' as their 'original idea' which doesn't seem to fit with the fact it's based on Mi Mandela? Seems very muddied and I expect complex, but personally I don't feel that either side has helped much in clearing up the actual situation.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 9, 2019 14:47:26 GMT
I am not sure they have added anything to our understanding of what has happened - other than the fact that nearly a decade ago, there was a dispute within a different production. Sure but does it not highlight 'previous' in this field and contributes to a better understanding of the defendant and any motives on a similar production, m'lud?! Not necessarily. The situations sound somewhat different and the power imbalances certainly are different Plus a significant time gap. I wouldn't describe it as 'previous' as in 'form' - it is - at this stage - evidence of another development process breaking down.
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 9, 2019 17:03:29 GMT
The statement from Giant Olive starts from a slightly odd perspective as they say they are trying to correct the 'misrepresented narrative being circulated in the media by Sarah Henley and Tori Allen-Martin regarding ‘Tree’ at the Young Vic'. But they cannot speak about that as they are not involved in that. The statement then goes on to describe alleged behaviour ten years ago during a production called Zip. Tree isn't mentioned again, so how is this anything but a nice dish of suitably chilled revenge? Am I missing something? Now obviously I could be reading this all wrong (and am willing to have things pointed out I have missed) but it seems the Giant Olive article comes within a whisper of alleging plagiarism which seems to be what the Tree people are also saying. About two different projects with one common denominator. So is this all one giant circular karmic redundancy? I shall be in my room taking 'a cure' if you need me
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 9, 2019 17:14:12 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol. Btw,is this actually a musical as such?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 17:16:20 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol. Btw,is this actually a musical as such? Was thinking the same myself. david described it as more of a play with music.
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 9, 2019 17:18:55 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol. Btw,is this actually a musical as such? Saw it on Saturday. I’ve posted my thoughts on it in the review thread for Tree. My overall thoughts were it was ok at best. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a musical. More of a play featuring music (which is played from a sound desk rather than a live band).
|
|