Equity Actors- Page 3

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 2/19/05 at 4:40pm

i have demonstrated the highest level of knowledge into the specific workings of Equity in this discussion mr. jrb. Maybe I have different opinions, but I certainly KNOW what I'm talking about. As for all of the actors on here, of course they're going to side with Equity. Equity offers actors more than their market value, so who the hell would fight it? I'd sure like to get paid more than I'm worth too. Not to say that SOME Equity people aren't worth every penny they get, but it's only a question of value... Why should producers be forced into paying wages when so many actors will take less? It's unreasonable, and producers are the ones with the money- they won't stand for it too much longer; either shows will stop or producers will have to get more of their way.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/19/05 at 6:21pm

And that's why Equity was formed. Because producers WOULD take advantage of us and the stage managers if they could. And that's why Equity will always be here--because actors and stage managers need protections.

And, if you think so little of actors that they shouldn't be paid handsomely (hell--just decently) for the hard work they do, then just why are you a fan of theatre? I don't see how you can be a fan of something but have so little respect for the people involved. I don't see why an actor shouldn't be paid well when other professions are paid well, too.

An actor should be allowed to make a living with their work. What you want would create actors having to live at the poverty level.

It's just GREED what you want.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 2/19/05 at 6:23pm

Our resident Executive Director has spoken.

[IMsooHyprToday]

Posted: 2/19/05 at 6:27pm

"Why should producers be forced into paying wages when so many actors will take less? It's unreasonable, and producers are the ones with the money- they won't stand for it too much longer; either shows will stop or producers will have to get more of their way."

In the professional world, producers are in the buisness to make money (think of the musical "Producers"). That is why the idea of non-equity tours is so appealing. They can charge what people would pay for an equity show and get away with a sub-par performances (eg. Oklahoma! National tour). All the money saved on paying the cast, crew, and orchestra goes where? Back into the pockets of the producers...

Equity doesnt only protect the actors, it also protects the audience. Updated On: 2/19/05 at 06:27 PM

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 2/20/05 at 1:19am

"In the professional world, producers are in the buisness to make money...That is why the idea of non-equity tours is so appealing. They can charge what people would pay for an equity show and get away with a sub-par performances. All the money saved on paying the cast, crew, and orchestra goes where? Back into the pockets of the producers"

This is wrong. If producers go around saying that they want to do some crappy show and charge lots of money for it, then they deserve all criticisms. BUT, this is seldom the case. Sometimes, believe it or not non-producing folks, there just ISN'T the money. Producers employ actors- that is how actors get their jobs. Are you now saying that a PRODUCER doesn't deserve to make a living as much as an actor? The fact is, sometimes producers cannot pay actors what Equity demands. It is awfully tempting to overlook Equity talent when there are THOUSANDS that are just as good willing to work cheaper than others. Not all producers are greedy money grubbing whores. Many producers make such a modest living that one show can ruin their career. I've seen some majorly bad talent in both Equity and non-Equity shows. How dare anyone say that just because something is non-Equity that it is non-Talent. Protects the audience? Protects them from what? Did it protect them from $100.00 Orchestra seats? Did it protect them from Melanie G in Chicago? Or Rosie O'Donnell in...everything she's done??? Oh! I see. Equity does NOT protect the audience, and if they say they do, then they are liars. They protect their members- atleast some of them.

[IMsooHyprToday]

Posted: 2/20/05 at 6:50am

Don't get me wrong! I belive anyone who wants to perform should be allowed to (whether they are equity or not). In fact, i STRONGLY support theatre of any kind. But, the thing i do not like is when tour companies mislead the audience into thinking they are getting more than they actually are.

When i saw the national tour of "Oklahoma!" at the Pantageous Theatre in LA, the family that sat behind me was looking through their program to see if there were any famous people in the cast. They even asked if knew where the actors bios and headshots were in the program. I told them that there weren't any because they arent required for non-equity actors. And then there was the orchestra... "Oklahoma!" should have a 18 piece orchestra. How many pieces did this "orchestra" have? Eight! Ten instruments were replaced by a computer (and yes you can tell a difference!) !!

If i would have paid $50 for those tickets (i got free ones from a friend) like the family behind me, i would have been furious. Paying equity-price for tickets to a non-equity show is a rip off. (or at least in the case of "Oklahoma!") i CAN tell the difference.

"Are you now saying that a PRODUCER doesn't deserve to make a living as much as an actor?" No. I think it is wrong to misrepresent the good they are selling. Making a couple extra dollars at the cost of the audience is not good buisness.

