594 posts
|
Post by og on May 16, 2022 8:27:04 GMT
Digitising their entire archive means someone manually taking a VHS tape out of its sleeve, putting it whatever machine (which they’d need to buy or rent specially), waiting for it to digitise, then uploading and organising the file. If their computers even have enough ram to begin with. Imagine having to do that for 100 tapes. By hand. Am I the only person thinking that doesn’t sound too onerous? It’s the sort of administrative task you have running in the background while you do your actual office job. Or if that’s not possible you employ someone from an agency to do it and they get paid for watching it happen while they scroll through IG for the rest of the shift. As someone who works for a Big Broadcaster, where there is an entire department dedicated to digitising tapes (Not VHS, as that's a domestic product) I can confirm this couldn't be further from the truth. That is, if you want to do it properly. Also, not every production got a full multi-cam setup for it's archived copy. Judging by some of the content uploaded during lockdowns, I think there'd be alot of requests for refunds from people expecting a bells-and-whistles recording and getting a locked-off single camera up in the circle. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 16, 2022 10:09:54 GMT
London should have an active archive like the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, that would be a start. ? It does! www.vam.ac.uk/info/theatre-performance-archivesIt’s actually much better than the NYPL archive because anyone can access it for any reason -for the NYPL version you have to justify your access by saying you are doing research for something. (*cough* Though they don’t check, so as long as you look up the name of an appropriate course to put on the form you can fib your way in. *cough*) |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 16, 2022 10:59:42 GMT
Creating a ready to use for streaming digital copy of something on VHS is complicated, but if the argument is that the thing on VHS isn't worth the effort to copy to DVD, because you don't think anyone will ever want to watch it, then why bother with the costs of storing them in the first place? Even if there's a vague aspiration to digitise things 'properly' in the future, that future may not exist if there aren't any back-up versions stored in a more stable format.
I do agree that a lot of old recordings aren't suitable for streaming, and even with modern digital filming capabilities, creating something that captures the vitality of a play is the far bigger issue.
Yes, there may be hard-core fans of an actor who will sit through a performance captured by a single, static camera, and some of them might pay for the experience. But unless they are already fans of theatre, will it encourage them to book tickets for the real thing next time?
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 16, 2022 12:49:57 GMT
Creating a ready to use for streaming digital copy of something on VHS is complicated, but if the argument is that the thing on VHS isn't worth the effort to copy to DVD, because you don't think anyone will ever want to watch it, then why bother with the costs of storing them in the first place? Even if there's a vague aspiration to digitise things 'properly' in the future, that future may not exist if there aren't any back-up versions stored in a more stable format. I do agree that a lot of old recordings aren't suitable for streaming, and even with modern digital filming capabilities, creating something that captures the vitality of a play is the far bigger issue. Yes, there may be hard-core fans of an actor who will sit through a performance captured by a single, static camera, and some of them might pay for the experience. But unless they are already fans of theatre, will it encourage them to book tickets for the real thing next time? For the same reason they were shot well be streaming was even a concept. Because there's still value in archival copies, even if just for production reference, should they wish to remount or to refer back how to a specific scene was staged, etc. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 16, 2022 13:22:14 GMT
Creating a ready to use for streaming digital copy of something on VHS is complicated, but if the argument is that the thing on VHS isn't worth the effort to copy to DVD, because you don't think anyone will ever want to watch it, then why bother with the costs of storing them in the first place? Even if there's a vague aspiration to digitise things 'properly' in the future, that future may not exist if there aren't any back-up versions stored in a more stable format. I do agree that a lot of old recordings aren't suitable for streaming, and even with modern digital filming capabilities, creating something that captures the vitality of a play is the far bigger issue. Yes, there may be hard-core fans of an actor who will sit through a performance captured by a single, static camera, and some of them might pay for the experience. But unless they are already fans of theatre, will it encourage them to book tickets for the real thing next time? I think looking at the viewing numbers of rough recordings uploaded to Youtube, there's more of an appetite than some might think, though how much people would be prepared to pay is another issue. But if fans of an actor or show are prepared to fly to another country or camp outside a theatre then I think they'd pay a small fee to complete their collection. There are many plays I'd love to see even a ropey recording of just to jog my ageing memory of something I loved in the 80s. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 16, 2022 13:23:06 GMT
DVD is not the same as digital (within this specific context; obviously DVD stands for Digital Video Disc). You generally can’t stream a DVD online without first transferring the contents of a DVD to a computer, removing any coding or restrictions built into the DVD files (admittedly it’s very unlikely an archival theatre recording would have that), then converting and encoding the files into whatever specific video format the streaming software uses, then uploading those files.
