19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 13, 2022 18:02:52 GMT
Come on now. It’s going too too far. Cabaret set the most recent trend, ridiculous prices for an actor who didn’t turn up. The cast changes to competent but unknown replacements and prices barely change. Then Cock, star billing and mega prices for an actor who didn’t turn up. Hope Mill charging £40 for a tiny show in a tiny theatre sitting in sub standard seats. Cinderella, prices changed depending on who is performing as the lead despite “you bought a ticket for Cinderella you saw Cinderella” need I go on?
Someone is being greedy. Someone is taking the piss. I do understand that theatre had no income for 2 years but there must be ways of dealing with that loss of income that doesn’t completely disenfranchise your audience.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 13, 2022 18:19:28 GMT
I would say that not all producers are greedy so and sos and I think it's unfair to tar with the same brush.
The reality is that theatre is not cheap to put on especially in the commercial sector and as much as we all love a bargain with day tickets and lotteries, it has to balanced out with more expensive tickets so that these shows can at the very least recoup their costs and even make a profit.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 13, 2022 18:37:47 GMT
If shows are being sold on a particular TV or movie star name, if producers want to bring in extra income, why not release recordings/streams available to the stars' global fanbase at £10 - £20 a pop? I appreciate with Cabaret the club 'experience' is part of the USP but with something like Cock it isn't, is it?
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 13, 2022 18:42:00 GMT
If shows are being sold on a particular TV or movie star name, if producers want to bring in extra income, why not release recordings/streams available to the stars' global fanbase at £10 - £20 a pop? I appreciate with Cabaret the club 'experience' is part of the USP but with something like Cock it isn't, is it? That's easier said than done and it's not cheap to film these productions there are different rights involved and royalties for cast and creatives etc and then there's the actual filming of the production, these costs add up and it's not something that a producer can afford to do for every production.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 14, 2022 8:02:16 GMT
If shows are being sold on a particular TV or movie star name, if producers want to bring in extra income, why not release recordings/streams available to the stars' global fanbase at £10 - £20 a pop? I appreciate with Cabaret the club 'experience' is part of the USP but with something like Cock it isn't, is it? That's easier said than done and it's not cheap to film these productions there are different rights involved and royalties for cast and creatives etc and then there's the actual filming of the production, these costs add up and it's not something that a producer can afford to do for every production. They managed to overcome those problems to a considerable degree during lockdown and some theatres did that before, not just NT Live but also things like Hampstead Theatre streaming their play with Game of Thrones' Maisie Williams free on Instagram for a weekend, because they know it's a way to reach her global fanbase - in that case it wasn't for profit but a wise move that may introduce younger people to theatre. Given the average age of a theatre audience, streaming or broadcast to get a younger generation interested seems like a wise move to me if they want to futureproof their industry, and given the lip service many working in theatre pay to words like 'diversity' and 'inclusion', a system that can achieve that using new technology also seems like a progressive and genuinely inclusive move.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 14, 2022 8:31:07 GMT
That's easier said than done and it's not cheap to film these productions there are different rights involved and royalties for cast and creatives etc and then there's the actual filming of the production, these costs add up and it's not something that a producer can afford to do for every production. They managed to overcome those problems to a considerable degree during lockdown and some theatres did that before, not just NT Live but also things like Hampstead Theatre streaming their play with Game of Thrones' Maisie Williams free on Instagram for a weekend, because they know it's a way to reach her global fanbase - in that case it wasn't for profit but a wise move that may introduce younger people to theatre. Given the average age of a theatre audience, streaming or broadcast to get a younger generation interested seems like a wise move to me if they want to futureproof their industry, and given the lip service many working in theatre pay to words like 'diversity' and 'inclusion', a system that can achieve that using new technology also seems like a progressive and genuinely inclusive move. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t most of that, across the board, subsidised by the Government’s Culture Recovery Fund? Certainly was in the case of Curve Leicester’s streamed productions, and fairly sure many others were too. They were able to take on the additional costs and produce at a loss as a result.