"Not all producers are greedy money grubbing whores." I never said that. You did.

"How dare anyone say that just because something is non-Equity that it is non-Talent." Who said that?! Again, not me. I know quite a few non-equity perfomers that are better than some equity that i have seen. In general, hiring equity actors GREATLY reduces the chances of sub-par performances. If i am gonna shell out $50 of my hard earned cash for a ticket and i had the choice of seeing Equity or Non-Equity, you can bet-your-behind that i am gonna pick Equity. Which one would you choose?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/20/05 at 1:33pm

This issue is not about talent--it's about quality and about quality of conditions and pay for actors and stage managers.

And don't give me the sob story for producers--many of whom I respect. The ones producing Broadway and National Tours are working out of their pockets or their benefactors' pockets. Most everything else from Off-Broadway to regional theatre is non-profit.

For those working the for profit theatre, they are obviously doing just fine that they continue to produce. And write off flops. If you don't have the money to lose, you shouldn't produce for profit. Everyone knows that.

And again--you can not blame the actors' and stage managers' salaries--smallest percentage of the budget. Other people working on the show get paid more--and I don't hear you complaining about THEM.

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 12:41am

Actors and SMs are not the smallest percentage of the overall budget. Equity will not sign an agreement unless actor salaries are atleast 25% of the budget on a production level contract. That seems awfully high to me.

[jasonvanemburgh]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 12:57am

I really cant understand why ANYONE would argue that STAGE actors make too much money. That is RIDICULOUS. For example, the pinnacle is Broadway,and WHERE is Broadway ? In NYC..home of the $1300/month studio apt..the $5 loaf of bread...etc. That is the top minimum..after that it drastically goes downhil. I didnt get into this business for the money, but money is necessary to support the artist, his living, his training, his photographs, his resumes,his food, etc. Most salaries in regional Equity theatre hover around $500/week, going as low as $270/week for SPT. And these contract are on the average 6 weeks long. Wow, we actors are getting rich! But according to the one dingleberry, these salaries arent justified. Yes they make decent money on Broadway/NAtional Tours, but those actors are the cream of the crop. ANybody who would deny that money for the best in the business, needs to cease being a theatre fan, and begin to immediately switch to the ever-stimulating world of NASCAR. Now if you excuse me, I have to write a check towards my theatre training a few years back. But you're right, I shouldnt make a livable wage for the craft I've spent years studying, so that I could entertain and stimulate people like you in the audience.

[jasonvanemburgh]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 12:57am

I really cant understand why ANYONE would argue that STAGE actors make too much money. That is RIDICULOUS. For example, the pinnacle is Broadway,and WHERE is Broadway ? In NYC..home of the $1300/month studio apt..the $5 loaf of bread...etc. That is the top minimum..after that it drastically goes downhil. I didnt get into this business for the money, but money is necessary to support the artist, his living, his training, his photographs, his resumes,his food, etc. Most salaries in regional Equity theatre hover around $500/week, going as low as $270/week for SPT. And these contract are on the average 6 weeks long. Wow, we actors are getting rich! But according to the one dingleberry, these salaries arent justified. Yes they make decent money on Broadway/NAtional Tours, but those actors are the cream of the crop. ANybody who would deny that money for the best in the business, needs to cease being a theatre fan, and begin to immediately switch to the ever-stimulating world of NASCAR. Now if you excuse me, I have to write a check towards my theatre training a few years back. But you're right, I shouldnt make a livable wage for the craft I've spent years studying, so that I could entertain and stimulate people like you in the audience.

[RockyRoad]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 2:56am

Equity is a joke. Long live non Equity tours!

Don't worry folks. Equity members aren't dumb. You know when you're being screwed.

[jasonvanemburgh]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:08pm

Non equity tours rock???...lol. Yeah, I suppose Rent rocks. You probably dont need to be Equity to sing music that you can hear in ant rock club in town. Thats the problem with the younger theatre audience. They think the world of theatre is comprised of Rent, Wicked, and a little Phantom mixed in. Why dont we see the non-equity tours of Sondheim. Or better yet, Hedda Gabler or My Three Sons being performed by a bunch of 20'something non-equity actors. You CAN see that, its called community theatre and college theatre. However, if you want to see SHakespeare and Williams and Miller and Chekov done to the point that it rivets you in your seats and causes you to lose yourself for 2 hours, Id highly recommend seeing an Equity production where the actors have dedicated their entire lives and spent years training to do the play you are watching. Sandy Meisner said that it takes twenty years to become an actor. Think about that next time you "light your candle" at a non equity tour of Rent

[jasonvanemburgh]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:11pm

My Three Sons...lol....All my Sons....I said I could act, not spell!

