Kevin Spacey vs BBC

Well, hes simply saying what everyone thinks but is too timid to say.

Its the real reason that these shows are so popular anyway.

• 16 years ago
• 1

He's just as fed up with it all as we are. The problem is people WILL Do Anything. They don't want to do the dirty work to get their career underway, they just want the fame, fortune and celebrity status that this crap brings.
I'll be completely honest, if it comes to hte point where this is the only way to audition, I'd change careers, rather than cheapen myself. Endomol are only after one thing, money and lot's of it, so now, it seems is Llyod Webber!
They do 10 different shows a year, each with a 10 week phone vote, they make a £8million profit PER WEEK through this, x 10 weeks, that's £80million, x by 10 shows a year? Yeah, a lot of moolah ain't it?
So out of that £800million, Endomol and the ilk should have their own recording studios, drama/acting school, distribution label, sound stage to rival Pinewood or anything else that would deem beneficial to promote cast and crew alike? Nope!!!
So nothing goes in to produce or assist new dramas, films, production shows or the music industry! A lot of us talk about exploitation and yet this is one of the worst kinds. Some of us enter these, as "it's the only way these days" and a ton more support them.
It's cheap, tacky, and offers nothing back to the industry other than more cheap and tacky garbage.
I really hope it ends soon!!!

• 16 years ago
• 2

Well, I think its fair to say that while there are many wannabes who are on the show, there are also some very very serious and highly dedicated performers who see it as the ONLY way to get seen for a big show-

I say this simply because I can say that on this site alone are HUNDREDS of people who KNOW they are rigt for certain jobs and just cannot get seen- thats the pull-

so while many of us do disapprove of the methods used, I have total compassion and understanding for why actors will go down this path-

Elaine paige was quoted as saying that real actors wouldnt do this- but to be fair- with such an oversturated business with many in it who should NOT be pursuing a career in it- I can totally understand.

That said- the church I attend in central London has its services on Sunday in a West End theatre- and I was supremely tight and uncomfortable yesterday- and I realised its that west end theatre managements seat too many people in the theatres, with little leg room- too many seats....the reason... financial greed.

• 16 years ago
• 3

Add to that, Blake, the soaring price of tickets because of the increase in the demand created by these ten week adverts stated by Kenny and then look at the measly wages these created 'stars' acually get and you know where all that money is going!
Certainly not the performers.
If the theatre producers actually get their way to put up the number of shows to 12 per week from the present 8 there will be a massive demand for performers caused by the break down of Voices and Performer Fatigue.Replacements would have to form an orderly queue at the Stage Door nightly! BUT!!! Who would put up with all that for just £370 per week? You could do Murder Mystery Nights and get more money!
No wonder the West End performers want more money. They bloddy well DESERVE it!

• 16 years ago
• 4

Well I don't know where to start with this topic.

I absolutely LOATHE ENTIREly these shows.

My biggest gripe is that the people who win are not just checkout girls, receptionists etc who would like to give it a go, they all seem to have a fair amount of training behind them. Obviously I don't have a problem with people going to the brits school or other training academys, the problem I have is that they market the thought that anyone can do it. This clearly isn't the case. As everybody on here will no, it's not just about raw talent, but vocal technique, on screen technique, grooming, stage and screen presence, stage etiquete and a whole host of other factors.
The idea, that the competition is wide open is unfair to market.
This drives thousands of hopefuls to audition all over the country for jobs that they are, lets face it, NOT going to get.
I find the X Factor the worst of them all.
Put yourself in this position...
Your family and friends think you're great on the kareoke and urge you to go on the X Factor. You travel to your nearest audition, setting out at around 5 in the morning. Arrive at your destination and que for some hours. Then you will see some runners who put you through to the next round. More waiting. Youagain sing for some more runners and again they put you through. By this time you will clearly be thinking that you are actually quite good after seeing so many people turned away. You then get to see another panel who ask you to come back on a different day to see the celebrity panel. You go home and tell all of your friends and family. You can't believe your luck. When the re-call comes around you go through the morning thinking that this could be it. Eventually you get to see the panel... and they laugh in your face, tell you you look shit and can't sing for toffe!!!
What are we doing, allowing this bullying to be on our screens. Is it any wander that some of the conttestents cry, lash out etc. It's heartbreaking to watch which is why I don't.
I find it absolutely appaling. People shouldn't be treated like this just because thay can't sing.
Don't forget you have to sign that bit of paper before you see any body,, youdon't know that this will happen, and most p[eople who haven't been ionvolved with TV at all completely trust that these people know what they are doing.
All of this in the name of entertainment.
I'm with Kenny on this and would rather give up what is in my blood that to put myself through the humiliation.

