props: "A few years ago, I was working on a show which had scenes inside a Starbucks. In the script, the characters talked about being in a Starbucks. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, Starbucks did not give permission for any of the props or scenery to show the Starbucks name or logo. I had to make letters for the sign, and it was decided that in some scenes, the sign would be far stage right and only the “ucks” would be visible, while in other scenes, the sign would be far stage left showing only the “Sta”.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sta**ucks letters
props: "A few years ago, I was working on a show which had scenes inside a Starbucks. In the script, the characters talked about being in a Starbucks. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, Starbucks did not give permission for any of the props or scenery to show the Starbucks name or logo. I had to make letters for the sign, and it was decided that in some scenes, the sign would be far stage right and only the “ucks” would be visible, while in other scenes, the sign would be far stage left showing only the “Sta”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I can understand the need to ask the company's permission, and I can see how it is completely their right to tell a group that they cannot use their logo. However, I dont really understand why they would say no. Theyre STARBUCKS. In which case I applaud the initiative that the designer and props guy took in figuring a way around the system. Unless the audience was told they probably would have no idea of the drama behind showing the name, and it would look like a conscious decision. And that what part of our job is all about, we need to figure out a way to cheat the system and make things work for the show, and then keep that method in our arsenal until the next problem comes along
The way they made the letters is neat. I agree with Sonia that the trick of only showing part of the sign is smart, and that probably no one noticed it wasn't really Starbucks sign. I know that companies have the right to deny movies the use of their logos, but it does make things difficult sometimes. Disney is on of these companies as well. No one but Disney movies can show Disney logos, parks, or any merchandise. Considering the sheer amount of products Disney has that's a lot of untouchable items.
If Starbucks was denying permission for them to use their name and logo, i think they could still press charges for the company using half their name and logo. And that point ended up being irrelevant because the article was then about how these guys went about making the prop. I did like the laminated cardboard idea, it looks really good. But I hope Starbucks doesn't find out what they did. i wonder if they still used the Starbucks cups and green straws. I also wonder why Starbucks cared in the first place. I think the interesting part of this story was left out.
I think showing only the "Sta" and "ucks" is really clever.
Also, I think laminating cardboard to fit inside of certain curves is very, very smart. We often find new ways to use materials to fit our needs, and it's challenges (and solutions) like this that make what we do incredibly fun.
There's something about big corporations like Starbucks that hate having their names used in seemingly harmless ways. A lot of times this comes down to companies not wanting to be shown in a negative light, but what I would like to know is why this theater was denied permission to show the logo or name when the play was actually set in a Starbucks, while Austin Powers pt 1 was permitted to portray Starbucks as an "Evil Empire" bought out by Dr. Evil... It probably came down to a matter of Starbucks wanting compensation for the right to use their name and logo, but at the same time there's a Starbucks within a five minute walk from any given location in the country, so why would they feel the need to charge artists to use them as a setting? I get that it's a capitalist world, it just seems like a selfish and somewhat pointless venture to me.
I think it's interesting that Starbucks wouldn't give permission. It's such a large corporation that I don't understand why they wouldn't agree to be represented in the play. Also, if it's true that they are losing business these days, then why wouldn't they want the publicity? I think it's clever how they got around not getting permission though. However, it seems like that is a little too close to just saying Starbucks. But I guess if they don't get in trouble because of their solution than it's pretty genius.
Post a Comment