/ Do film crews have a right to 'claim' a venue?
No idea in this case of course...
The BMC site says Lawrencefield is on Open Access land. The maps seem to suggest otherwise, but if it is then there's a right of access even if the NT decide otherwise.
It's not the sort of thing that's going to happen very often is it. I wouldn't mind if they were shooting a film but if they were shooting an advert then i would spend the rest of the day there disrupting their shoot.
We had an advert being filmed on our street last week and the filming crew decided that we weren't allowed to use our drive for the duration of it (0700 to 2000), even going so far as to close our gates and put a zip tie round them to stop them being opened, that made me very very cross.
Wow, predictably single minded responses from the thread so far.
Do they have a 'right'? No.
Is it unreasonable to let someone get on with their job, after all while it messes with your plans a little it's easy enough for you to move a mile down the road or wait bit.
The world doesn't have to be governed by hard and fast rules. Smile, be flexible, play along it's a whole lot less aggravating.
Agree, and it leaves more people with a positive image of climbers.
I'd question the film crew's position a little harder if there weren't alternatives available at a similar grade but rarely is that the case.
Had something similar happen. We had no prior warning and the road was blocked off and gates blocked by trucks.
I appreciate jobs to be done etc, but this took the street by the blue. I was told I could not move a vehicle off my driveway. Wanted reason etc as i wanted to get on my mtb in the Lakes.
In the end, i put my bike in the back, opened the gates and reversed my Landrover Lightweight into some generator thing. Took out a Fiat and headed off. Never heard a thing
Unless they have written permission of the land owners for usage of that day then they have zero exclusivity rights. Even then this would have to be known before hand to users of the land (see climbers). They need proof of this on the day that they are using the said land. If they did not have this proof on hand then you can carry on until they produce it.
I think my head might have exploded in that situation!
It sounds like the people at Peak were being fairly reasonable and I would probably try and accomodate them. However, block my gates or zip tie them? I would have walkewd into the middle of their shot and asked for whoever was in charge, bloody cheek of them!!
I was one of two climbers who were asked by the production company to help out with the filming at Lawrencefield yesterday and feel it is only fair to give a bit of perspective to this.
Firstly, I completely understand your frustration about not being able to climb when you turned up. However, we had also infact waited for the best part of two hours to get on the slab prior to commencing filming (plus waiting for it to actually stop raining). I would guess we spent two hours on it, which ok, is a fair bit for a V.diff, but not ridiculous. The production guys were working as quickly as possible, and were a very sound and polite bunch. As for the lass climbing, she was awesome, having never climbed anything she stuck at the route until she made it, essentially only climbing with one arm and one leg!
The simple fact is that the guys had gathered over 1 1/2 hours of footage, and if there had suddenly been extra people and bags turning up in shots, they would never have been able to cut it together and it would have been wasted.
As it was we were done within ten minutes of you leaving. I can't help but feel that you are unphappy because it was a prodcution team, if it had been a teaching group you would have been in exactly the same boat, the only differnce being that we asked if you could move your bags a few meters. Hardly an unreasonable request.
Anyway, I'm sorry that you were frustrated, but everyone has a right to the crags, as long as the don't break them and leave things as they found it. Sometimes it just needs a little bit of compromise and understanding....
Fair comment, but wouldn't a mid week day have been more considerate than a weekend?
I once inadvertantly walked over the skyline into a Top Gear film shoot. They were less than civil and screamed abuse at us telling us to get off the f*cking skyline!
Why was she climbing with one arm and one leg?
In fairness mate, those Nissans arent meant for walking over.
Physical disabilities i'm guessing.
As for the lass, she had mild cerebal palsy, meaning that she only had marginal use of here left arm and leg. But I can vouch that she didn't get hauled once and was amazing at figuring out how to make moves the wrong way round to counter her disability.
Don't be too hopeful of resounding defense of your position around these parts. I tied a route up last year as an instructor and was fairly well beaten by folk on here, with a few notable exceptions and a few pat's on the back. Generally though the mood was one of condemnation.
I can't help feeling if I arrived at a crag and saw somebody with cerebal palsy climbing a route, i'd be impressed at the effort/application needed and probably wouldn't mind particularly if I couldn't climb a certain route or couple of routes.
> I can't help feeling if I arrived at a crag and saw somebody with cerebal palsy climbing a route, i'd be impressed at the effort/application needed and probably wouldn't mind particularly if I couldn't climb a certain route or couple of routes.
Me niether. She's got a constant battle with it you're put out for 2 hours.
Why not go to Yarncliffe?
> Fair comment, but wouldn't a mid week day have been more considerate than a weekend?
> I once inadvertantly walked over the skyline into a Top Gear film shoot. They were less than civil and screamed abuse at us telling us to get off the f*cking skyline!
I think I would have taken the opportunity to stop there and eat my lunch.
I don't think this is about not being able to get on the route, it's about being told they're not allowed to be in the area in case they're caught in one of the shots. So, in that sense, it doesn't really make any difference that she had cerebal palsy, and is more of a filming issue, as I have understood the thread. I could, of course, have the wrong end of the stick.
WRT the zip tied gates - I don't know the law, but surely a call to the police would have been in order? Did you not get told about it before hand?
Apart from the OP's "Oh, no. Continuity, don't you know......blah blah, I thought the woman was polite when explaining what they were up to.
Agree, bad choice doing it at weekend.
Are you talking about the main "Pool" area, Red Wall, or the Roadside Bays? These are three distinct parts of Lawrencefield all out of each others' sight, and certainly the Roadside Bays have good easy routes - was it not possible to try those out (I am assuming that the filming was going on at Pool area)?
