#1
Posted: 7/10/04 at 11:14pm
EQUITY STRIKE: PRESSURE RISING
#2
Posted: 7/10/04 at 11:16pm
Thanks JRB!
"I'm learning to dig deep down inside and find the truth within myself and put that out. I think what we identify with in popular music more than anything else is when someone just shares a truth that we can relate to. That's what I'm searching for in my music." - Ron Bohmer
"I broke the boundaries. It wasn't cool to be in plays- especially if you were in sports & I was in both." - Ashton Kutcher
"I broke the boundaries. It wasn't cool to be in plays- especially if you were in sports & I was in both." - Ashton Kutcher
#4
Posted: 7/10/04 at 11:50pm
I do too.
CCM '10!
Updated On: 7/10/04 at 11:50 PM
#5
Posted: 7/10/04 at 11:56pm
All very distressing....I'd hate to see 1,200 people suddenly out of work. Lots of the shows would NOT return, even after just 2 days of a strike. BUT, I think if Equity doesn't do anything about these non-eq tours, there will eventually never be another REAL Broadway tour out there again.
The folks on the current Oklahoma! Tour (non-eq) make $250 a week with a $150/week stipend. That is absolutely not acceptable to THEM or to the audiences that are paying full price tickets to see them. Three guesses where all the extra ticket money is going........the producer's pockets....
The folks on the current Oklahoma! Tour (non-eq) make $250 a week with a $150/week stipend. That is absolutely not acceptable to THEM or to the audiences that are paying full price tickets to see them. Three guesses where all the extra ticket money is going........the producer's pockets....
"High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man" - Tears for Fears
#6
Posted: 7/11/04 at 2:30am
Yes..GO EQUITY!
Supress free trade and the ability for a legal business to exist just because you want it stopped. That's fair!
Congrads Equity for putting hundreds out of work. It's all for the best.
Not.
ps- Oklahoma tours performers are not making $250 a week. Nice try.
Supress free trade and the ability for a legal business to exist just because you want it stopped. That's fair!
Congrads Equity for putting hundreds out of work. It's all for the best.
Not.
ps- Oklahoma tours performers are not making $250 a week. Nice try.
Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity last forever.
Watch out BWW...
HE'S BACK.
Updated On: 7/11/04 at 02:30 AM
#7
Posted: 7/11/04 at 2:43am
#8
Posted: 7/11/04 at 2:54am
Well; I just saw this Oklahoma tour in Costa Mesa. It was awful and amaeurish. And we left at intermission. Honestly ( and I know this sounds harsh) they should have paid me for my wasted time in sitting there. It was the shtickiest thing.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#9
Posted: 7/11/04 at 3:00am
Yes, that's right Tuttle, unions have existed for over a hundred years to make things worse for everone.
You're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
"High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man" - Tears for Fears
#10
Posted: 7/11/04 at 7:06am
Debating the validity of unions is not an idiotic thing to do. Often unions can make if worse...or misuse their power...I'm not saying that's what equity is doing...but it's not an idiotic argument. You shouldn't call him an idiot just 'cause he doesn't agree...why don't you try to argue the point. And he does have one. The idea that Equity should be able to stop non-union tours does seem to fall under the anti-free trade heading...why not inform the public of the lesser quality of non-equity tours? Why not get the support of other unions to not cross lines? If producers can't get musicians for their unfair tours...and can't sell any tickets because the public won't pay to see tours of lesser quality...then non-equity tours WILL stop. Why not spend all the money everybody is prepared to lose in a strike on advertising about the benefits of union tours?
KC
Please don't call me an idiot.
KC
Please don't call me an idiot.
Jesus saves. I spend.
#11
Posted: 7/11/04 at 9:13am
Read his other comments about Equity, and you'll see why I neither argue the point (never teach a pig to sing...), nor do I feel any qualms about using the "i-word". I don't attack ANYBODY for what they say on here, though I WILL defend when provoked.
"High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man" - Tears for Fears
#12
Posted: 7/11/04 at 10:15am
I'm coming to NYC this weekend on vacation. I live in Georgia and look forward to coming to NYC every year and the main reason is the Broadway shows. I have tickets to Wicked and The Boy From Oz. I understand where the actors are coming from but I will be so disappointed if they do go on strike. My vacation would practically be ruined since Broadway is honestly the highlight of my trip each year. Since I've never been in a situation like this, let me ask you guys this: if the actors do go on strike, will the ticketholders be given a refund by the box office? Just curious...