There’s little value in converting VHS tapes to physical DVDs, for various reasons. The best solution is to convert both VHS and DVD to digital video files then upload them all to cloud storage (storing them on manual hard drives is an option but dependant on the drives not being lost or damaged, and of course nobody can access them without physically going and getting the drive out of a cupboard). But it’s just really expensive and time consuming, needs better IT infrastructure than most archives have, and cloud storage is not free for the amount of space such a project would need.
In terms of potential audience income and how much they’d have to charge to break even vs risk of damaging brand by overcharging (the original subject of this thread), all this has been well calculated. Most archival recordings don’t have famous actors in them, and the popularity of bootlegging means illegal copies of for example David Tennant’s pre-fame RSC productions are already available online for free. Even specially filmed stage productions like the Tennant/Tate Much Ado don’t make much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 16, 2022 14:01:36 GMT
Creating a ready to use for streaming digital copy of something on VHS is complicated, but if the argument is that the thing on VHS isn't worth the effort to copy to DVD, because you don't think anyone will ever want to watch it, then why bother with the costs of storing them in the first place? Even if there's a vague aspiration to digitise things 'properly' in the future, that future may not exist if there aren't any back-up versions stored in a more stable format. I do agree that a lot of old recordings aren't suitable for streaming, and even with modern digital filming capabilities, creating something that captures the vitality of a play is the far bigger issue. Yes, there may be hard-core fans of an actor who will sit through a performance captured by a single, static camera, and some of them might pay for the experience. But unless they are already fans of theatre, will it encourage them to book tickets for the real thing next time? For the same reason they were shot well be streaming was even a concept. Because there's still value in archival copies, even if just for production reference, should they wish to remount or to refer back how to a specific scene was staged, etc. I wasn't doubting the value of having an archive. In fact, it was the opposite. I was trying to say that if you do value an archive (as I do), then you should go to the effort of storing it in as resilient format as possible, so that it doesn't get lost. Storing VHS tapes in a way that keeps them safe is not a cost free exercise, and if they are worth keeping, then relying on just VHS tapes feels like it's asking for trouble. I say this as someone with limited knowledge of the theatre, but whose job sometimes requires me to access archive documents, and aspects of my work are supposed to be archived indefinitely. A lot of money is spent investigating things that wouldn't have needed investigating if someone had bothered to scan the relevant documents before the building flooded. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 16, 2022 14:11:24 GMT
I don’t think anyone is arguing that they shouldn’t be updated. I think all those archives want desperately for that to happen. Just that it’s incredibly expensive and time consuming and not practical with their current infrastructure. And that it’s low priority when they’re struggling to survive and do their actual job of maintaining the archives and facilitating academic and theatrical research.
People seem to think they can just bung a tape in a machine, press a button that says “Put this on the internet” and watch the money roll in.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 16, 2022 17:31:44 GMT
I would say that a lot of the film studios with theatrical arms do record their shows like Disney with Newsies or Universal with Billy Elliot but the different is that they have deep pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on May 16, 2022 17:56:06 GMT
The BBC have digitised their holdings and I imagine that 90% of it is not commercially viable. The BFI are near the end of digitising their holdings as well.