I am not judging anyone, I am just wondering whether all of Lawrencefield was being made inaccessible.
"WRT the zip tied gates - I don't know the law, but surely a call to the police would have been in order? Did you not get told about it before hand?"
I would certainly have complained if something like that was done without my permission and without appropriate notice. Roads are often closed to vehicles for this kind of thing, but closure to pedestrians is rather less common, and is IMO only reasonable in very limited circumstances, e.g. crime scenes.
If, OTOH, they offered to pay me a suitable sum not to enter/leave my house for a certain time period on a given day, I might well take them up on it.
As for other public areas, if you (not you personally, obviously ;) ) want me not in shot in a public place that has not been closed via the appropriate formal procedure, you ask me nicely. If you're rude to me, I will walk where I like. If you then assault me or give verbal abuse to attempt to remove me, the police will be along shortly with charges being pressed against you.
And if it has been closed via the appropriate procedure, ensure you put up suitable barrier tape and signage. It is not reasonable to cause embarrassment in that sort of way.
Generally there's no right to a venue, unless you're on private land it's been negotiated. But most of the time being polite and reasonable with people is all that's needed (sadly, sometimes stressed out producers are neither).
A few years ago I was involved with filming Munro: Mountain Man. One segment was filmed on the In Pinn and we waited about four hours in line, and let a few other past, before getting on the route at about 6pm. It took about two hours to film and we did hold up one group for about 20 minutes who were starting to get a bit edgy about it. However, good will was restored when they abseiled off and I was waiting with 15 litres of water and apples to distribute :)
We had a crew in residence for a few weeks a year or two ago filming a truly dire comedy as it turned out - the name of which I've thankfully forgotten. Thye always looked most put out if you happended to stray close/use the road etc. For their pains they had an unscheduled and exuberant visit from my very unphotogenic dog
Think i'd feel less put out if it was something which might be inspirational for the person climbing or anybody watching though, than if it was something else.
That's just my subjectivity though, others might be different to me.
> The simple fact is that the guys had gathered over 1 1/2 hours of footage, and if there had suddenly been extra people and bags turning up in shots, they would never have been able to cut it together and it would have been wasted.
Well it wouldn't though would it, you would have had 1 1/2 hours of footage of someone climbing which you could have then edited down. "Continuity errors" in this instance is just another way of saying "they couldn't then edit it to make it look like something different happened."
TBH though if all you asked them to do was to shift their bags then I don't see the problem. Equally if it was a case of "Don't do the route right next to us" yeah also fine (I personally tend to avoid routes right next to people having an epic, this seems no different).
But if what the OP suggested is the case, ie they were told not to do a route vaguely nearby cos they *might* end up in the background of a shot I'm very surprised they didn't tell you to get lost.
Agreed. Ask nicely, I will smartly and promptly get out of your way. Come over as an arrogant @rsehole then I will equally as happily do everything in my power to screw you and your production up.
It's all in the presentation.
> I think I would have taken the opportunity to stop there and eat my lunch.
It was very tempting. Trouble was we weren't 100 % certain we were on a public f/p as we didn't have a map. Looking at it later confirmed that we had been on one, and their indignant abuse was bluff brought about by frustration as our appearance had ruined the take!
Just to give a bit more info. The inital climb was all filmed via a chap on a fixed rope next to the lass. However, look at any TV or film and you will see that several different angles are used, otherwise things look like a home movie. Therefore, the girl abbed back down to the mid point so that some wide angle shots could be taken from the top of the crag (looking across from climbers left of the pool) and a few fillers of us shouting encouragement etc. It's just the way they get it to look good. In terms of any of it being contrived, I thought it would be, but the producer went to great lengths to isolate us from the lass unless we were on camera, so that all of our chat etc was not staged and as genuine as possible.
It wasn't some huge production effort and though I completely appreciate how frustrating it must have been for the OP, I thought that Sam the producer, who they spoke to, was very polite and understanding and asked the crew and director to hurry up as much as possible so they could crack on and climb.
Ten minutes after they left, the filming on the crag was done and my mate and I got on with bagging a few ticks while the crew had some lunch. (Which was sorely needed as we had got to the location at 6am and not climed a sausage!).
As a complete aside, the subject was completely hooked on climbing and adamant that she wanted to get more involved, so that has to be a good thing.
I'm not sure if you're kidding? Are you really saying that an advert (filming for commercial purposes) would be out of order, but a film (filming for commercial purposes) is ok? How on earth do you square that up?
Speaking as someone who was married to a television producer for 20 years before she saw the light and switched jobs, I reckon film crews are the most arrogant self-absorbed, full-of-their-own-importance bunch I have ever come across - and, believe me, that's really saying something given that I've known a lot of politicians too.
As has been said, the subject of the film is irrelevant to the principle of whether a film crew can arbitrarily tell people not to climb on a section of crag. They can certainly ask but if the answer is no than tough.
It does them good to be told on a fregular basis there are other people in the world and their little film is not quite as important to the rest of us as they usually seem to think.
But at least the top ropers don't ask you to avoid the adjacent route as well!!
Sometimes they do hog several routes next door... Id say given the scenario Id maybe have stopped, watched and clapped when she finished. If I was desperate for a climb, there are routes in the bay round to the left that are OK for kids and plenty of other venues a short drive away. Also the far right bay of Millstone is walking distance and has some easier climbs to a ledge of the same nature as the Gingerbread VDs.
"Ive re-read the whole thread, read your emails and attachments and have also read the emails sent to me by instructors present at the crag on the day, other interested instructors and the MLTE office.
