|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Apr 25, 2020 11:01:46 GMT
That all looks good and make a lot mor sense to me.
Just a few small additions.
It's probably worth putting the percentage of profits for each relevant party in under that table.
I think the Patron should probably take the bulk of profits; the company already gets paid. (This is especially relevant for PC Patrons funding plays!)
The Patron, in the case of the PC, should also get a free box for opening night!
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Apr 25, 2020 14:04:41 GMT
Done
If the Patron produces the play, he should get the Producer's share, sure, but if the company produces the play (and the Patron isn't involved or makes no financial outlay) then it should be the company that gets the Producer's share. (Yves Eau's June production is a case in point - the company is paying for everything except the props and he doesn't even have a Patron...) Added.
There's one further change it strikes me we should make. The 'Producer' of the play could refer either to the character(s) fronting the cash (hiring the theatre and company of players) or to the Professional Producer engaged to give the production some polish. I think we should call the Professional Producer something else to remove any possible confusion. 'Director' springs immediately to mind - since this is what he effectively does - but it sounds a bit modern as a term for this job and could lead to confusion with the Director of the Theatre Royal.
How about 'Professional Stage Manager' ?
It would be easy to edit this in to the amended rules above, but it would also require changes to those parts of section 35 referring to Professional Producers (the table and section 35.25).
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jul 3, 2020 9:57:39 GMT
I do not think a playwright's career should be forever blighted by every mistake he made in his youth.
I suggest a mechanism to remove the penalty after a number of months (twelve, perhaps) and/or successful productions (four, say).
There is already a +1 bonus for four successes, but it is not cumulative, so two flops and eight successes would add up to -1. Making this bonus cumulative as an independent rule could eventually make life too easy for a consistently successful playwright, but allowing additional successes to offset flops seems reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 3, 2020 13:20:39 GMT
Agree with this; seems unfair and doesn't apply to say a military career. And unrealistic; I'm pretty sure every playwright has written some stinkers before they got successful. For something easy, how does "Triumph cancels out all previous flops" sound? The main reason that's in there is to stop people just churning out flops and hoping they'll make money anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Jul 3, 2020 13:50:25 GMT
Fine with me. As you say, the main reason it was added was to stop people just churning out flops and hoping they'd make money anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jul 3, 2020 14:13:34 GMT
For something easy, how does "Triumph cancels out all previous flops" sound? The main reason that's in there is to stop people just churning out flops and hoping they'll make money anyway. Even a good script can be a commercial flop, so it's not just about churning out dross. But, over time, I would expect an occasional triumph, if producing good material, so your suggestion seems fair - and simple to manage.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 3, 2020 14:23:52 GMT
This is something I was going to bring up. Would it make more sense if playwright/actor ranks were based on success on the stage rather than the writing stage? Even a trashy badly written play is likely to make your name if hoi polloi love it.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Jul 3, 2020 14:43:37 GMT
Is that not already the case? I had assumed Stand To Attention! - an average script, but panned by the critics and shunned by the public - was a blot on my record as a playwright.
I certainly agree that's the way it should be. Only a few enlightened aficionados (those up whose alley it right is) recognise the true artistic merit of such works, though they may, in time, become cult classics.
I do not expect to rise through the professional ranks on the strength of unseen material, or the verdict of my sycophantic landlady.
|
|