|
|
|
Post by marob on May 14, 2022 9:13:26 GMT
Of course it’s not just theatres who take the piss with their pricing. Going to see Singin’ in the Rain today, the cost of a single train ticket to Manchester is £21.50. The return journey costs an extra 10 pence. How on earth do they justify that?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 14, 2022 9:30:25 GMT
They managed to overcome those problems to a considerable degree during lockdown and some theatres did that before, not just NT Live but also things like Hampstead Theatre streaming their play with Game of Thrones' Maisie Williams free on Instagram for a weekend, because they know it's a way to reach her global fanbase - in that case it wasn't for profit but a wise move that may introduce younger people to theatre. Given the average age of a theatre audience, streaming or broadcast to get a younger generation interested seems like a wise move to me if they want to futureproof their industry, and given the lip service many working in theatre pay to words like 'diversity' and 'inclusion', a system that can achieve that using new technology also seems like a progressive and genuinely inclusive move. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t most of that, across the board, subsidised by the Government’s Culture Recovery Fund? Certainly was in the case of Curve Leicester’s streamed productions, and fairly sure many others were too. They were able to take on the additional costs and produce at a loss as a result. How much does it cost vs how much they could potentially earn through charged-for streaming? This is fairly new territory, but the technology is there and getting cheaper all the time. Many theatres make a good quality archive recording anyway. Tbh I think if something is getting public funding generally (outside the pandemic) it should take every step to be within reach of as many of that public as possible. And I really think it would be a wise move to familiarise a new audience.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 14, 2022 9:43:23 GMT
It’s different for a each production since the costs are different and of course the potential income is different. Some productions are very expensive to broadcast due to things like music rights. I was involved a little in NT at Home and each play had different legal issues that had to be cleared and some took longer than others. Older archival productions aren’t of sufficient quality to stream, and some much older ones only exist on VHS which would need to be manually digitised. Increasingly theatres are filming shows for streaming or cinema broadcast so they’re pre-empting those problems. Though rights are often sticky because contracts tend to cover a specific number of showings or a specific time period a live stream will be available for. Even the NT Lives that had already been broadcast in cinemas, they still had to go back and renegotiate rights to re-broadcast as part of NT at Home because the original contracts didn’t cover that.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 14, 2022 10:05:40 GMT
And everyone was willing to renegotiate because of the emergency circumstances of the pandemic and enforced closure of theatres. You can’t always assume that will be the case.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 14, 2022 15:27:45 GMT
It’s different for a each production since the costs are different and of course the potential income is different. Some productions are very expensive to broadcast due to things like music rights. I was involved a little in NT at Home and each play had different legal issues that had to be cleared and some took longer than others. Older archival productions aren’t of sufficient quality to stream, and some much older ones only exist on VHS which would need to be manually digitised. Increasingly theatres are filming shows for streaming or cinema broadcast so they’re pre-empting those problems. Though rights are often sticky because contracts tend to cover a specific number of showings or a specific time period a live stream will be available for. Even the NT Lives that had already been broadcast in cinemas, they still had to go back and renegotiate rights to re-broadcast as part of NT at Home because the original contracts didn’t cover that. They should digitise everything or they'll lose it - VHS probably won't last. I think particularly with disability activism finally starting to break through into the mainstream, theatremakers (if they're left-leaning) will have to start making things more physically accessible including by offering a streamed option if they want to carry on claiming they're 'inclusive'.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 14, 2022 16:36:55 GMT
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t most of that, across the board, subsidised by the Government’s Culture Recovery Fund? Certainly was in the case of Curve Leicester’s streamed productions, and fairly sure many others were too. They were able to take on the additional costs and produce at a loss as a result. How much does it cost vs how much they could potentially earn through charged-for streaming? This is fairly new territory, but the technology is there and getting cheaper all the time. Many theatres make a good quality archive recording anyway. Tbh I think if something is getting public funding generally (outside the pandemic) it should take every step to be within reach of as many of that public as possible. And I really think it would be a wise move to familiarise a new audience. As mentioned, each production is unique. In the same way it doesn't cost the same to mount each show currently running in London, streaming production costs can vary. On the point of technology "getting cheaper all the time" I'd say it's reached a plateau now. You can live stream onto youtube using OBS for free all you need is a computer and a video input, everything that comes before the video input is cameras, mixers, sound etc, whilst the quality of kit has gotten better, it's not particularly gotten any cheaper (if you want to do it at an acceptable level). And all of that kit requires skilled, experienced crew to operate. These crew, who like theatre staff, have lost a significant amount of work during the pandemic, are now fewer in numbers having sought alternative employment and those still in the game are charging more for their time in an attempt to recoup. Outside of the video production element, as has also been mentioned, is the legal minefield of trying to negotiate a completely different form of contract with appropriate reimbursement for cast, creatives & crew, having once acquired the appropriate regional rights to broadcast online. Lawyers by the hour aren't cheap. As Producer you also have to accept the inevitable piracy of the content too. Pretty much every theatre production that has been live streamed in the last couple of years is available online now, if you know where to look. This eats into future profitability of any ongoing streams etc. There's also the train of thought that by providing live streamed content in tandem with the live performance, a fraction of people may choose to watch from home instead of coming to the venue to see the production. Say you invite a group of friends round for a couple of drinks and a live theatre stream instead of going to see said show, that's 1 stream ticket instead of 2,3,4... 8+ physical seats. Thats quite a potential loss on tickets but also potential bar take and merch sales. I think most productions over the last couple of years were charging between £10 & £25 for a live stream ticket. In most theatres that's a seat at the very back, at a push. The net profit is not going to be buying a Producer a Ferrari anytime soon.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 14, 2022 17:48:34 GMT
