Lemmie get this striaght

[winston89]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 6:37pm

Lemmie get this striaght. Am I correct in saying that the difference between a non equity tour and an equity tour is not the actors. Because they could be eiather good or bad no matter if it's an equity tour or not.

But, it is the production values that make the difference. I assume that people prefer equity tours because they have better sets and what not. Am I correct? Because this is the only thing that I can see that is very different between the two. I mean just because someone holds a card saying they are a member of the union doesn't mean that they are eiather a good actor or a bady one. There are crappy actors that are equity as well as amazing ones who are equity as well.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 6:40pm

Has anyone else heard that "A Chorus Line" is going out as a non-equity tour?

It seems thtat the difference between eq and non-eq is that there used to be lots of equity tours and now there aren't.

[Jellylorum]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 7:40pm

I used to live in a small city that equity tours didn't go to, so I saw a lot of non-equity ones. I liked them; I don't see anything wrong with the productions themselves. A lot of actors were talented, though on average, they seemed a bit younger than the ones on Broadway and equity tours. And even if the sets were watered down to cut down on spending, I can't tell - or maybe it's because when I'm paying $17 a ticket, I really don't care that much. I've heard of some bad productions, though, so maybe my town just did a great job booking the good ones.

I think the main problem people have with non-equity tours is that actors have the potential to be mistreated by their employers (meager pay, lack of health insurance, etc).

Updated On: 5/2/07 at 07:40 PM

[Danielm]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 7:46pm

In an equity tour the actors are usually better paid and have recourse if they are mistreated by the management of the show.

[teka21]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 7:49pm

Clearly the difference matters to the actors!

[teka21]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 7:50pm

Clearly the difference matters to the actors!

[ThePinballWizard]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 7:57pm

Well look at it this way.

Gone are the days where producers could spend millions of dollars on a touring production (a la Miss Saigon, Les Miserables) and expect to gain a financial return. Because of the current state of just the touring market and such, the demand is not there. Sending a touring production of a Broadway show out to Yonksville, Nowhere proves to be a risky venture. I mean look what happened to Urinetown, The Full Monty and such. Audiences across the country are looking to spend money on things they are familiar with, which is why the movie musical conversion is going on right now.

The road isn't what it used to be. Producers are now forced to decide whether or not to send a show non-equity or Equity. If they do you use Equity actors, they would all have severely negotiated contracts (a la the last 42nd Street tour). So I don't know if it really makes a difference or not, but it just may be all in the eye of the beholder.

Look what happened to All Shook Up, it used to be a Broadway fave and now it's on tour but virtually disappearing and virtually scaled down to save costs.

In short, the road ain't what it used to be.

[Jon]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 8:07pm

Well, the actors in a non-equity tour COULD be as good as the ones in an equity tour, but you never know.

The one thing you know is this: None of the actors in a non-equity tour have ever appeared on Broadway.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 8:16pm

Well, of course I know that ther are things like the chances of being mistreated by your boss ect. Those are things that are out of the actors control because they are not part of the union and thus have no protection. But, I mean does having a tour a non eq tour totaly ruin the production?


Jon, just because the actors haven't appeared on broadway means nothing in terms of if they are good actors or not. Just because an actor is on broadway doesn't automatically mean they are good. Actors talents don't change because they are part of the union. They could be non union and be good and be union and be good as well. The same goes for bad actors as well. A good actor is a good actor and a bad actor is a bad actor union or not.

[Steve2]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 9:01pm

I just saw the non-equity tour of Hairspray and it was excellent.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 9:12pm

Saw the AIDA noneq tour.
While the costumes and set were just ok, every performance was stellar (minus DJ Rudd)

[sparrman]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 10:01pm

No, having an Equity card doesn't make you good. But generally speaking (and of course there are exceptions), it takes a bit of talent to GET an Equity card. And therefore, an Equity card is somewhat of a sign that an actor has talent. And therefore, you can be a bit surer of the overall competence of the cast in an Equity tour than a non-Equity.
Updated On: 5/2/07 at 10:01 PM

[temms]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 10:17pm

The problem is that a non-equity tour potentially disqualifies the best possible performers. You are taking out of consideration anybody who has done enough work to be a member of Equity. So the people that do these tours are people who are either just starting out, or people who have, for whatever reason, never made the jump. So, as someone points out, nobody in these tours will have any Broadway or First National Tour credits, probably have not worked regionally to much extent, etc.

One becomes a great performer by years of performing. A non-equity tour by definition means that most of the people will not be seasoned performers, since the vast majority of professional actors serious about doing this for their career will eventually join Equity. For some shows, that's fine. "Rent" casts all the productions from the same basic pool of people, and there's not much difference between an Equity and Non-Eq company. I imagine a non-eq "Spring Awakening" would not be noticeably different than an Equity. The younger the show skews, the better chance you're going to get the best people possible.

But once you start doing shows that have a lot of technical dance, characters of a certain age, virtuoso performances - there is a good chance the quality will suffer because the people most qualified for those jobs are ineligible for them.

So when you're getting a non-eq tour, you are not getting the best possible people. You are getting the people willing to work with no protection. It's a gamble.

On the other hand, there is nothing preventing an Equity tour from hiring a Non-Eq and giving them their card. If you're the best person, you'll get the job regardless of your union status.

And the working conditions are just as much of a gamble. Some non-eq tours are great experiences, others hell on earth. The problem is, you have no recourse in the latter case (other than walking off the job, which I have seen happen LOTS of times on non-eq tours. On one European tour I conducted, Thursday was always scary because usually at least one person had gotten their paycheck and split for home, often without even telling anyone.)

[notyourself]

Posted: 5/2/07 at 11:41pm

I've noticed that non-Equity tours tends to do smaller cities and shorter stays, while Equity tours do larger theaters for longer runs.

I don't think I would ever go to a non-Equity performance. After hearing so many horror stories of non-Equity actors getting dirty hotel rooms far from any restaurant they can get a meal at, not having medical care for injuries and having to move in the middle of the night to do a show the next afternoon, I can't risk having my ticket price going towards producers that would do that to their cast. Not every touring company is bad, not everyone is good, but I just won't risk it.

There is some difference in quality between the actors. Part of it may be the dedication of the actor. Equity actors know this is what they want to do with their lives. They've worked their asses off to get to become eligible for their Equity card, spent $1500 on their initiation fees to become a member, and give a percentage of their paycheck each week to Equity. Something is wrong with your career or talent if you're 45 years old and still don't have an Equity card. I can understand being a 20-something fresh out of college with a BFA trying to get your first gigs and having to take non-Equity ones, but I have no idea how older actors survive without the union membership.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 7:09am

"I've noticed that non-Equity tours tends to do smaller cities and shorter stays, while Equity tours do larger theaters for longer runs."

This should be the purpose of non-Equity tours. When a non-Equity tour of Cats plays Chicago for a month something has gone wrong. The Equity versus non-Equity touring issue is similar to the constant pressure to make orchestras on Broadway smaller. The producers have a strong financial interest here (can you imagine how profitable it is to sell out Chicago for a month at full price while paying your actors peanuts?) so the unions have to exert constant pressure.