It seems to me that there are two things going on. Firstly it's preserving history by moving from a defunct technology. Not to make money but to preserve. Both the BBC and the BFI have the preservation as part of their ?charter? (if that's the right word.
The commercial part is separate. Can those holdings then be exploited for profit.
I think TV companies learnt in the 1980s that destroying their archive was a very bad idea once home video took off and they could make money out of their archive.
So they are prepared to spend money digitising both to preserve and for potential future profit. Most of their holdings will never make money but it's not always easy to tell which that will be.
Almost every book exists because there is a legal requirement for a copy to be lodged in the British Library (and Oxford?).
Copies of British films have routinely been lodged at the BFI.
The BFI (eventually) extended their remit to keep copies of TV programmes.
So now the theatre world needs to get their a**es into gear.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 16, 2022 22:56:09 GMT
There is a big difference between film/TV and theatre in terms of the archive though, it makes sense that companies that deal with tapes and film will naturally have archives whereas theatre is about the live experience and that is the priority when putting a show or season together, recording the production for archive, EPKs or commercial usage etc is an afterthought.
|
|
|
|
Post by circelily on May 17, 2022 5:52:34 GMT
The BBC have digitised their holdings and I imagine that 90% of it is not commercially viable. The BFI are near the end of digitising their holdings as well. It seems to me that there are two things going on. Firstly it's preserving history by moving from a defunct technology. Not to make money but to preserve. Both the BBC and the BFI have the preservation as part of their ?charter? (if that's the right word. The commercial part is separate. Can those holdings then be exploited for profit. I think TV companies learnt in the 1980s that destroying their archive was a very bad idea once home video took off and they could make money out of their archive. So they are prepared to spend money digitising both to preserve and for potential future profit. Most of their holdings will never make money but it's not always easy to tell which that will be. Almost every book exists because there is a legal requirement for a copy to be lodged in the British Library (and Oxford?). Copies of British films have routinely been lodged at the BFI. The BFI (eventually) extended their remit to keep copies of TV programmes. So now the theatre world needs to get their a**es into gear. Also books are a unique media that do not require a mediating device to access. They just need careful storage. All machines become obsolete meaning all other forms of media have to be continually migrated to new technology or their content is lost, however careful the storage. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 17, 2022 6:15:17 GMT
Interesting change of direction on the thread from excessive ticket prices to how the theatre world needs to be producing a digital copy of each production (be it for archive or for streaming).
To do this would additional cost to the producers, which would ultimately end up be recouped in the ticket price...
Also, as a point of interest, when it comes to large-scale digitising of archived material, the digital copy is still actually stored physically, on a tape, believe it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on May 17, 2022 10:28:00 GMT
Interesting change of direction on the thread from excessive ticket prices to how the theatre world needs to be producing a digital copy of each production (be it for archive or for streaming). To do this would additional cost to the producers, which would ultimately end up be recouped in the ticket price... Also, as a point of interest, when it comes to large-scale digitising of archived material, the digital copy is still actually stored physically, on a tape, believe it or not. I think I'm advocating that already existing recordings of productions should be transferred to format that helps preserves them. Expensive yes but actually helping to secure the original cost of making the recording in the first place. And for historical record. There is an irony about digitisation in that film companies, who mostly now make films on digital media, are archiving them on 35mm film as that is seen as the best media for long term preservation. It's a complex subject but the heavy losses of television programmes of the 60s and 70s and the subsequent inability for TV companies to exploit them when home video appeared should be some sort of a lesson. |
|
|
|
Post by circelily on May 17, 2022 11:17:46 GMT
I think Nick's idea has merit, especially as the London theatre world has actually shrunk to a couple of big owners outside of the public subsidy sector, and they have significant incentives to preserve best, the critical and/or commercial hits for both alternative and future monetisation. They could have a small central function dedicated to judging which to immortalise, and later, which are worth the trouble of converting rather than losing the digital capital that was the only silver lining of COVID. There will always be filtration but thirst for early product of later megastars, both sides of the stage, will generate continual windfalls as well as provide artistic reference.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2022 11:34:48 GMT
