Design Issues and Solutions -

[rochem]

For a long time now, I've been looking unsucessfully for copies of Broadway light plots which I can use to further my lighting education. I actually do gain lots of insight from viewing plots, because it shows what angles, colors, and instruments the designer chose to use for each look on stage. I would most prefer plots from modern shows, because I have seen many broadway shows, and then can go through and recall each look on stage, while seeing what fixtures were used to produce that look.

Although the title does say "Broadway" plots, I'd really be fine with any large-scale light plot. I say broadway simply because I would be able to compare the plot with the looks that I saw on the stage, but really any large-scale show would be great. Touring productions, off-broadway shows, or even shows that are done by a local company with a large lighting rig. As an example, I have learned a lot from the light plot included in Shelley's "Practical Guide to Stage Lighting". However, I have no other decent sized plots to compare it to.

Can anyone help me out here? Thanks!

[zac850]

The following is off of my Lighting Technology teachers website:

Beauty and the Beast Third National Tour
Jekyll & Hyde
Wicked National Tour FOH
Wicked National Tour Ladders
Wicked National Tour OverStage
Wicked National Tour Section
And Sample Paperwork from various shows

[TupeloTechie]

I too like to learn from these plots, but the only one I have been able to find is from Mama Mia, as its the "example" plot on Vectorworks website, the plot and a little bit of the section can be downloaded here: http://download2.nemetschek.net/www_...ghtPlanSet.pdf

[Footer]

Most of these plots are uterily useless as a learning tool. These days, everything has a scroller on it or its a moving fixture of some sort. There is really nothing to gather from these besides a geak out fest. Yes, they are interesting to look at, but you can not take anything away from the design from them.

The only way to really break down how a show as achieved is to look at the pictures and break down the looks into systems. Beyond that, talk to the designer. You will find that most Broadway plots look very similar anymore, kind of like the standard musical rep plot that pretty much everyone uses.

[icewolf08]

As someone who spends a lot of time looking at plots, I really wonder what you feel you get out it. For the most part people draft in the standard where the units are always in a 90˚ orientation to the hanging position. Look at the plots posted, all the info you get is template, color and sometimes purpose. I don't mean to be so cynical, but what do you do, look for the blue downlight system and say: "Hey look its a system of blue downlight"?

A light plot doesn't really tell you much except where to hang the lights and what accessories they need. It doesn't tell you WHY that blue downlight system is there. It doesn't tell you WHY anything for that matter. That is the big thing about design though, the WHY. It is about the choices.

Originally Posted by rochem

I actually do gain lots of insight from viewing plots, because it shows what angles, colors, and instruments the designer chose to use for each look on stage.

Look at the plots posted in this thread, does it really show you any angles? Why does knowing what colors some other designer chose help you? When you design a show do you choose your colors because they worked for someone else or because they work for your show?

Now lets move on to instrument choice. Instrument choice is 80% technical and 20% art. Why? Well that system of 19˚ frontlight probably has to be 19˚ units to get the correct coverage. As a designer, you know where the position is, you know what you need the light to do, so you draw up your section from the light to where it hits, and you take out your protractor and say "ok, that's a 17˚ angle ideally, so I will put up a 19˚ since that is the closes match." However, the plot doesn't tell you why the designer chose to do his top wash with fresnels instead of PARs.


Note, that I am not trying to say that you shouldn't look at other people's plots for shows, but I think that you have to remember to take them with a grain of salt. You need to be careful that you are learning and not copying (i.e. "oh that worked for so-and-so, so it should work for me" OR "well so-and-so used 10 19˚ source fours for a front wash, so will I"). You also have no idea if the plot you have in your hand is the final that went into the show, things continually change through the tech process, but you may not actually have the final plot.

The plot itself is just one small part in the design process. Most of the art happens when the designer is sitting in tech writing cues (that is also often when things on the plot change!). Just remember that the plot is a tool, and knowing what someone else did is very different than know why they did it. If you can, the best thing to do is to talk to designers, have them walk you through the plot and the choices that went into making it and the rest of the show.