I have no intention of setting my self up as a technical expert, or judge and jury. Im merely humbly offering my subjective views as an average, working instructor and SPA provider. They are certainly not representative at all of instructors as a community or indeed the MLTE.
-it seems to me there are 4 main issues here. Insurance, course, crag etiquette and your demeanor.
1) Insurance – come Monday I really feel someone should contact the BMC giving them a link to the thread and inviting their insurance expert to give a definitive comment. There are a good few instructors posting on the thread + Andy Say from MTLE and no-one seems to be definitive about the insurance.
As an freelance instructor, I know EXACTLY where I stand with my own insurance – other folks and club insurance doesn’t really need to concern me as long as I am watertight. For your own sake, don’t assume anything with insurance , GET IN IN WRITING AND MAKE SURE YOU ARE COVERED.
2) The Course. It is very much a well planned and prepared formal course, with yourself acting as a de facto instructor – no doubt in my mind. You have prepared very comprehensive paperwork. Ive scanned it (as in reading it - not on a digital scanner) and will go over it in detail to give you more feedback if you like? Ive already noticed a couple of things that I woiuld do differently, but that’s down to personal style, rather than you being wrong. I have been asked by 2 different instructors and Andy Say at MLTE if they could have a look – Would it be OK with you to forward this? Libbys book is an excellent choice – one I recommend to my clients.
3) Crag etiquette and choice of route.
I must admit to being a bit concerned to your apparent intransigence in your choice of Mauds Garden. Many folk on the thread have pointed out that it may not be the most appropriate route choice, both due to its starred status and popularity and the fact it makes for a fairly bold lead.
I do tend to concur.
Throughout the thread you do not appear to have heard and taken on board folks well meaning advice and even in the last letter you have sent round to your clients, you have reiterated your intention to continue using Mauds Garden. Tonight I opened my Roaches Guide at the Mauds Garden page (34 &35) On page 34 there is a highlighted yellow box trying to educate about group use. And on 35 the Mauds Garden description contains “A tricky start that has been bold for nearly 60 years”.
I know folks preconception of a “group” is a bunch of trainer clad scallies with a Liverpool Probation Service minibus, bottom roping, dropping litter and carving their intials into the rock. But make no mistake, your usage of the route is just as much group usage and takes the route out of the public domain for as long or longer than a bottom roping group.
A good experienced instructor will assess the needs of his clients and select a portfolio of routes accordingly and progressively (also factoring in the impact of that choice on the wider constituency of crag users). We do not shoehorn the clients onto the one selected route we have rigidly planned our course around.
You have stated that you “Stand by my route choice and will use it for the duration of my course”
Despite the concerns of fellow climbers?
Despite the concerns of 2 of the Roaches Guide contributers?
To me this shows a worryingly rigid mindset and I respectfully suggest you may wish to work on this aspect of your instructing. Personally I would choose a more obscure route in a quieter area or even a quieter crag. I don’t want nervous leaders to have a distracting audience. I would choose an easy route, but mainly a route defined by continuous easily protectable cracks and protection opportunities where the client could lob a bit of gear in every couple of feet. Not a bold slab with a manufactured placement.
Lastly, once I have rigged up my static rope for self lining – I don’t really want to be moving it all the time, so another reason not to choose a popular classic.
4) Your demeanor – Nicholas Livesey who started the original thread is not one of UKCs troublemakers or mudslingers – check his posting history. I believe it was a genuine heart felt, concerned post, from a moderate man, passionate about his mountains and his climbing.
It may be an idea to work on reconciling your self image with how others appear to perceive you Iain?
There is Nicks original impression of you to take on board and the mail I received from an MIA running an SPA course at the Roaches that day who didn’t feel comfortable slating you on the thread, but who sent this to me :
I don't want to add to the visible posts, so thought I would contact you
directly as you are now dealing with EZ. I was running an SPA Assessment
right next to EZ and his group on Saturday; we climbed Mauds Garden in two
groups of two, and then moved on to other areas of the crag. It was busy,
with a large uni group wandering around.
I know that you are looking at the scheme of work etc. but I think that
EZ's problem mught be one of attitude. He was very "obviously" instructing
a group by demonstrating anchors- by this I mean that it had an element of
performance put on for the benefit of passers by as much as for his group.
Personally I would have chosen a more discreet spot. The whole thing seemed
a bit bombastic.
I don't want to go flaunting my MIA quals and so forth on UKC- I
understand your reluctance- but EZ did seem to be running a session as a
bit of a showman, without regard for other crag users. It's pretty much a
fundamental when you do SPA training to be made aware of other crag
Sorry for rambling, but his schemes for running his training days will no
doubt be faultless- he needs to be somehow taught soft skills (by
attending SPA training, assessment etc etc like we have). Anyway good luck
and well done for offering to help him out.
Obviously Iain, I wasn’t there so can only feed these things back to you.
So to summarise Iain, I think it is absolutely great that you are giving of your time for introducing folk to leading.
Despite Fawkeseys assertation that instructors are elitist, protectionist and looking after our income, I know of no instructor who struggles to find clients –we are all busy – we all network and help each other out – there is plenty of love to go around and mates teaching mates should be a big part of our mutual enthusiasm and passion for climbing. Even a hard nosed, money grabbing,elitist, professional instructor like myself, still finds the time to teach folks to climb for free sometimes :o)
Please don’t get overly hung up on your paperwork and prep (superb as it is) don’t be afraid to be a bit “looser and more organic and flexible”.
When I did my MIA assessment at PyB back in the mists of time, both me and my mate had our knuckles rapped on the “teaching multipitch” day – we were both too safe and boring.