I think Nick's idea has merit, especially as the London theatre world has actually shrunk to a couple of big owners outside of the public subsidy sector, and they have significant incentives to preserve best, the critical and/or commercial hits for both alternative and future monetisation. They could have a small central function dedicated to judging which to immortalise, and later, which are worth the trouble of converting rather than losing the digital capital that was the only silver lining of COVID. There will always be filtration but thirst for early product of later megastars, both sides of the stage, will generate continual windfalls as well as provide artistic reference. Again, easier said than done and keep in mind that not all producers are created equal both financially and in size. The likes of ATG, Trafalgar, Cameron etc might be able to afford to digitise their content but smaller producers like Eleanor Lloyd, Playful etc do not have that luxury. Surely we should protecting the live experience? The closure of cinemas, theatres and concert venues during lockdown proved to me that we do not want a future where everyone stays at home to consume their entertainment because it's isolating and sucks the joy out of the shared experience. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 17, 2022 12:25:41 GMT
Surely we should protecting the live experience? The closure of cinemas, theatres and concert venues during lockdown proved to me that we do not want a future where everyone stays at home to consume their entertainment because it's isolating and sucks the joy out of the shared experience. Lps and concert recordings and bootlegs haven't stopped people seeing live music or live comedy though: I think they increase the appetite, if anything, and help keep an artist's flame alive posthumously or in parts of the world or with demographics who for disability, age or financial reasons could not see them in any other way. My first self-booked theatre trip was to see The Young Ones cast on stage (a Comedy Store/Comic Strip UK tour) and one of my last, pre-lockdown, was a huge stadium League of Gentlemen show (if the Young Ones were alive/working today I'd imagine they could sell out a similar sized venue). When I first visited Forbidden Planet, it was a hole in the wall shop in Denmark Street. Now it's a huge chain, and the whole top floor of its flagship London store is film, TV series and comic spin off toys, memorabilia and the like. That's a huge and obsessive global fanbase to tap into. |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2022 13:03:10 GMT
^You say there's a huge and obsessive global fanbase but how many of those will be willing to pay decent money for either a live performance or a stream to make it financially viable? You can't use YouTube as an example because YouTube is free to view and even the ad money from 100,000 views to 1m isn't enough to pay for the costs plus all these bootleg productions that are floating around the internet, any money made isn't going back to cast and creatives.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 17, 2022 14:21:36 GMT
^You say there's a huge and obsessive global fanbase but how many of those will be willing to pay decent money for either a live performance or a stream to make it financially viable? You can't use YouTube as an example because YouTube is free to view and even the ad money from 100,000 views to 1m isn't enough to pay for the costs plus all these bootleg productions that are floating around the internet, any money made isn't going back to cast and creatives. Depends what you mean by 'decent money'. A cinema ticket plus snacks and transport is quite pricey but young people still do it regularly. They'll fork out money for collectables and conventions and autographs. NT Live and co. are testing the waters I suppose, and I've got American and disabled friends who really appreciate getting access to shows they were very unlikely to get to see in person. Look at Talking Pictures TV: a tiny, low budget TV channel set up by enthusiasts, with word spread by social media, showing mostly black and white, horror and B-movies of the sort mainstream TV had abandoned, and now the BBC and Sky have seen its success are copying the model, starting to show b&w films again (and one of the joys of TPTV is seeing early or obscure TV and film appearances by household name actors). |
|
|
|
Post by nick on May 17, 2022 14:51:53 GMT