"Be a dear, hold Mommie's waffles." ~ Edna Turnblad, Hairspray
#13
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:01am
I'd imagine they'd have to give refunds. Either refunds or passes to another performance should the shows hold up.
And now, a slightly differing view of the situation:
I'm wondering if anyone else shares my feeling that Equity may have been caught with their pants down. They've negotiated contracts for much lower rates with non-union producers, but throw a fit every time union producers wish to tour with non-union actors. Something about that doesn't sound quite right. it'll be interesting to see how to nonleague produced tour issue turns out.....
~Sarah, hoping against a strike, but overly apprehensive..
And now, a slightly differing view of the situation:
I'm wondering if anyone else shares my feeling that Equity may have been caught with their pants down. They've negotiated contracts for much lower rates with non-union producers, but throw a fit every time union producers wish to tour with non-union actors. Something about that doesn't sound quite right. it'll be interesting to see how to nonleague produced tour issue turns out.....
~Sarah, hoping against a strike, but overly apprehensive..
#14
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:03am
I don't see how equity was "caught with thier pants down" at all.
#15
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:10am
Ok, I'll try again.
Equity wants the league to stop licensing non-equity tours, correct? That's a union-nonunion pairing that they're against.
Equity, however, has licsensed tours to non-league producers. Again a union-nonunion pairing.
See where Im going with this? They'll try and stop one union from doing something but turn around and go forward with their own version of it.
Equity wants the league to stop licensing non-equity tours, correct? That's a union-nonunion pairing that they're against.
Equity, however, has licsensed tours to non-league producers. Again a union-nonunion pairing.
See where Im going with this? They'll try and stop one union from doing something but turn around and go forward with their own version of it.
#16
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:18am
No.. I don't.. there are FAR more actors than producres and the numbers of union jobs for actors has been dropping.. they were creating union jobs for union actors..... exactly what they want teh leaugue to do. They weren't cheating the league out of work.
And the big issue in that is teh League sending out NON UNION tours for FIRST NATIONAL companies.....
And the big issue in that is teh League sending out NON UNION tours for FIRST NATIONAL companies.....
#17
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:23am
>> They'll try and stop one union from doing something but turn around and go forward with their own version of it
That's a good point, actually. It's almost like Equity wants to have its proverbial cake and eat it too.
>> BUT, I think if Equity doesn't do anything about these non-eq tours, there will eventually never be another REAL Broadway tour out there again.
Am I the only one who thinks maybe this wouldn't be such a terrible thing? There's a lot of regional and community theatre out there that gets whacked every time a "Broadway tour" comes through -- when we were putting together the coming season at TCR, there was the possibility we might not get rights to Steel Magnolias because a "Broadway tour" was coming through Chicago three months after our production ended its three-week run, and Cedar Rapids, in the eyes of the producers, was just a little too close to Chicago, and they might lose a few ticket sales (Go figure the logic behind that one, kids).
Face it: most of these "touring productions" are watered down, out of necessity more often than not (As someone noted elsewhere, it should be intruiging to see how well WICKED tours). And to be bluntly honest, the quality of the tours has gone down sharply in the last ten years -- the official tour of Sunset Boulevard was appallingly bad. To lose them, frankly, would not altogether be a bad thing.
That's a good point, actually. It's almost like Equity wants to have its proverbial cake and eat it too.
>> BUT, I think if Equity doesn't do anything about these non-eq tours, there will eventually never be another REAL Broadway tour out there again.
Am I the only one who thinks maybe this wouldn't be such a terrible thing? There's a lot of regional and community theatre out there that gets whacked every time a "Broadway tour" comes through -- when we were putting together the coming season at TCR, there was the possibility we might not get rights to Steel Magnolias because a "Broadway tour" was coming through Chicago three months after our production ended its three-week run, and Cedar Rapids, in the eyes of the producers, was just a little too close to Chicago, and they might lose a few ticket sales (Go figure the logic behind that one, kids).
Face it: most of these "touring productions" are watered down, out of necessity more often than not (As someone noted elsewhere, it should be intruiging to see how well WICKED tours). And to be bluntly honest, the quality of the tours has gone down sharply in the last ten years -- the official tour of Sunset Boulevard was appallingly bad. To lose them, frankly, would not altogether be a bad thing.
"That duck was a sexual toy, and it was on display!" -- an unknown Nashville town leader
Updated On: 7/11/04 at 11:23 AM
#18
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:24am
Yes. There are more actors than producers.
And who, might I ask, do you think puts up/raises the capital to put up these shows that employ the actors? The producers! Shocker!
