DrBungle Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 spam biscuits. Was expecting there to be some last minute cancellations, nature of the beast , but why Ron. Arrgghhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyHorses Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Last time a guest tweeted before telling Showmasters, they were no longer invited but it was more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveamyadams Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 sad news as was looking forward to meeting him but i'm sure showmasters will get him back at some point. just one of things with conventions, cancellations will sometimes happen because of work or family reasons.. Good luck to Ron and hope to see him soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timlux Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) Well it sucks, but well that´s life , but the thing that bothers me the most now, due to the Brexit, when I get a refund and probably a lot more who are not from UK , we will not get the same amount of money back ( maybe it´s just one or two euro less, but well you see my point ), since the pound sterling lost it´s value over a month now. Yup firstworldproblem Edited July 23, 2016 by timlux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithy270492 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. I think mods around here are too quick to lock threads and not give people the chance to reply once the mod has said something. It's a bit like someone walking out during a discussion, not giving you chance to reply to what they've just said! *lol* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Name Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! The mods locked it for a reason, no need to start commenting on it here. I understand how you feel, but pretty much everything that needed to be said, was, so just ignore it and move on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithy270492 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! The mods locked it for a reason, no need to start commenting on it here. I understand how you feel, but pretty much everything that needed to be said, was, so just ignore it and move on. Yes very true... My apologies, why i shouldnt send messages before ive fully woken up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! I have apparently reached my'like' quota. So I have to physically say 'I like this' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithy270492 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Theres a like quota? How many have you liked today lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. I think mods around here are too quick to lock threads and not give people the chance to reply once the mod has said something. It's a bit like someone walking out during a discussion, not giving you chance to reply to what they've just said! *lol* Just to explain, this morning's one was locked because the poster is insisting on saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to listen to what people are saying. It's not really about threads being locked down immediately its tht there are already threads they can post in, and people ignoring what they are being told. Edited July 23, 2016 by Raylenth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Theres a like quota? How many have you liked today lol It's all from last night, no idea what the limit is but I don't think it's that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. I think mods around here are too quick to lock threads and not give people the chance to reply once the mod has said something. It's a bit like someone walking out during a discussion, not giving you chance to reply to what they've just said! *lol* Just to explain, this morning's one was locked because the poster is insisting on saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to listen to what people are saying. It's not really about threads being locked down immediately its tht there are already threads they can post in, and people ignoring what they are being told. But ... The thread is always locked before a riposte is allowed to be posted. The pattern goes like this: Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. My point is that by not allowing the poster to make point C, the mods are just opening themselves up for yet another repeat some time later. Edited July 23, 2016 by Stenun 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. Tbh, there is no argument for locking a guest into an unbreakable contract. As they just simply wouldn't do it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. Tbh, there is no argument for locking a guest into an unbreakable contract. As they just simply wouldn't do it. *shrugs* No point going in to it in this thread as it will just annoy the mods. What we need is to be allowed a thread to discuss it properly which doesn't get locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 im just gutted i wasnt up early enough to rant about that annoying "guests cancels" thread that was opened up this morning... some people seem oblivious to how events work! I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. I think mods around here are too quick to lock threads and not give people the chance to reply once the mod has said something. It's a bit like someone walking out during a discussion, not giving you chance to reply to what they've just said! *lol* Just to explain, this morning's one was locked because the poster is insisting on saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to listen to what people are saying. It's not really about threads being locked down immediately its tht there are already threads they can post in, and people ignoring what they are being told. But ... The thread is always locked before a riposte is allowed to be posted. The pattern goes like this: Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. Poster starts a new thread and makes point