We passed, but on the condition that we hired Nigel Shepard for the day to give us “interesting “lessons. What a day!!! He wandered us all over Hollytree Wall, Idwal Slabs, Javelin Buttress and Idwal Staircase by a wonderful meandering enchainment, telling us stories, showing an interest in our stories and making us laugh – twas like a day out with a good mate and indeed I now consider Shep to be a mate:o)
I learned a lot from that day.
So please Iain – don’t stop what you are doing, keep instructing, but listen to people, relax, prepare to be flexible, f*ck Mauds Garden right off (joke) :o)
Oh and lastly? – hurry up and get yerself qualified – I think you will be a great asset to our instructing community when you become open to constructive feedback .
My very best wishes
Also I thought you should know I did go back to Mauds just before the last BMC Peak area meeting but the conditions deteriorated just before I got a chance to look closely for this placement you found on the bold start (my fault as I ran out of time - after digging a start hold out, and was then overly nervous on the top section - on the tough, partly-overgrown and scary VS, Coldfinger, just to the right ;-)
I did solo Maud's but it was starting to rain and the midges were attacking in force, so I didn't hang around. In a quick look I still couldn't see anything obvious: a photo email (x marks the spot or better still a photo of the placement) would be good to show me how dim I was being (or how maybe I'm misinterpreting your 'straight up' line).
(I think I'd be a bit peeved at the suggestion that the op takes his and another family up the traversing VDiff above the pool with the tricky access, whilst viewing an empty expanse rock with several child friendly routes.)
I'm not letting EZ get away with comparing his mildly innapropriate adventures in instructing and very innapropriate response to challenges to his practice, with this incident. That monster thread is well worth read: a huge number of posts, lots of argument, many gems of good practice. In case you missed the earlier link:
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
There is only one genuine child friendly low grade route on that slab (the other is a bit traversy) there are a few more at the crag but there is much more variety at other crags. It could just have easily have been an outdoor group in the way, so I'd say the venue choice was far from ideal. Ive done the VD travese and with care its fine as most of the traverese bits are a walk: you just need to be careful with pro and where you intermediate belay in a few places.
My comment above was just a light hearted joke. :)
> If I was desperate for a climb, there are routes in the bay round to the left that are OK for kids
I made reference to those. The OP has not yet deigned to respond. There is at least one V Diff on the Roadside Bay that is better than any of the ones around Gingerbread!
There were ropes tied round trees, fence posts, tree roots etc. When I commented to one of the apparent group leaders, I was told that it was open for anyone to climb, and when I commented on the variety of appalling anchor set ups, it seems that is how they were shown to do it when the trained and qualified! For an example, one rope tied to a tree, down to crag edge, pair of O&O carabiners, back round next tree twice and down to edge, pair of O&O carabiners, back up to next tree and tied off. There were several other ropes and slings tied to each tree.
The arrogance of the leaders and their lack of respect for the crag, and for safety disgusted me!
Talking to someone who was eating their lunch, it seems that two groups were already there when another three turned up simultaneously and just continued as if the crag was empty and theirs for the day! NEVER suggest Yarncliffe as a venue unless it is a freezing winters day!
As I was just calling in to fill in time on my way somewhere else, it was no problem to go elsewhere, but it really was a mess and quite likely to result in someone being injured! Maybe film crews aren't so bad!!!!
We've happily had kids on Gingerbread, Snail Crack, Nailsblane, Tyron and Nova.
but they would be unlikely to take up the whole slab, and it does have the other advantages of being easy access, sheltererd, picnic area, flat base, pond to play in ...
sounds ideal !
Not sure I would want to 'play' in that!
I'd have waited for take two and then let out some unbroadcastable comments!
I inadvertently disrupted Morrisons filming Richard Hammond for an advert on Goliaths Groove. Soloing Hollybush gully and topped out into shot.
The crew were ok but the director was pretty annoyed.
i guess it's their own fault for trying to film on stanage at the weekend.
I hope you and the film crew took any rubbish away with you (which I'm sure you did!).
We'd litter picked the whole of Lawrencefield about 12 hours before you arrived...
Hey Neil. Yes we made a point of doing a litter pick. When we turned up we were all ready to berate a group of yoofs who had camped for the night and left a pile of crap. But even in their severely bedraggled state (what a night to camp) they were systematically clearing up, which was refreshing.
Many years ago we were climbing a longish route at Canmore (Canada) - Sherri was watching us from a boulder by the road whilst a film of a light aircraft crashing into a lake was being made in the background (Bookworm). On our return she pointed out that oddly loads of yanks had stopped and asked her what the film was and if they were allowed to go down to the lake.
All became clear when I pointed out she was wearing a cap we had found on the road a few days previously - with the word "Security" in large yellow letters on it!
Bookworm ended up being released as The Edge, starring Anthony Hopkins, Alec Baldwin, Harold Perrineau, Elle MacPherson and a huge grizzly bear.
Howcome you know it as Bookworm? I thought that was just a working title for it?
I've seen people fall off the start of Nailsbane and swing a bit left...not ideal really. None of the others are low grade although they are good. I'm sure you're not guilty but too many groups end up scrabling about on a top-rope on those slab routes with dirty shoes... not good practice.
Thank you for returning to the thread and providing further explanation. Sorry I forgot that the "path" to the Roadside Bay is not that amenable.
You've taken a bit of flak on the thread, which I'm sure people can retract now in light of your fuller description.
I am surprised that you went out with a single minded plan for the day with your family that was dependent on 3-4 routes out of the hundreds if not thousands of routes in the Peak.
What would you have done if the GB slab was rigged with top ropes for a group with disabilities?