Heaven forbid they might want to cut costs somewhere so that maybe, just maybe, they can put out another show. I'm not stating that reasoning as fact, just as another way of thinking about it.
The actors need what they need, and the producers need what they need, but IMO it's completely unfair to make union/nonunion deals going in one direction but try to forbid a reversal of those deals. I'm not pulling sides here, last thing I want is a strike, just trying to open up the discussion so it's not so one-sided. Everyone on this board seems to be so pro-equity, damn the producers for their unfair demands, they're so rich, poor them. To quote Max Bialystock, "NEver put your own money in a show". I'd think they're trying to cut production costs for their INVESTORS who put up the money, rather than trying to pocket it for themselves. Broadway or tour, most shows don't recoup within a matter of weeks, some even take years.
The less money you try and take out of people's pockets, the more they'll probably be willing to give you.
And who, might I ask, do you think puts up/raises the capital to put up these shows that employ the actors? The producers! Shocker!
Heaven forbid they might want to cut costs somewhere so that maybe, just maybe, they can put out another show. I'm not stating that reasoning as fact, just as another way of thinking about it.
The actors need what they need, and the producers need what they need, but IMO it's completely unfair to make union/nonunion deals going in one direction but try to forbid a reversal of those deals. I'm not pulling sides here, last thing I want is a strike, just trying to open up the discussion so it's not so one-sided. Everyone on this board seems to be so pro-equity, damn the producers for their unfair demands, they're so rich, poor them. To quote Max Bialystock, "NEver put your own money in a show". I'd think they're trying to cut production costs for their INVESTORS who put up the money, rather than trying to pocket it for themselves. Broadway or tour, most shows don't recoup within a matter of weeks, some even take years.
The less money you try and take out of people's pockets, the more they'll probably be willing to give you.
#19
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:27am
Who says that the money they save by using a non union cast would be used to stage another show.. let alone a UNION show??
Judging by your statemnts.. i fidn it hard to belive that you have TRUE knowledge of how teh economics of a show work and are just speaking from "laymans" eyes.....
Judging by your statemnts.. i fidn it hard to belive that you have TRUE knowledge of how teh economics of a show work and are just speaking from "laymans" eyes.....
#20
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:29am
And are you, bwayguy, working on a show right now? Administratively? Then you can tell me that I'm speaking from "layman's eyes".
I'm not. And I'm going to leave it at that.
I'm not. And I'm going to leave it at that.
#21
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:31am
Aha...... SOO.. that is teh reasoning for yoru posting in that position... you are ON the 'administrative' side of things..... so your view, just like those of actors posting here, is, in some way or form, biased toward what YOU want. Correct?
#22
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:33am
Incorrect.
As previosuly stated, I'm not taking sides.
I'm not a league member. I'm not an Equity member.
I stated that in response to your claim that I had no knowledge of the economics of putting up a show.
Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm presenting another view point.
As previosuly stated, I'm not taking sides.
I'm not a league member. I'm not an Equity member.
I stated that in response to your claim that I had no knowledge of the economics of putting up a show.
Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm presenting another view point.
#23
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:39am
Alright then... but it seems, from your posts, that you don't seem very sympathetic towards the issues raised by the actors here........
#24
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:41am
>> Who says that the money they save by using a non union cast would be used to stage another show.. let alone a UNION show??
I dont think that's what CR is saying. Putting a show on tour these days, even in a lo-rent production, is a hugely expensive affair with little return beyond PR. These things dont make a lot of money for the producing company; at best, they're a break-even thing unless it's something huge like POTO or RENT. I thnk that's why the League is so adamant about keeping some tours non-union: it's the only way they can make these things turn even a minimal profit.
I dont think that's what CR is saying. Putting a show on tour these days, even in a lo-rent production, is a hugely expensive affair with little return beyond PR. These things dont make a lot of money for the producing company; at best, they're a break-even thing unless it's something huge like POTO or RENT. I thnk that's why the League is so adamant about keeping some tours non-union: it's the only way they can make these things turn even a minimal profit.
"That duck was a sexual toy, and it was on display!" -- an unknown Nashville town leader
#25
Posted: 7/11/04 at 11:43am
I haven't addressed Equity's demands at all, so don't say that i'm insensitive to them.
Do me a favor. I want you to google "Arielle Tepper". Then talk to me about producers wanting to save more money for themselves. Theatre is the last business anyone should be in if they're looking to make money.
Do me a favor. I want you to google "Arielle Tepper". Then talk to me about producers wanting to save more money for themselves. Theatre is the last business anyone should be in if they're looking to make money.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95