[Serendipity]

Originally Posted by Footer4321

Most of these plots are uterily useless as a learning tool. These days, everything has a scroller on it or its a moving fixture of some sort. There is really nothing to gather from these besides a geak out fest. Yes, they are interesting to look at, but you can not take anything away from the design from them.

Thank you.
I was just about to post asking how you identified the systems (I was looking at J&H) if it just seemed to be 80% Source Four, 10% ML, 5% PAR with color scrollers/faders, and there aren't any purposes labeled.

I've found plots to be insightful, though every time I've learned from them, the designer was there to explain them or answer questions.

Plus, "High sides are high sides" whether there's six or one hundred and thirty-six.

[Footer]

Also keep in mind the plots above are mostly for touring productions. Those things are a completly different beast them what appears on broadway. It is not uncommon for broadway shows to have 10-15 electrics, when the show goes out on tour they are lucky to get 5. Beyond that, they try to replace everything with movers that is possible to cut down on focus time and fixtures they have to carry. There is really nothing to learn from a touring plot. Now, comparing the two can be kind of interesting.

[rochem]

While I agree that it's not necessarily the best way to learn about lighting, I do not agree that they are "entirely useless". For example, something that I found in more than one of the plots here was all the fixtures being used for cyc lighting. In Wicked for example, they have strip lights mounted on trusses on each side of the cyc, as well as a boom with a number of S4s to wash the cyc from the sides. I had considered trying this in a previous show, but reasoned that it would create an unnatural wash of light, so didn't try it. Now its something I might try next time that my cyc is not being lit the way I want it to.

Also, in the BATB plot, most of the FOH fixtures display color info as well as general focus point info. Also something I'm seeing is an enourmous amount of fixtures for lighting the cyc/backdrop, as well as the use of a bounce drop. It gives me some ideas for what I may want to try during a show that I light.

I agree that the plot does not include the "whys" and such of the design, but realistically, do you have any better ideas? As far as I know, there is no piece of paperwork that includes the "why" of the design - although that would be amazing if there was. And while I would love to be able to sit down with the designer and discuss the show's lighting, I don't think that will happen anytime soon. Basically, viewing the plot cannot HURT my design education at all, but it might be able to help, even if just a small amount. So why not have them?

I still believe that I learn from plots, but I guess shows of a slightly smaller scale are better - that is, those with a primarily conventional rig, with few color scrollers or moving lights. Again, the ideal situation would be to sit down with the designer and discuss it, but until that situation presents itself, I am just going to take what I can get.

[zac850]

As has been said, I think that attempting to figure out design by looking at a light plot are quite useless. However, I find 'professional' plots very useful to look at to learn how to draft more efficiently. While the WHY of the Mac2K isn't that interesting, seeing how the drafter laid out the information and sectioned it IS a quite useful thing to learn.

Also, as had been said, tours are completely different. They design the show for a theoretically perfect venue, and then it gets adapted as needed by the crew. I have heard stories of the Wicked plot going into theaters with essentially no FOH truss, so the FOH units moved to the top of the box booms of this specific theater.

That said, again, I think its a great tool to be able to look at the plots and learn how to draft better.

[rochem]

Originally Posted by Footer4321

Also keep in mind the plots above are mostly for touring productions. Those things are a completly different beast them what appears on broadway. It is not uncommon for broadway shows to have 10-15 electrics, when the show goes out on tour they are lucky to get 5. Beyond that, they try to replace everything with movers that is possible to cut down on focus time and fixtures they have to carry. There is really nothing to learn from a touring plot. Now, comparing the two can be kind of interesting.

Yea, I did notice that with BATB and Wicked. In both, the overhead pipes are almost entirely made up of movers, and in Wicked's case, there's only 4 electric pipes including the cyc pipe. The Jekyll and Hyde plot looks more like what I was expecting, with a primarily conventional rig and a limited number of movers. It would be interesting to compare the broadway plots with these touring plots. But 10-15 electrics? That would be one every 2-3 feet on a normal sized stage. That seems a little much. I dont think I could even find reasons to fill all those pipes. Of course, I'm used to desigining with 3-5 pipes max, so I'm sure someone with more experience would be able to easily fill every pipe without breaking a sweat.