Ok, rant over (breathe)

Sarah

• 16 years ago
• 5

I actually watched the Nancy programme this weekend for the first time. I haven't previously watched the Sound of Music or Joseph ones. Now I realise that people put themselves up for rejection on this show and they should know what they are letting themselves in for etc etc.
But the way they did the first vote off was completely shocking.
For anyone unfamiliar with it there were 12 Nancy's for the first live show. They all sang and got a public phone vote. At the end the 2 least popular Nancy's were in a "sing off" for Mr Lloyd-Webber. Before they even got to open their mouth, the panel had already nominated Amy as the one they would send home, then Graham Norton reminded them in no uncertain terms that they had got the lowest votes and were the least popular (as if this point needed to be hammered home). Before A L-W picked the one he wanted to keep as his was the casting vote, Graham Norton told Amy not only was she in the bottom two but she actually got the least votes of the two. Poor Amy was then nominated as first to go by Andrew and had to stand on stage again with all the other Nancy's singing Cheerio in her face, ripping off her Nancy necklace and after being told so many times she was never going to be Nancy and how she was the least popular the poor sod had to sing yet again. I was mortified for her - the worst reality show for humiliating someone - I couldn't believe how cruel it was. And don't get me started on the poor little Olivers ......

• 16 years ago
• 6

Blake I agree, and I also sympathise for the few, NOT THE MANY, who find this is the only way to be seen in a casting for the jobs they want. Yet if nobody supported the "flimsy filth" they call reality entertainment, then there wouldn't be this crap over Maria, Joseph and stuff in the first place.
I remember doing a tour, 4yrs ago, where the only topic of conversation within the actors and singers was Big Brother and how "fantastic" it was. It's funny now, but those same people are complaining like HELL over what we now have to put oursevles through to be recognised for a chance of a role.
As another friend of mine, recently said,
"Simple things, serious repercussions!"

What frightens me the most, is when you work with juveniles, in Panto or similar, you see the parents backstage, telling them how great they are, and how much prettier and better than the other children they are and how proud they're making them. This is how Joe public see you when you subject yourself to the reality genre, half of them couldn't spell ENTERTAINMENT without looking at a magazine, and a quarter wouldn't know what it meant, without looking it up in a dictionary and yet these are the people who're voting for who they think should win the chance of a lifetime?
Oh the judging panel are good, they can make an audience come round to their way of thinking, that's what they're there for, and if you still don't pick who the producers know should win? Well there's always the phone rigging!
And the icing on the cake, who hosts the majority of this exploitation? LOL! The guy who tried to get a hundred actors to work for free ofcourse Mr Norton. It's little wonder he thinks people will work for nothing, he see's 100's of 1000's apply for this crap every month.
If you fuel it, the fire will spread, so don't fuel it, turn the TV over, hire a DVD, watch a video and attend auditions.

Blake made a great point of an over saturated market. Reality isn't solely to blame, but 10 series (or more) a year, spanning 12 weeks each (10 weeks are voting weeks) that's over 2 yrs of viewing spread over 3 or 4 channels. I could think of a much better way of using £800million a year, and there's be an abundance of jobs for those who CAN!
Rant over!

• 16 years ago
• 7

Well, need anyone say more....

• 16 years ago
• 8

Unfortunately it's all about commercialism. Spacey is spot on in what he says. Although obviously he is also bemoaning the fact that the plays at the Old Vic and all other theatres across the land do not get the same kind of publicity.