I know each production is unique. It wouldn't make sense to livestream something like Cabaret as they clearly want it to be a long running London tourist 'experience' and there's talk on the other thread of a US transfer, but something like Cock, short run, sold on TV stars? The YV have decided to film that Basquiat Warhol show. There are streaming services hungry for content and maybe more shows in future, if they have star names, will be recorded in partnership with them.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 14, 2022 18:19:31 GMT
It’s different for a each production since the costs are different and of course the potential income is different. Some productions are very expensive to broadcast due to things like music rights. I was involved a little in NT at Home and each play had different legal issues that had to be cleared and some took longer than others. Older archival productions aren’t of sufficient quality to stream, and some much older ones only exist on VHS which would need to be manually digitised. Increasingly theatres are filming shows for streaming or cinema broadcast so they’re pre-empting those problems. Though rights are often sticky because contracts tend to cover a specific number of showings or a specific time period a live stream will be available for. Even the NT Lives that had already been broadcast in cinemas, they still had to go back and renegotiate rights to re-broadcast as part of NT at Home because the original contracts didn’t cover that. They should digitise everything or they'll lose it - VHS probably won't last. I think particularly with disability activism finally starting to break through into the mainstream, theatremakers (if they're left-leaning) will have to start making things more physically accessible including by offering a streamed option if they want to carry on claiming they're 'inclusive'. It’s money though. There’s loads of stuff theatres should do that they want desperately to do, but can’t afford. Digitising old archives is low priority. So many theatres are struggling. I know of three theatres that have had to cancel their studio programming entirely, another that has made 75% of their staff redundant, a prominent new writing theatre that has had to halt new commissions entirely. Because they just have no money. Archives are often separate. The RSC archive is held by the Birthright Trust which is basically about four people in a dusty room, with a couple of TVs that look like they were purchased in 1987. 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. It’s less to do with the cost of streaming technology is but paying someone to manually do all that work. If it’s a current production they have to find the money to hire camera operators, editors, people to do the sound mix for broadcast, and either take some seats off sale or stage a non-sold performance just for filming. That’s without even getting into stuff like music rights which have to be negotiated separately. (To give an example, ‘This House’ wasn’t included in the NT at Home screenings until the second batch, despite the creatives waiving their fees, because negotiations with David Bowie’s estate over the use of Five Years took weeks, and that was during lockdown where people were pulling together to make the At Home project a success.) And of course paying the actors and writers for the screen rights to their work, which may or may not be in the original contract but certainly isn’t free for commercial streaming or screening. I don’t know about Cock specifically (other than that EH protect their rights to that play fiercely) and it’s surprising they haven’t done a cinema broadcast at least. Bush and YV film all their shows for streaming as a matter of course. RSC and NT film some stuff for cinema and everything for archive. It’s becoming more widespread.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 14, 2022 23:28:53 GMT
There are times where rights prevent a production from being streamed or screened. The Normal Heart didn't get an NT Live or NT at Home because Ryan Murphy owns the screen rights and Network I think was a similar situation.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 15, 2022 8:35:35 GMT
I know each production is unique. It wouldn't make sense to livestream something like Cabaret as they clearly want it to be a long running London tourist 'experience' and there's talk on the other thread of a US transfer, but something like Cock, short run, sold on TV stars? The YV have decided to film that Basquiat Warhol show. There are streaming services hungry for content and maybe more shows in future, if they have star names, will be recorded in partnership with them. Arguably, Cabaret would make a much safer investment for a live stream than Cock due to the productions notoriety and longevity. Outside of London's bubble, is 'Cock' really on that many people's radar? (oo err missus) The issue with providing content to an already established streaming service is they'll then want a cut if providing a live stream. The rest of the streaming services are subscription model, so you're not even getting revenue on a 'ticket'-type sale, that'll more likely be a buy-out for the content. Should qualify all this by saying, I am all for theatre streaming, there is plenty I have missed over the last few months and plenty more I will miss over the next year also that I would have love/would like to see. Just playing devils advocate and being realistic. Unfortunately, it not as simple as point a camera at a stage and press upload, financially & legally streaming is a complex beast.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 15, 2022 16:37:30 GMT
They should digitise everything or they'll lose it - VHS probably won't last. I think particularly with disability activism finally starting to break through into the mainstream, theatremakers (if they're left-leaning) will have to start making things more physically accessible including by offering a streamed option if they want to carry on claiming they're 'inclusive'. Archives are often separate. The RSC archive is held by the Birthright Trust which is basically about four people in a dusty room, with a couple of TVs that look like they were purchased in 1987. 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. The physically digitising things shouldn't be that hard. For years I've seen flyers with people offering to convert the contents of your old VHS recordings to DVD. I'm fairly sure it's the kind of work a teenager can do in their bedroom if they have the right equipment and I don't think that equipment is expensive. I remember seeing combined DVD and VHS machines for sale, and I'm sure you could use them to record to DVD. Granted, the quality might not be what you'd get if you asked the BBC to do the same, but I don't see that part as a stumbling block at all. And as already mentioned, even if they have no intention of doing anything with the newly digitised recordings, it's something they should have done ten years ago if they were serious about maintaining an archive. I accept the other aspects to create something that can be streamed are far more complicated. I imagine there may be some politics at play too. Do regional theatres see schemes such as NT Live as a way to get locals interested in theatre and motivated to see the real thing, or do they see it as competition? If people get used to the idea that they'll see a streamed version of a play with their favourite actors, should they bother with a special trip to London? There are obvious financial benefits to streaming short runs of plays with celebrity actors and they'll find an audience that sees one less film, rather than one less play. So long as your celebrity actor hangs around for long enough to be in the recording.