A. Mods make point B and lock the thread. My point is that by not allowing the poster to make point C, the mods are just opening themselves up for yet another repeat some time later. I get what you are saying, but there are a couple of threads that are relevant to the subject and people can post in them rather than starting new threads all the time that become very difficult to follow because you have information spread all over the place. Some newly started threads have actually been merged and not locked or deleted, so it doesn't happen to them all. The ones that get locked generally aren't saying anything different than has already been posted and thus aren't actually relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP.Tbh, there is no argument for locking a guest into an unbreakable contract. As they just simply wouldn't do it. *shrugs* No point going in to it in this thread as it will just annoy the mods. What we need is to be allowed a thread to discuss it properly which doesn't get locked. I actually thought the mod acted with restraint in just locking it. Had it been me I would have removed it completely. It's ok to discuss things if you're not being rude or disrespectful. But there has to be a line somewhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I'm disappointed that thread was locked too as I was going to come in on the other side - with the OP. Tbh, there is no argument for locking a guest into an unbreakable contract. As they just simply wouldn't do it. *shrugs* No point going in to it in this thread as it will just annoy the mods. What we need is to be allowed a thread to discuss it properly which doesn't get locked. As long as it's kept polite this thread is being left open so everyone can discuss away but it will get locked if it turns nasty. By all means please do post your counter comments as everyone has their opinion and we really do understand where people are coming from. But continued comments along the lines of 'I've spent hundreds just to come and see Ron and am out of pocket now' ect aren't going to suddenly generate any other kind of response. We come to these event's with the understanding that guests can and do cancel for a variety of reasons. We just seem to have more and more people refusing to understand that. People are even chewing Ron out for his post not being sincere enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 OK, I'll give it a try ... One of the arguments - and the one I hate the most - is "this is how it is done, accept it". I have that logic no matter what it is applied to. That logic is basically saying that nothing should change because the status quo is how things are done so accept. It's an argument that was used against every protest march ever, against the suffragettes, against the abolition of slavery, against the abolition of the death penalty, etc. If we see something we don't like, we try and change it; that's how things work. So saying that "guests cancel, accept it" is a false argument. What I'm saying is that we should NOT accept it. The response to that is usually "but if guests couldn't cancel, they would never agree to come in the first place". To which I say: no, that's not true. Look at it like this; if our favourite celeb never signed a contract they couldn't cancel, they'd never get any work again. If you are contracted to appear in a TV show, you do it. Likewise, if you are contracted to appear at an event, you should do it. If there is a clash, why the heck did the celeb agree to the event in the first place? Just on the off-chance everything would be OK? How many thousands of people does that muck around just on their wishful thinking? I remember an incident years ago involving the late, great John Thaw and how he agreed to be an after dinner speaker at an event. A few months later, BAFTA organised a John Thaw night but John Thaw refused to appear. He pointed out that he had already committed to the after dinner speaking and his word was his bond. BAFTA thought themselves so big that John Thaw would cancel the after dinner speech. The John Thaw night ended up going ahead without John Thaw. Because John Thaw's word was his bond. He had the integrity to follow through with something he committed too. And if he thought there was a chance he might not be able to do something, he didn't agree to do it. I don't see why we should expect less from other celebs these days. Sure, occasionally there is an unavoidable situation. Life happens. Iirc, Claudia Black had to cancel a few days before an event some years ago because her son broke his leg. Completely understandable - an unforeseen situation. But filming over running by a week or two is not "unforeseen", it happens all the time in the industry and celebs should take that into consideration before signing to appear at a Con. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithy270492 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Theres a like quota? How many have you liked today lol It's all from last night, no idea what the limit is but I don't think it's that high. SM's way of saying youve been on here too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 celebs should take that into consideration before signing to appear at a Con. Not to dismiss your valid points, Stenun. But your last sentence says it all. Would you prefer SM signed up Hollywood stars months in advance with a chance they might cancel. Or wait until the week of the show and hopefully announce 50+ guests? Could you imagine trying to run a show, let alone a business like that? And how would a fan prepare themselves financially etc for such a larger burst of guests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma8282 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 No one is going to turn down paid work, it's their job! If we want 'current' actors at these events then this is the risk. Otherwise these events will just be filled with non working actors that most people will then