|
|
Post by Seriously on Jul 5, 2019 15:05:33 GMT
I'm very happy to carry on my conversation with Snciole.
|
|
1,306 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jul 5, 2019 15:36:55 GMT
So, yes, you did tweet someone you have no connection with and tell them when and where they could mention their dead father. It's interesting what Twitter ( and people) have become. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 5, 2019 15:51:00 GMT
Exactly.
The focus needs to be on David getting down with the crowd tomorrow. We wants videos.
|
|
3,303 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 5, 2019 16:23:33 GMT
Exactly. The focus needs to be on David getting down with the crowd tomorrow. We wants videos. That could well happen! Can’t promise any video’s though. If anybody wants to join me, you are more than welcome. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 5, 2019 16:34:01 GMT
I want to hear about you 'slut dropping' to this moving play about grief and loss...
|
|
3,303 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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. |
|
1,502 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....
|
|
751 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?
|
|
1,502 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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. |
|
3,303 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 5, 2019 19:53:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
2,480 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.
|
|
525 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
525 posts
Member is Online
|
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..
|
|
2,480 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. |
|
1,120 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.
|
|
19,661 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
