CARRIE Reading?- Page 7

[romgitsean]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 3:28pm

Oh Jesus >.< I could only imagine that would be humorous.

Sorry I'm hounding you for questions, but I am a Carrie NUT after directing it as a drama and having seen both films 943495994 times, read the book (backwards and forwards) and seeing every Carrie the Musical bit possible.

But I have to ask: from the reading, was it implied they will lift it to Broadway/Off-Broadway/Encores(?) or is it too early to tell??

[romgitsean]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 3:28pm

Oh Jesus >.< I could only imagine that would be humorous.

Sorry I'm hounding you for questions, but I am a Carrie NUT after directing it as a drama and having seen both films 943495994 times, read the book (backwards and forwards) and seeing every Carrie the Musical bit possible.

But I have to ask: from the reading, was it implied they will lift it to Broadway/Off-Broadway/Encores(?) or is it too early to tell??

[Dantes]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:48pm

I would have thought if they are going to do this it would be Broadway

[Famebroadway2]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:53pm

Jeffery Seller said at first he was thinking Off-Bway with a late at night showing but, That was a few years ago when the talks first began.

With the size of the show they are now looking at Broadway. Talks are happening right now for an early spring full workshop and a Fall 2010 opening. ;o)

R ;o)

[binau]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:53pm

I'm pretty sure they actually gave some info about a Broadway production (it was mentioned earlier in the thread), like some season in 2010 (I don't remember exactly, especially since seasons in the northern hemisphere are opposite to southern so I'm not too good at quickly converting/understanding).

[romgitsean]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 8:50pm

That makes me so happy. I would expect Broadway as well, but I didn't know how quickly they'd be able to jump back into it.

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:21am

THIS is just TOO funny a thread to not continue to post on. No one really cares about this show except for the 9 people who've posted here... BUT...

They ARE currently planning for a Bway opening. They are openly soliciting investors for a Bway run. Given the Director's previous commitments - it would be fall 2010 at the earliest. He will be at Stratford for 4 months in the spring / summer.

NO - there will be NO recording of this workshop released. It was a 29 hr AEA Reading contract. There is no recording allowed on this contract. Yes - some idiotic individual might have snuck into the tight industry heavy audience with a recording device - BUT if you cared at all about the integrity of the union actors who gave of their time so freely to make these readings possible - you would REJECT or DESTROY any recordings that became available. These people were paid NOTHING to bring these performances to life and their talent should be protected.

The reading performances were inspired - if not flawed. The script / score is mainly in tact from Bway 1988. Serious revisions are on the table to make a revival successful. Whether or not a smart enough angle can be found is up in the air. These readings suggested that a smart revival is possible - BUT they did not definitely make a case that the show could be artistically or commercially successful. Those points are still VERY much in the air.

More to come. But for now - what else is there to really discuss?
Updated On: 11/26/09 at 01:21 AM

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:56am

"what else is there to really discuss? "

I think you should discuss this a little:

"These people were paid NOTHING to bring these performances to life and their talent should be protected. "

How is a recording damaging?

[Rose'sTurn]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:05am

Yes - some idiotic individual might have snuck into the tight industry heavy audience with a recording device - BUT if you cared at all about the integrity of the union actors who gave of their time so freely to make these readings possible - you would REJECT or DESTROY any recordings that became available. These people were paid NOTHING to bring these performances to life and their talent should be protected.

Indivdual? Try 5-10 & probably more individuals. You are batsh*t crazy if you think I would reject or destroy a recording of this.

[mormonophobic]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:10am

See I agree that their talent should be protected. I just think our definition on what that means differs. To me, the performances should be protected as in preserved. We are, after all, talking about a show whose entire accessibility to this point has been through various bootlegs. If you've seen or heard Carrie at all and you weren't one of those lucky enough to attend its original run, then you've either listened to an illegal copy or watched those videos. Both of which the actors, writer, director, and various others involved got no pay for. I realize that this staging differs from the original since the actors were not paid anything to do it and since it it's in an entirely different setting. It is simply my opinion that if a recording exists of this it should be heard. And that a recording should exist. In this day and age with our economy as bad as it is, who knows if this small production will ever see the light of day? This could be our last (and perhaps best) version of a show so many of us solely know from recordings.
Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:10 AM

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:14am

Is "paid nothing" an exaggeration for paid very little? I mean, I don't think they were paid literally *nothing*.

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:15am

Because the actors were contracted by the producers of the reading on a certain contract that prohibits recordings. That's it. If recordings were allowed per the contract - the actors would have been actually paid well for their time. Get a clue.

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:17am

The general pay for this contract is $100. That's it. That is obviously "very little" to "nothing". Barely pays for their subway fare to and from rehearsal.

[Rose'sTurn]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:17am

I'm sure, since this was an AEA reading, that AEA demanded SOME compensation.

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:19am

"Because the actors were contracted by the producers of the reading on a certain contract that prohibits recordings. That's it. If recordings were allowed per the contract - the actors would have been actually paid well for their time. Get a clue."

Case A: Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

Case B: No Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

Effect of both cases on the cast member, their time, or income: nothing.

So the recording doesn't necessarily "damage" anything.

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:21am

A recording is "damaging" simply because these people gave their talent to a specific AEA contract and recordings are not allowed. If they thought that recordings of their performances would reach any kind of distribution - they would have negotiated different agreements.

Are you all community theatre novices? Professional actors have a union to protect their talent for a reason.

[Rose'sTurn]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:23am

I am STILL waiting for my trade for a recording to go through.

I've been waiting since Saturday!! I'm getting restless!!

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:25am

They would have known the reading was recorded illegally, I doubt they're that naive.

But what you're talking about isn't *damage*, you're basically explaining why it shouldn't be recorded, not what the effects of an illegal recording (the act of, or listening to one) is. If I listen to an illegal recording or not, NOTHING changes. Hence, there is NO damage.

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:25 AM

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:30am

I give up. I thought these message boards were an actual, sophisticated exchange of information and ideas. Clearly not. I think I'm a lone entertainment industry professional in a sea of community theatre amatuers.

If you all can't see the importance of protecting a professional actor's work - we're all doomed.

I've supplied enough info as one of TWO people on this board who actually saw the reading.

I can't share more when the atmosphere toward real theatre professionals is so dismally disrespected.

[Rose'sTurn]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:33am

If you all can't see the importance of protecting a professional actor's work - we're all doomed.

Yes, we are all doomed. All doomed because we want to hear a revision of a huge 80's mega flop. Nothing else will doom us as bootlegs do.

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:36am

Goodnight kindergarten. I don't know why I tried.

[Rose'sTurn]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:39am

Hey fairies, I own 2 Carrie soundboards, a workshop, AND a full Stratford video.

Doesn't that just grind your gears?

[Fairies]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:50am

I've wasted enough time here on disrespectful - so called - theatre lovers.

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:56am

Faries.

Well, firstly, I think it's strange you would 'conclude' one or two members' opinion's here are representative of the entire board.

And secondly, It's not about whether I agree with 'protecting a professional actor's work' or not at all. It's about you not able to support your claim..

You claimed basically
* If you listen to a bootleg then you will damage the actors etc.. professionally.

But you haven't actually showed why. If I listen to a recording in my room, alone - nothing happens in terms of damage. There will be no change in effect whether I listen or not (so it seems strange that I should 'DESTROY' the recording straight away, when listening to it doesn't apparently change anything.

I can see why you could claim that listening to a recording kind of supports the illegal activity of bootlegging, which is wrong because the actors didn't agree to it. But this isn't DAMAGE. This is just explaining why you think it is wrong. Especially in the case of the CARRIE reading, illegal recording or not wouldn't have changed anything. For someone to claim 'damage' there has to be 'damage', i.e. (since it has already happened) the bootlegs should have damaged the 'professionals' somehow. So if these bootlegs weren't recorded, how do you think the actors etc.. would be less-damaged now?

(I'll try to make it simpler. Basically you claim If recorded then damage occurred. We know it was recorded so damage must have occurred. What is this damage? (The easiest way to show this is by showing the difference in cases between recording and not recording..))

So an example of damage

* The actors find out about the recordings, decide to quit the production (damage). [If they did this and explicitly said that the bootleg recordings were the reason, then It would be convincing for example in this case that the recordings caused damage].

Look. I love it that you think you're 'sophisticated' and all, but from my perspective (not surprisingly), you're a close minded person who has jumped on the "omg piracy/bootlegging causes damage!11" bandwagon, without actually thinking why.

I'll leave you with an analogy: record labels claim an X amount of $$ of lost revenue in Piracy each year because people download their songs illegally. No doubt you'd probably agree with this argument. (Let's say cast recordings to keep it 'closer to home')

But the problem with claiming that piracy caused this 'damage' is you can't necessarily say that for each illegal download someone would have bought the song instead.

I think you have to look at it a little more objectively, and consider that the 'theft' of intellectual property is a specific type of 'crime' that is a little bit distinct from stealing. Because if you literally stole all those CDs they would have indeed lost money, as the physical item has been taken, that we'll assume would have been sold otherwise. Or stealing the physical cash from Marin Mazzie's hands is a bit different than recording her voice without paying her.

And it would be very 'unsophisticated' of you to infer from my post that I'm condoning it or whatever at all; I'm just trying to look at it a bit objectively.

So the final thought is not to think that because I don't think 'stealing' and 'copyright infringements' etc.. are the same, that I think copyright infringement is morally correct or anything, or I'm trying to 'excuse' it. I'm just saying that if you want to claim it is 'damaging' something you should think about why/what is being damaged..

I think the example I gave above was a pretty one, the two cases:

Case A: Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

Case B: No Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

If you can't show that Case A and Case B have different effects on the actors 'talents' or whatever, in terms of damage - then I don't know how you can claim there is any damage.

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:56 AM

[TheaterBoy7777]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 3:10am

This is how I feel about the buying of Bootlegs. It not damage or disresectful to the actors, IF the production has ceased or will not happen again in the recorded form. I see these bootlegs as research being an actor. If im going to watch Alice's wonderful performance in Side Show, that isnt going to damage the show ITS Closed and now will have my viewing of a revival after seeing the video. Or if Im going to listen to an audio of a workshop of Wicked it isnt hurting the show because its a different show and it isnt going to affect the buying of the OBC cd. In the case of the Carrie Reading if someone happened to make an audio it wouldnt be damaging for the same reasons. It won't be in the same form again and for those of us who have followed the show for years might not have had the same luck as you seeing the workshop. An audio or video would give us the chance to be in your seat and view what we didn't get to see. If I was in the performace, I would want the recording myself and would be glad someone else took care of the taping for me.