Whilst I think these shows are cheap trashy entertainment and can't abide them myself, I also have the thought that anything which gets bums on seats can't be a bad thing totally as it's the successful shows that subsidise lots of the less successful ones. If every show had to make a large profit then most theatres, even those in the West End would be dark. I may not be spot on with these figures but I believe I have heard that for every 6 shows on in the West End, 1 will make money, 2 may just break even and 3 will lose money. The figures may be incorrect but I believe the proportions are not far wrong.

As for his remarks about Play for Today, then I could not agree more. How beneficial for the industry would it be to have something along those lines back on our screens? Breeding the new Potters, Ayckbournes and Abbots etc.

I had the pleasure of a conversation with Paul Abbott and also met a few of the cast recently following a screening of "Mrs Inbetweeny" written by one of his academy writers. The excitement within the cast and from Paul himself about having produced something new and different for one hour only was truly palpable. Even though there were hopes that a series may be commissioned it was still a complete piece of work in its own right. And something I would have loved to have been involved in as an actor.

The thing was that BBC3 had commissioned 6 similar productions. Why stop at 6? We have enough channels now where independent productions of this nature could be a regular feature, earning themselves a schedule slot on the main channels should reaction be positive enough.

The competition and output this would generate within the industry today would be immense. Tired old formats could be removed, new exciting works produced and the future of this wonderful industry we associate ourselves with could be assured. A better use for lottery funding than some others perhaps?

In fact how about the BBC or ITV making a show about the concept of this?
The process of pitching stories for possible selection, then following them into a shortlist, making short previews for review by leading lights of the arts and allowing the audience to choose which ones go forward for full production. Have I just stumbled on a new programme format? If so, then I lay claim to it here on the 31st March 2008 ha ha.

Sadly I do not think it would work as the public seem to enjoy the voyeuristic aspect of these shows where we see people making a complete arse of themselves.

• 16 years ago
• 9

What a great idea for a show, Simon.
I have already 'pitched it' to TV companies. The look of boredom on the producers' faces would have made 'The Scream' look like the Mona Lisa!
The PUBLIC are the ones who watch this stupid show because they are looking out for musicals NOT drama.
Drama production is quite 'dry' on its own. With Musicals you get 'singers' god and bad. It's the failure that everyone wants in spectacular style!!
That is the overall appeal of this twaddle on TV.Seeing someone you don't know 'Crash and Burn'!
Too many 'intellectual writers' would drive away TV audiences. BBC 4 would be the best channel for it. But sadly their budget is still being reduced to 'bits of 'other programmes.

• 16 years ago
• 10

I know I sound a bit paranoid when I say this, but the more 'insider' knowledge I get about these programmes, the more I am convinced that they are not just poor television, but that they are actively fixed all along the line.

Am I the only one who thinks certain people look like they are being groomed to be the winner (in publicity shots etc.) right from the word go? Am I the only one who gets the impression that on many a week the contestant who ultimately gets dumped seems to have known about this well in advance? Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that we are only ever told the results of the phone vote, and there is not even an ostensible count released to 'prove' how many votes were cast for and against? Am I the only one who thinks, not only do people with training get through in the end, but that Andrew LW etc. have brokered a deal with them several months in advance of its unfolding on the TV screens?

And before this all gets dismissed as nonsense, why is it any different from that not uncommon situation where a company has pre-cast, but holds auditions for the sake of defusing accusations of precasting? Isn't this the oldest trick in the producerial book, dragged out at immense length for the TV cameras?

• 16 years ago
• 11

Not at all Lee, I have mentioned this several times through threads on here myself. It's how the judges manipulate the audience into voting for who they want to. It's really self evident at times, if you no what to look for.

Well this garbage has crossed over to feature films now too. Oscar nominee Alex Jovy (director) is doing an online casting, where the Voters (at £1.50 per vote) get to pick who they want to STAR in "The Flirting Club". He's gone on record, in one of the many many blogs, as saying the
"the standards of acting change from audition to audition, it's up to the viewers to select their favourite actor/actress via the votes. we have to charge a very low fee per vote as it's the only revenue we have to maintain the site, thanks!"
Sorry, If the premise of this film is to get new actors, then wouldn't that all be within the budget? And of the 315,000 votes so far, wouldn't £460,000 be more than enough to cover this without the shameless stock answer of "site maintenance!" Christ with no big name attached to it, he could make 2 features for minimum rate at that price!!!