Or the national trust were undertaking works and had limited access?
However, is the issue availability of routes or being peeved that as climber you felt you had a higher right of use there than to others there before you who accessed the quarry for the purpose of filming by prior agreement. Almost certainly (99.9% certain) Ricochet will have a NT permission in place from the NT Film unit in London. The NT contract is detailed and exploits their ability to license film use and rights of access of their estates.They get paid for this which helps support the work of the NT, like their contributions to the upcoming woodland habitat work. here is the address for Ricochet so that you can articulate your dismay of being deprived access Ricochet Limited
Ricochet Productions Limited
126 Dyke Road
T: 01273 224800
F: 01273 770350
for Harvey Edgington, Broadcast & Media Manager at the National Trust 020 7799 4547
More use placing comments there than on a climbers forum that has zero effect on future activities that upset you.
Did you read his post(s)? You really think that's a fair summary?
A group that wouldn't let him use a route they weren't using themselves? Hardly seems likely, but if it happened I'd say they were clearly out of order wouldn't you?
Its an unfortunate situation, I sympathise with both the OP and those trying to get the filming done. Perhaps it would have been better had they filmed on a week day. Can't really see your point of view though, it just seems like you're being a bit of an arse.
I've seen climbers get pushchairs to lots more 'interesting' places than the left bay of millstone with a bit of time on their hands. If its blowing a gale thats an even bigger reason to avoid the ever popular gingerbread slab... you're lucky it wasnt more busy as everyone will normally be thinking the same thing. The far right bay of Millstone is pretty sheltered and even easier to get to along a good flat track.
I'm not suggesting what they did was good practice but I really think this is more about (the likely) bad luck on your part. One other thing: given all the hassle you seem to find with moving your kids about didn't you think of a 5 minute recee to check out the situation on the crag?
> I am surprised that you went out with a single minded plan for the day with your family that was dependent on 3-4 routes out of the hundreds if not thousands of routes in the Peak.
> What would you have done if the GB slab was rigged with top ropes for a group with disabilities?
> Or the national trust were undertaking works and had limited access?
> However, is the issue availability of routes or being peeved that as climber you felt you had a higher right of use there than to others there before you who accessed the quarry for the purpose of filming by prior agreement. Almost certainly (99.9% certain) Ricochet will have a NT permission in place from the NT Film unit in London. The NT contract is detailed and exploits their ability to license film use and rights of access of their estates.They get paid for this which helps support the work of the NT, like their contributions to the upcoming woodland habitat work. here is the address for Ricochet so that you can articulate your dismay of being deprived access Ricochet Limited
> Ricochet Productions Limited
> Pacific House
> 126 Dyke Road
> BN1 3TE
> T: 01273 224800
> F: 01273 770350
> for Harvey Edgington, Broadcast & Media Manager at the National Trust 020 7799 4547
> More use placing comments there than on a climbers forum that has zero effect on future activities that upset you.
Not an advertising company so that is acceptable.
> Bookworm ended up being released as The Edge, starring Anthony Hopkins, Alec Baldwin, Harold Perrineau, Elle MacPherson and a huge grizzly bear.
> Howcome you know it as Bookworm? I thought that was just a working title for it?
Haven't a clue, never seen the film, don't know where I got the title from. Odd eh?
> I am surprised that you went out with a single minded plan for the day with your family that was dependent on 3-4 routes out of the hundreds if not thousands of routes in the Peak.
Suppose the same could be asked of the production company (shrug of shoulders). You seem to have a great deal of knowledge Simon: were you working on the gig?
Nope..wasn't there or involved, but I am parent of a 4 year old, a climber, a NT member and a location manager (AMILM).
No doubt the venue was selected by the production company based on access, parking, meeting the brief and pre-existing relationships with the landowner-NT (for permissions etc). Most likely they would have been given location options from a location scout with pro's and con's, risk assessments, tariffs and movement orders usually followed by a recce and tech recce with the producer and tech crew.
Very thorough (and I really am not picking a fight or taking sides); would it perhaps be prudent for production companies to give some advance warning: signs on the car parks, posts on websites, etc? The OP would, as most climbers would too, expect to find climbers at a (very popular) climbing venue and perhaps have to wait for a while. Coming across a film crew is a lot less likely is it not?
I think the analogy to group use is a little disingenuous; the instructors amongst (hopefully) know what the etiquette should be.
Most location managers would do that where it is useful but climbing venues are a minute percentage of places where filming takes place and it is usually best managed on the ground, never had any issues with folks, though (we) climbers seem to have a mightier than though attitude about crags...a bunch of climbing/abseiling/outdoor venues I have are in fact privately owned and are rented by film crews just as they would a private house...a bit of tolerance as you would expect of others just as you would expect if you were doing your job is all it takes from all of us.
Group use and etiquette in climbing is no different than filming and etiquette in filming, both have rights to be there and both have needs that generally most people try to accommodate and have a nice day but being an arsey climber, quote
>I wouldn't mind if they were shooting a film but if they were shooting an advert then i would spend the rest of the day there disrupting their shoot<
...exactly what is the point of doing that!
I have never seen a group sweep and litter pick the area after their visit but then I avoid crags with groups.
> ...exactly what is the point of doing that!
Fair answer; like I said not picking a fight. I try to fence sit most of the time.
As for the quoted post; I did read that and think it a a bit churlish. But each to their own.
I think the comparison of groups and film crews is not appropriate. Every climber I know accepts the principle that whoever gets to the route first has possession. No problem with a single team. Potentially a bit more problematic with a group where top ropes are set up on several routes but, again, as long as they are in use most people put up with that too. If a group blocks several routes by draping ropes down them and then not using them problems can crop up but you can usually move the rope to one side and lead it without a problem.