I think Nick's idea has merit, especially as the London theatre world has actually shrunk to a couple of big owners outside of the public subsidy sector, and they have significant incentives to preserve best, the critical and/or commercial hits for both alternative and future monetisation. They could have a small central function dedicated to judging which to immortalise, and later, which are worth the trouble of converting rather than losing the digital capital that was the only silver lining of COVID. There will always be filtration but thirst for early product of later megastars, both sides of the stage, will generate continual windfalls as well as provide artistic reference. Again, easier said than done and keep in mind that not all producers are created equal both financially and in size. The likes of ATG, Trafalgar, Cameron etc might be able to afford to digitise their content but smaller producers like Eleanor Lloyd, Playful etc do not have that luxury. Surely we should protecting the live experience? The closure of cinemas, theatres and concert venues during lockdown proved to me that we do not want a future where everyone stays at home to consume their entertainment because it's isolating and sucks the joy out of the shared experience. I agree in principal. But some examples. In the 60s/70s TV companies did recorded versions of some shows - For example there should be versions of Joseph and Godspell plus rehearsal footage of the original UK cast of Hair. Wonderful historical documents. The Joseph and Hair programmes exists and, while certainly nothing like the real theatre experience, they are both useful for historical research and evocative of an era. But the Godspell production is, sadly, gone. Luckily most of the cast reunited to do a potted version in an episode of David Essex's late 70s TV series. I have all these existing shows but it would in no way discourage me from seeing a live production - indeed they have quite the opposite effect. In fact I'd argue the opposite of putting people off - otherwise why would producers create shows of work existing in other media - Moulin Rouge for example |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2022 15:00:33 GMT
As theatregoers, we are biased in saying that having recorded versions of productions doesn't affect us going to a live performance but I'm thinking more of a general population who may see 1-2 shows a year. If say 10% of those who went to the theatre to see the panto or a trip to London to see a big West End show decided to just stay at home and watch a streamed version at a lower cost then that will have an impact not only to the producer and the theatre but also the local economy. James Graham made the great point during the pandemic that for every £1 that get spent in the theatre, it gives back £5 to the local economy, that sort of benefit is not something we want to destroy.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that things like NT Live/NT at Home exist but theatre should be first a live shared experience which cannot be replicated in your front room.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2022 15:08:29 GMT
In fact I'd argue the opposite of putting people off - otherwise why would producers create shows of work existing in other media - Moulin Rouge for example That I can answer, it's IP that people have heard of and in theory an easier sell to both investors and audiences. No different to back in the day when Lerner and Lowe were making a musical based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygamalion or Lionel Bart making a musical based on a Charles Dickens novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 16:26:40 GMT
I understand a high price if it is a small venue like the Donmar for example or things are a limited run. Flexible pricing is certainly a new thing and I guess it only applies to remaining seats. I'd prefer prices more in the middle than a huge gap between subsidised ticket lottery seats and premium ones. I've no issue with general discounts for certain groups and often theates will have standby tickets at TKTs booth type discounts.
We know producers lost a lot of money and no matter how rich you are losing a hundred plus million must have been worrying but I can see people being priced out by these crazy prices.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2022 16:33:10 GMT
I understand a high price if it is a small venue like the Donmar for example or things are a limited run. Flexible pricing is certainly a new thing and I guess it only applies to remaining seats. I'd prefer prices more in the middle than a huge gap between subsidised ticket lottery seats and premium ones. I've no issue with general discounts for certain groups and often theates will have standby tickets at TKTs booth type discounts. We know producers lost a lot of money and no matter how rich you are losing a hundred plus million must have been worrying but I can see people being priced out by these crazy prices. On the flip side, we have seen shows that try and introduce affordable pricing only for the production to fall flat on its face, The Girls and The Full Monty come to mind. It's such a tricky balance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 16:42:19 GMT
Are shows carrying more understudies now I wonder. Also shows which began in the West End are often scaled back cast wise on tour but some shows you can't really cut too much back.
Perhaps its not the time for "challenging new work" in the commercial theatre. If producers are nursing big losses are there some fan favourites they could wheel out for a bit to help balance the books?
|
|