I noticed a few CCPers have submitted already, good luck, but wow, just another scam to be attached to :-(

• 16 years ago
• 12

Oh the site for the latest abuse of talent is www.itsourmovie.com

• 16 years ago
• 13

Unfortunately there probably isn't any money in it...but all you'd really need is a couple of cameras, some actors and a script and you could stick it on the internet. There are so many websites to stick video footage on...

On the offhand the BBC gets their nose out of joint, you don't even have to call it 'Play for a Day'.

• 16 years ago
• 14

I think Kevin Spacey has a point!
I am sick of these sort of shows! And more to the point I feel enraged that i have to pay a license fee for them to produce these shows. There are so many talented people out there and we are reduced to this because it is our only chance!
The BBC makes so much money on the license fee and now all this phone voting. They are making a fortune - guess its why the head honchos have amazing jollies and ridiculous salaries.
Fair play to them - you get what you work for. BUT when you have to pay a license to watch TV - shouldn't the calibre of television be better.
I wish every one of those girls the best of british, they'll need it.

• 16 years ago
• 15

I am one of the Many, (sorry Kenny, not the Few for us ladies) that cannot get a paid casting for love nor money.
But I have to say that the latest one is even more exploitative than the last, if that was possible.
In many ways I am very glad that I wasn't right for it, looking at the awful television it's making, but I don't regret going for it one little bit.
It's great that new dramas are getting comissioned, and BBC3 is doing fantastic, exciting things. But will I get to hear about the castings for these? I doubt it. And if they do post anything up on CCP or Spotlight Breakdown will I get a call? Well, I haven't yet.
I feel like writing to the great Mr Spacey and asking him to open up his casting procedure to people like me and then maybe I'll stop perpetuating these tacky programmes by queuing in the cold for them.
Right. Glad I've got that off my chest. Can you tell I'm not having a good day??
x

• 16 years ago
• 16

Totally agree with you Shinything!
Enough said!

• 16 years ago
• 17

I think you've completely missed the point. IT SHOUDN'T BE LIKE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE! The public casting is outrageous, and the fact that they are allowed to turn a profit at it AT OUR EXPENSE, is ridiculous.
I've said, and obviously been missread, at that I HAVE COMPLETE SYMPATHY FOR THOSE TAKING PART, but the more people that do this, then the more this will continue, until it BECOMES THE NORM. It'll become more exploitative, I have standards, THEY MAY BE LOW, But I have them!!!

• 16 years ago
• 18

I completely agree with you Sharon! The problem now is that so many of us are in a position that paid work is such a challenge to find - so when a programme like this comes along it makes you think "is this the only way?" I think Spacey has hit the nail on the head - somebody has needed to speak up for a long time and I'm glad that someone in the public eye has finally piped up - Play of the Day SHOULD be brought back, programmes like this ARE self promoting. Now, if someone could have a word with Spacey to speak out about No/Lo Pay then that might have some clout - its people in the public eye who can flag up issues and I hope that more people follow in his footsteps.

xx

• 16 years ago
• 19

I don't think I have missed the point at all.
Of course they will keep producing stuff like this. You don't have to have any training to audition! Having worked with 15/16 yr olds this year 1 in 8 thinks they will become famous by winning this sort of show. They don't need professionals to take part, anyone can thats the hook!
I do however think it is a shame that the casting of good projects relys on the same casting all the time. Week after week you see the same people.
I too have standards, think we all do but can totally understand why we feel that auditioning for a show like this is an opportunity. At least we get seen, you never know who is watching! A L-W did seem keen on saying who was in what after appearing on Maria & Joseph. Maybe that is the hook for the professionals.
Anybody got a good contact at the Old Vic?/ :)

• 16 years ago
• 20