It moves up a whole new category when a crew is on one route but tries to claim other routes they are not actually using simply because they are in the background. As for trying to claim the skyline (see post higher up)... I think a two word answer would be appropriate.
He's going after the righteous indignation dollar. Lot of people feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market.
Its considered very poor practice for a group to hog an entire buttress, but a film crew have no choice if the whole buttress is in shot. They have a much bigger impact than a run of the mill group, so no extra brownie points from me for that I'm afraid. Though credit where it's due, that is something to be applauded obviously.
Indeed it is a whole new category. They pay a fee to the National Trust which assists them in maintaining the venue (paths, fences, joint work with the BMC, wardens etc). They already said they planned it for mid-week but had change the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Add this to the potential beneficial impacts of a film of a disabled climber and compare this to the short-term inconvenience on the crag, although its obviously not best practice, I really don't think there is much of an argument to be had here (other than arguing for the sake of it).
The only bit of that I agree with is that there is much of an argument to be had though I suspect we hold different ideas of which point of view is unarguably right.
So you disagree that: film crews pay fees; that fees have some benefits; that they planned another time but had to change; that a disabled climber on film might provide a wonderful story and role model; that its obviously not best practice.
Would that be a 5 minute or 10 minute argument sir?
I have no idea if they paid or not and care even less.I'm sure that the National Trust with 4m members (including me)is solvent enough without them.
So they planned another time and it didn't work? Tough!
The fact that on this occasion it was a disabled climber is a complete red herring. We are discussing the principle of whether a film crew can take over a popular crag and prevent other climbers from using other routes just because it might spoil their pretty shot. The subject of the film is irrelevant other than to create some spurious sympathy for their cause. It reminds of how offroaders say they should be allowed to churn up green lanes because it is the only way disabled people can get to those places.
> It reminds of how offroaders say they should be allowed to churn up green lanes because it is the only way disabled people can get to those places.
yeah but no but. It does remind me of the motorbike thread a bit. Should a small group be aloud to cause disproportionate disturbance? I'm not against film crews per se, but they need to remember (or be reminded!) that they are but mortal, and others are allowed to go about their business without undue deference to the camera eye and the whims of the meeja.
Why do climbers always feel have some inate right higher than anybody else over a bit of the landscape...There is as much right for somebody to turn up and have a picnic at the foot of GB slab and refuse to move as there is to climb on it or to film it. ...it has as you say have f'all to do with the subject matter...but has everything to do with tolerance and cooperation ...which we are all capable of. Its amazing how forthright statements come bombarding onto forums about 'direct action' but rarely do those actions actually manifest either because most people are actually quite reasonable and cooperative (both sides of the scenario) or because those citing what they would do don't have real name, so presumably work for M15 or are under 18?...
JUst to add another of my tuppence worth to the pot, again highlighting that I am sympathetic to the OP's inconvenience and not assocaited with the production company.
While Lawrencefield is undoubtedly a popular crag, Sunday was foul! It didn't stop tipping it down till ten and I suspect most self respecting climbers were in the pub! We only saw one other pair of climbers the whole day appart from the group in question. They checked out the E2 on the opposite side of the pool, decided it was a waste of time and went home. Beyond that the place was desserted apart from a few groups of walkers bimbling through.
Admittedly, if it was as scortching day with huge crowds, using the whole slab for a couple of hours would have been more of a problem.
I got kicked of Bonehill Rocks on Dartmoor by Stephen Spielberg and his cronies when they were shooting the war horse. So we went to a back up venue, but the car park was guarded by another of his minions even though the guy told me they wouldnt be filming there for another two days! Wouldn't of minded if it hadn't been such a pants film.
> Why do climbers always feel have some inate right higher than anybody else over a bit of the landscape...
I agree they have a right to their route if they get there first just not to every other route they can see in their wide shot.
....don't have real name, so presumably work for M15 or are under 18?...
That jibe would have more impact if you were not wearing a makeshift mask in your profile pic.
You have perfectly highlighted the point ...exactly where is there a set of rules or legislation that says who get there first owns the route...there are none, its an accepted convention of climbing...who says that who gets to that sweep of rock first owns the sweep of rock...the context is as soon as you step out of the nepotism of the tiny climbing community the rest of the world see's crags and crag etiquette in a different way. It is perfectly understandable why somebody would follow convention ask permission to film on private land and then apply normal (none climbing) etiquette in doing that ...why should they think it unusual to have shot include a background that fits with the foreground. How many climbs have you done in your 20 year climbing career and how many times has your day been 'destroyed' by the presence of a film crew, a group under instruction or habitat management works? Tolerance and cooperation ...what was it you said you did as a job? I missed that bit.
It's not hard to work out who he is from links to his film work (unlike some here). Athough I can't see much to get worked up about in this particular case, I've directly challenged many groups behaving badly from a mountain rescue team knocking bits off Harborough Rocks with their stretcher to an army group clumping down delicate high extreme slabs: so I do put my views into action; do you?
...what was it you said you did as a job? I missed that bit.
I didn't but I'm now old enough to be a full time layabout. I thoroughly recommend it.
> It's not hard to work out who he is from links to his film work
Sorry but I've still no idea who he is. Is he world famous in Derbyshire? I was merely pointing out the irony of his commenting on my using a pseudonym while his own profile pic has his face covered.
He's nothing like world famous and more known in the lakes. The main benefit of Avatar profiles is keeping annoyances from work at bay. If your a layabout now why are you using one? You also didnt specify if you are just an armchair critic wrt such incidents??
> You also didnt specify if you are just an armchair critic wrt such incidents??
Happily, I no longer come into regular contact with film crews or have to visit tv studios so with luck your question will remain entirely academic. I do not go out of my way to seek confrontation. But, who knows? one day I may bump into such a situation on a crag and if I do I will behave in what I consider to be a reasonable manner. If their work does not affect me I would try to keep out of their way. However, if I feel they are acting unreasonably, high handedly and disrupting my own plans I will stand my ground. Having a camera does not make their plans any more important than mine or anyone elses just as mine are no more important than theirs. So I would accept the general climbing convention of temporary possession of a route belonging to whoever is on it and would not interfere with their route but I certainly do not accept their right to occupy an entire crag or buttress or to prevent people using any bit of rock that might happen to be in the background.
If a group / film crew want to get a crag to themselves then 6am Monday morning would be appropriate (they still wouldn't have right of way either but less likely to be in contention).
I do not think I've seen a complaint about group usage on UKC that goes, "there was a group using the crag, we asked to climb X and they said, `sure would you like me to move my ropes first?'". Every compliant I've seen involves with the group getting in the way and not politely getting out of the way.
It is simple and anyone who claims otherwise is fibbing.
> Potentially a bit more problematic with a group where top ropes are set up on several routes but, again, as long as they are in use most people put up with that too. If a group blocks several routes by draping ropes down them and then not using them problems can crop up but you can usually move the rope to one side and lead it without a problem.
I once arrived at Burbage North to find a group had strung top-ropes on every route on the first six or seven buttresses (literally twenty plus top-ropes - quick check on UKC given I know the route I had an argument about would indicate that they had the first 80 routes on Burbage North "taken") and not a climber in sight. I asked and was told we couldn't use them because there would be some kids climbing on the ropes "soon". There wasn't a kid in sight either.
After telling the individual concerned who was "guarding" the buttress that we would pull their rope to the top and coil it to clear the route and lead up, dropping their rope back down afterwards, we were told that if we did that said ropes would be thrown down on the leading climber. Words were had, at volume. At quite extreme volume, if I recall correctly.
> I do not think I've seen a complaint about group usage on UKC that goes, "there was a group using the crag, we asked to climb X and they said, `sure would you like me to move my ropes first?'". Every compliant I've seen involves with the group getting in the way and not politely getting out of the way.
In fairness its unlikely anyone would complain about that - its the ones were groups are @rsey that get the headlines..
The point is that the film crew will almost certainly be there with the written permission of the landowner, and will probably have paid for the right to use the crag. Climbers on the other hand probably have no right to be there, except possibly under CroW.
In practice it often seems to be the case that with a bit of give and take on both sides everyone can be accommodated. If climbers are going to be arsey over these situations it is probable that film crews will get the landowner to suspend CroW for the day, which is probably going to be more of a nuisance than just keeping clear of a few routes for a few hours.
As climbers we should bear in mind that we're not the only users of crags and the surrounding land, and that whilst we should stand up for our own interests we should also recognise that these are not automatically paramount over those of others.
> Had something similar happen. We had no prior warning and the road was blocked off and gates blocked by trucks.
I had the same thing happen in our street. No warning they just turned up and tried to stop cars getting through. I politely told them I wasn't going to wait for them to stop filming to get to my house and drove through the set to my apartment shutters. They were quite rude about it but i didn't rise to the bait. I just went to the underground car park and warmed up my motorbike with the racing exhausts like I do every tuesday.
A number of people have commented on this thread that the film crew "probably" had written permission, and/or "probably" paid, and/or "should have" done this, that or the other.
However no-one has confirmed any of this to be the case.
It has also been said that we (as climbers) have no right of access "except possibly under CroW".
But it is a fact that we do have said right, and any suspension should (must ?) be advertised/displayed - for which there is again no evidence.
Can those defending the film people please stop using maybe's as excuses for what is evidently arrogant behaviour by people with an over-developed view of their own importance.
For any filming, whether it be of a climber or some wazzak with a shopping trolley, to go at the weekend when (most of) the rest of us are making the most of enjoying the outside world is just plain stupid.
If this same filming were done during the week then very few people would be about, as we would generally be at work.
I do hope you're not making a sweeping generalization about film people. That's probably unfounded.
Something tells me you don't have a grasp on the complex myriad of factors that influence a shooting schedule and the fact that they might have been limited to when they could film for a whole variety of reasons.
Well, as a Camera Assistant you would say that.
It has already been commented (earlier in the thread) that certain senior persons involved in filming think they're god almighty (by someone closely involved). Something to which I can personally attest.
However if you actually read what I said, and not what you wanted to think I said, I am commenting on persons involved in this matter, and that infers not even all persons there, let alone all film people in general.
Your second point does however assume that only the wishes of the film people should be taken into account. No matter what the Director wants, other people have a right to live their lives as well, and unless they are employed by said Director, he/she has no right to dictate what they can or cannot do, or where or when they can/cannot do such. Only the law can presume to do so.
Awesomely naive comment. They're possessive about making money from access. The production company will be, and have to be, possessive of any rights...
Awesomely late comment. Do keep up now.
The production company paid a fee to access the land. You have no way of knowing which part of the crag was specified in the location agreement unless you are an nt lawyer/work for film commission.
It's a positive pr story for the nt.
At some stage it was somewhat badly managed by production team either by over stating their remit or by failing to provide adequate info. The mitigating circumstance for either of these, as anyone who has worked in production will know, is the hugely onerous time and budget constraints that one faces working in the tv industry.
Storm in a teapot? The end...