moan about. Your not going to get anyone signing a contract that commits them to a convention no matter how nice they are or how much they are looking forward to it. Their livelihood is acting, if I was them and couldn't help the fact then I would cancel a convention appearance over my job. It is disappointing for fans, but if you really are a fan wouldn't you rather they were acting - You just need to accept that these things happen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 celebs should take that into consideration before signing to appear at a Con. Not to dismiss your valid points, Stenun. But your last sentence says it all. Would you prefer SM signed up Hollywood stars months in advance with a chance they might cancel. Or wait until the week of the show and hopefully announce 50+ guests? Could you imagine trying to run a show, let alone a business like that? And how would a fan prepare themselves financially etc for such a larger burst of guests. How about signing up stars *who know they'll be free* instead of stars who are taking a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raylenth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 OK, I'll give it a try ... One of the arguments - and the one I hate the most - is "this is how it is done, accept it". I have that logic no matter what it is applied to. That logic is basically saying that nothing should change because the status quo is how things are done so accept. It's an argument that was used against every protest march ever, against the suffragettes, against the abolition of slavery, against the abolition of the death penalty, etc. If we see something we don't like, we try and change it; that's how things work. So saying that "guests cancel, accept it" is a false argument. What I'm saying is that we should NOT accept it. The response to that is usually "but if guests couldn't cancel, they would never agree to come in the first place". To which I say: no, that's not true. Look at it like this; if our favourite celeb never signed a contract they couldn't cancel, they'd never get any work again. If you are contracted to appear in a TV show, you do it. Likewise, if you are contracted to appear at an event, you should do it. If there is a clash, why the heck did the celeb agree to the event in the first place? Just on the off-chance everything would be OK? How many thousands of people does that muck around just on their wishful thinking? I remember an incident years ago involving the late, great John Thaw and how he agreed to be an after dinner speaker at an event. A few months later, BAFTA organised a John Thaw night but John Thaw refused to appear. He pointed out that he had already committed to the after dinner speaking and his word was his bond. BAFTA thought themselves so big that John Thaw would cancel the after dinner speech. The John Thaw night ended up going ahead without John Thaw. Because John Thaw's word was his bond. He had the integrity to follow through with something he committed too. And if he thought there was a chance he might not be able to do something, he didn't agree to do it. I don't see why we should expect less from other celebs these days. Sure, occasionally there is an unavoidable situation. Life happens. Iirc, Claudia Black had to cancel a few days before an event some years ago because her son broke his leg. Completely understandable - an unforeseen situation. But filming over running by a week or two is not "unforeseen", it happens all the time in the industry and celebs should take that into consideration before signing to appear at a Con. That's very well said Stenun and I get it. I'm just not sure what the answer is. The nature of the industry that they work in is that they are over a barrel a bit. Sometimes filming does get held up if the makers really want a particular actor and they aren't available at the time, I've seen it with some of my favs when I've read stories about how schedules on the film were reworked/delayed so they could wait for the actor in question - Martin Freeman and The Hobbit comes to mind but it's not always that clear cut, especially in TV where the schedules are so tight. If something unexpected comes up like reshoots it's often last minute because they they have such short production time for each episode. Yes real life stuff does come up and they will have to factor that in when they make the episode, ie if an actor isn't available due to an emergency but I 'm not in the industry so can only discuss it periferally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenun Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 No one is going to turn down paid work, it's their job! If we want 'current' actors at these events then this is the risk. Otherwise these events will just be filled with non working actors that most people will then moan about. Your not going to get anyone signing a contract that commits them to a convention no matter how nice they are or how much they are looking forward to it. Their livelihood is acting, if I was them and couldn't help the fact then I would cancel a convention appearance over my job. It is disappointing for fans, but if you really are a fan wouldn't you rather they were acting - You just need to accept that these things happen. "Otherwise these events will just be filled with non working actors that most people will then moan about." Like Michael J Fox, you mean? "No one is going to turn down paid work, it's their job!" Paid work like attending a convention? "Your not going to get anyone signing a contract that commits them to a convention no matter how nice they are or how much they are looking forward to it." And yet a few years ago Showmasters specifically made the point that they had signed up Peter Dinklage to appear only after specifically making sure he woud have time off from filming the X-Men movie he was in. They didn't sign him on wishful thinking. So it can be done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts