Billy Elliot Tour

So is the tour non-equity now or what? Quite honestly, I don't understand what happened with having 3 US productions and then now all we have is one touring production that's doing split weeks and apparently is not drawing too many...?

---

Just saw it last night and loved it.

---

It's most definitely an Equity tour. They tiered down from a full production contract to a SETA (Short Engagement Touring Agreement) Contract, which allows for Equity split-weeks. Mamma Mia is still equity and is having one nighters.

The tour was taken over by Networks last fall, which is largely a Non-Equity producer. But they are also known for getting Equity tours that are looking to save money (i.e. Mamma Mia, South Pacific 1st National, Mary Poppins, etc).

And as far as what happened to having 3 companies to 1. Apparently, due to the success on Broadway, producers thought they would crank out two tours as fast as possible, in order to make more money. In most cases, you'd send out a 1st national tour and see that it's wildly successful and selling out, so you plan and send out a 2nd national tour. But they were already in the process of making the 2nd national happen when they realized the show just wasn't selling as well as anticipated. So they closed the first national, tiered down the 2nd national and sent it back out, paying the actors almost half of what they were making and cutting sit-downs from 2-4 weeks to 1 and 2 week-ers and the occasional split weeks.

Updated On: 5/7/12 at 04:51 PM

I don't know about the technicalities.. but to me the current production is superior to the 1st national I saw in Chicago .

---

AEA contract status has nothing directly to do with the orchestra size.

Though, two examples to buck the stereotype that you are thinking of --
1.) Memphis - the show is out on a SETA contract, playing mostly one week stops. The cast is a few people smaller than the NYC version, but the band is the same size as the Broadway production (comparing my tour and NYC Playbills) and they travel the full band with the show and do not take it locals.
2.) Mamma Mia! The first national tour (which predated the Broadway production) toured with a core group of musicians and pulled in locals in each city, but the 2nd national tour, which had a slightly reduced physical production, toured with the entire 9 piece band in tact, continued to do so after the physical production was further reduced and now this tour, which is for all purposes the 3rd national tour, has a cast on the SETA contract and still tours with the full 9 piece pit..


For what it's worth, as much as people knock the SETA contract, I've become increasingly familiar with the contract recently and it actually isn't so shabby. Not at all. There were quite a few points that causes me to raise an eyebrow, rather impressed at how well the actors can be treated. The only change I would say, from observation, that it NEEDS to make is the requirement of an advance Stage Management team to oversee load-ins...

They established two tours becuse the company in Chicago was expected to sit-down for at least a year, and they wanted a tour on the road. Billy Elliot isn't a known property, and isn't exactly family-friendly, so it's not surprising that it didn't do well on the road.

Strangely, they call it tour 2.5. It's still playing many of the engagements that the 2nd national had booked.

LOVED the touring production. I saw it three times. It can never top the Broadway production for me, but it is a fantastic touring production.

---

See it any time anywhere you can.

The problem was that it did not get the touring reviews that it wanted esp in Canada and the Broadway version closed so it lost momentum . I think they expected schools to see it. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also can someone tell me why it did close ? But I saw it on Broadway and it was fab but no where as good as Matilda.

The show also had a huge problem budget wise. Unlike Matilda, the role of Billy is so physically demanding it requiresat least 2-3 actors to cover the role. The fact that Billy is also supposed to be basically hitting the beginnings of puberty cause actors playing Billy to have a very limited shelf life. It cost producers a fortune to just find children capable of possibly playing the role, then spending more money on months of training to get boys to be able to play the part.

The show also had a huge cast, large sets, and ornate costumes.

It supposidly had a running cost of over $800,000, which increased as time went on. When the Times did their puff piece on how Matilda's producers were handling the transfer, it discussed on how Matilda's producers had learned from the mistakes and problems of Billy Elliot's transfer.

Anyone see the first perf of the U.K. and Ireland tour?

---

I find out it odd that any shows feel the need to tour in a country that is roughly the size of New England.