Wow. Calm down now. If it angers you so much just stop reading! Haha
I wouldn't call those mitigating factors. I'd call them failures of the management of their process that an experienced company who specialises in making films should have so well drilled that they don't have problems with. If the company fails to follow these steps in a suitable way for the venue then they must expect to be interupted and have their filming schedule delayed. Hopefully this would then act as a lesson learnt for next time when they'd realise that making mistakes around public consultation, etc causes more hassle than its worth.
Is it? The BMC website agrees with you, but the open access maps suggest otherwise.
The salient points will be something like;
> The production company paid a fee to access the land. You have no way of knowing which part of the crag was specified in the location agreement unless you are an nt lawyer/work for film commission.
Funnily enough I've just found an email (forwarded via a climbing club I'm a member of) from Ricochet asking for climbers to help in that filming. It's the second email, from different companies, looking for climbers to film in about 3 months. After the first one we were discussing how flamed on UKC you'd get after they fully hyped up a routine VS or HVS lead.
Gosh. What a lot of emotion on this topic. So. I am a director. I work mostly in television drama (totally different proposition to commercials, or documentary, or indeed extreme sports film making). So apparently I'm an egotistical maniac with no regard for human life. I guess by posting on here I am lining myself up for a kicking. But also I'm qualified to answer the initial question somewhat.
I started out in the business as a runner/trainee assistant director. So when we were shooting in a public place or place with public access (always with permission from the landowner / council / parks agency or whoever) it would be my job to try and keep the street/beach/background clear. I was always taught that you can only ever politely explain what you are doing and ASK NEVER TELL members of the public if they would mind cooperating. In my years of shooting since, both as a director and an assistant director I have only ever seen such requests made. "I'm very sorry, we are on a film shoot, would you mind please holding on for a moment / taking an alternative route / using the other entrance etc".
In the above example, as far as I can tell - the representatives of the production have the right to ASK IF YOU WOULD MIND not using the route. And YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
a) be helpful as you were and let them have their clear background, or:
b) say no. I want to climb that route/stroll about in the background of their shot.
And that is what happens. People sometimes say yes and sometimes say no. I have frequently seen members of the public tell my team to eff off, even physically threatening them. I have had shoots where we have been attacked with stones and bottles on council estates and had people park in the back of shots looking for a financial handout.
I'm not at all surprised to hear people's anecdotes about crew behaving badly. Whilst I have honestly never seen anyone try and, for instance, cable tie someone's gates closed (totally illegal and really stupid), I am very aware that we live in a world populated by arseholes and that the film/television business has more than their fair share of them. What an embarrassment.
Its almost like if you guys, as members of the climbing community, suddenly had to deal with the behaviour of another climber reflecting badly on you and tarring others with the same brush. Or cylclists. Or motorists. Or men. Or whites. Or whatever.
Anyway. The answer to the original question. A film crew has the right to POLITELY ASK you to stay out of the back of their shot and you have the right to choose what to do with said request.
Wow. What an eminently sensible summing up of the situation. Totally out of character for UKC of course but I'd call that thread closed. However, I'll not hold my breath
And it's directors like you with attitudes like that, that do our industry proud. As crew, I think I can speak for all the decent types amongst us in saying I wish all directors were that plesent. I'm sure the same can be said for us crew.
> I wouldn't call those mitigating factors. I'd call them failures of the management of their process that an experienced company who specialises in making films should have so well drilled that they don't have problems with. If the company fails to follow these steps in a suitable way for the venue then they must expect to be interupted and have their filming schedule delayed. Hopefully this would then act as a lesson learnt for next time when they'd realise that making mistakes around public consultation, etc causes more hassle than its worth.
What you're failing to understand is that everyone who works in tv is freelance and works on different projects. The company almost never gets involved until its too late...
> The salient points will be something like;
> Which one of these categories do you fall into to be able to make your first assertion with such authority?
Having been a freelance production manager for over 10 years I come across these issues a fair bit!
Seems having been off thread for over a week, that your response was not totally out of your presumed character of UKC.
I think actually that there have been varied viewpoints and some have said just climb in the shot and some have said don't climb in the shot and lots have said hang on what's happening here, so that they can make an informaed decision based upon discussion. Your's was a less eminently insensible rant about a thread that had more than just your summing up involved in the discourse. Kettle, Pot calling, you are black.
Au contraire. If you look at my post of June 30th you will see much in it that agrees with Collywob. We both agree that film and tv has more than its share of arrogant arseholes, we agree that the crews have the right to ask (as opposed to order) people not to get into shot and we both agree that the those people have the right to agree to comply or not as they wish.
In my post I said I would take the case on its merit. If it did not affect my plans I would not go out of my way to disrupt their work; if it did I would carry on. That seems to fit Collywob's premise exactly. as he says: "And YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:.....b) say no. I want to climb that route/stroll about in the background of their shot.
I'm sorry. I misread your post as coming from Wilbur. I thought it was a sarcastic continuation of the late input from said poster. That's what apparently comes from trying to reply to umpteen threads at the same time. My bad, apologies again.
No probs. With 120 odd posts on the subject it's a wonder anyone can keep track
Elsewhere on the site
On Sunday 12th October the Depot Climbing Centre Leeds held its 5th annual Battle of Britain competition. The competition has... Read more
Last year, Finn McCann wrote an article about climbing El Capitan with his terminally ill father Seamus, who had been... Read more
Aiming at designing and producing the best belay glasses to protect climbers’ necks, Y&Y focuses on every detail to... Read more
Pete Whittaker has flashed the 32 pitch route Freerider 5.12d on El Capitan in Yosemite Valley over three days,... Read more