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 15, 2022 17:16:37 GMT
They should digitise everything or they'll lose it - VHS probably won't last. I think particularly with disability activism finally starting to break through into the mainstream, theatremakers (if they're left-leaning) will have to start making things more physically accessible including by offering a streamed option if they want to carry on claiming they're 'inclusive'. 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.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on May 15, 2022 18:43:56 GMT
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. Yep, I'd be quite happy to get paid for something that sounds as straightforward as running tapes through a machine. As far as archiving goes, it doesn't sound any more boring than removing rusting 1960s & 70s staples & paperclips from papers, & it's probably easier on the fingers!
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 15, 2022 18:49:28 GMT
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. Yep, I'd be quite happy to get paid for something that sounds as straightforward as running tapes through a machine. As far as archiving goes, it doesn't sound any more boring than removing rusting 1960s & 70s staples & paperclips from papers, & it's probably easier on the fingers! Pass me a rubber thumb and a packet of treasury tags and I’ll be as happy as the day is long! 🙂
|
|
935 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyerorocher on May 15, 2022 18:51:29 GMT
Big archiving projects require money and unfortunately it's often hard to convince those in charge of the budget that the archive is worth spending that money on. Digitised shows can rarely be monetised because of the legal work that needs to be done to make that happen, so you have to argue the 'cultural and institutional value' angle and that's a lot harder to sell to the people in charge.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 15, 2022 19:40:38 GMT
Big archiving projects require money and unfortunately it's often hard to convince those in charge of the budget that the archive is worth spending that money on. Digitised shows can rarely be monetised because of the legal work that needs to be done to make that happen, so you have to argue the 'cultural and institutional value' angle and that's a lot harder to sell to the people in charge. Also, it's probably not as simple to just bung in a VHS tape and press upload. Even big film companies like Warner Bros which have huge archives only restore the films with significant value both culturally and monetary hence why you see Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz get 4K restoration and not some B movie. I get why streaming and recording is a good option for many but we need to careful as we don't want to be killing theatre's USP of a live performance.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 15, 2022 20:10:52 GMT
Geez… I don’t mean to be critical but do people genuinely think it’s a simple as “bunging a VHS tape in”?
An archival project of that nature would take thousands of man hours, from organisations that are already severely understaffed and struggling to do the bare minimum on the money they have. Say at a bare minimum you need to hire three new people just to digitise, organise and upload tapes - where is the money going to come from to pay their salaries? The time spent in the hiring process?
We’re also talking thousands of GB of data, which requires powerful computers with a lot of ram and a lot of processing power, not to mention they’d probably need external data storage. I know having done it myself that converting from DVD to an uploadable file format takes time and at least a small amount of technical knowledge. Such a thing would certainly require a substantial upgrade to their entire IT systems.
People who run theatre archives for a living and know exactly what’s involved have done the calculations and spent far more time and energy than anyone here crunching the numbers, and it’s just not financially viable to do something that would require a substantial financial investment and be so labour intensive. Do you think these companies haven’t spent weeks if not months exploring whether these options are viable? That they don’t know exactly what the cost/reward breakdown is? The market for archival recordings is essentially nil, except possible for rare historical works - realistically very few people are going to be willing to pay to see a random production of Romeo and Juliet from 1997 filmed from a single camera at the back of the auditorium. They’d have to charge a prohibitive amount to even come close to meeting the costs
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 15, 2022 20:22:48 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there must be some shows theatre companies would rather forget they put on so you're unlikely to see George and the Dragon or Manor be put on NT at Home anytime soon...
|
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 15, 2022 20:51:22 GMT
London should have an active archive like the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, that would be a start.
|
|