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:13pm

Let me once again put forth the light. I do NOT support inferior theatre. But you know what? Non Equity people CAN be just as good if not better than Equity people. No one died and changed the Equity rules to day you had to be good to join. I've seen horrible horrible horrible Equity and non-Equity shows. Equity actors seem to think that they are somehow among the elite, but they aren't. And why does it matter what they think anyway? They aren't the ones buying tickets.

[Jamie Hat]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:21pm

I have yet to see a non-equity tour that didn't suck.
The lack of talent in the performers is noticable.

There are talented people who are not equity, sure, but an 'eventual goal' for most perfomers who want to act for a living find it in their best interest to join.

[BWAYboi_yes]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:22pm

I've yet to see any tour that didn't suck... really. Shows are so bad. And I'm in the business and I can't stand shows. Things aint what they used to be.

[RockyRoad]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 1:57pm

I have yet to see an Non Equity tour that didn't suck.

I guess if we live in your pathetic world, we have to judge everything as black and white.

Get over your self.

You might want to check the reviews of Oklahoma on this site cause your in the minority. Updated On: 2/21/05 at 01:57 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 4:04pm

"..the tickets are $100, so the salaries are higher. I am an actor who has spent considerable time and money studing my craft. When I recieve a salary, I deserve it."

This and other statements in this discussion are highly arrogant and insulting to the people who have also worked in their fields for many years, spent money on their education, worked and toiled in internships and low-paying entry level positions, most likely don't even like their jobs/profession but need to support themselves and their families so have no choice, and now still scrimp and save to pay for theater tickets to support your "deserved" $1381/week MINIMUM. Minimum that chorus people can make on their very first job, by the way.

[jezzebelle]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 5:22pm

Rath, I agree a hundred percent with your statement.

As an actor still in school, I do want to join Equity eventually, but was advised by several people to just to gain experience by doing theatre and then to work to an equity card. I'd like to be a working actor, yes, but I also know enough to know that simply having an equity card does not mean that will necessarily be the case.

And as for the subject of non-eq tours, I don't think that talent, per se, is the issue. Yes, some people on the tours may not have the same level of experience as people on equity tours, but sometimes, experience doesn't equate talent. You can hone your craft, imo, but you cannot produce talent if there is none to be had. I'm also a young person who is fully aware that theatre is not made up of only shows like RENT and Wicked, but I've also seen some community/college/regional Sondheim or Ibsen or Williams etc, that was better or just as good as equity productions of the same show.

[MaTakeALookAtMe]

Posted: 2/21/05 at 6:38pm

Non equity productions cannot be as good. It is a rule of the universe.

[IMsooHyprToday]

Posted: 2/22/05 at 3:13am

"Non equity productions cannot be as good. It is a rule of the universe." Wow.


"I have yet to see an Non Equity tour that didn't suck. ... Get over your self. You might want to check the reviews of Oklahoma on this site cause your in the minority." Come on Rocky! Think! Why would they advertise with negative reviews on thier website?

I never said Oklahoma "sucked" but I do know that if I was paying $50 for a ticket I would want to see a cast without annunciation problems, an Ado Annie was wasn’t consistently sharp, a Jud Fry who didn’t run like a sissy, and an orchestra that wasn’t more than half computerized. It was a decent production but not worth the $50 (or more) for the ticket.

[sparky310]

Posted: 2/22/05 at 11:57am

i have been equity for many years and am sad to say i have seen some of the worst behavior out of equity actors..some actors need to learn that as the actor they are not in charge and not the director..i cannot tell you how many times i have been embarrased by these people...pride should not be something that needs to be promoted ...they should be proud to be able to work in the craft they love..just because you are equity doesnt mean you are quality.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 2/22/05 at 12:52pm

I want to start by saying that I am a proud member of Equity.

That $1381 minimum that some of you are all up in arms about doesn't really go very far.

One of my dear friends is currently in the ensemble of a Broadway show right now. Her contract is negotiated for a little over $1400 a week. After taxes, agent commission, and 2% Equity working dues are deducted from her paycheck she brings home a little over $700. Her rent which she splits with a roomate is about $1500, which means that one week of her take home pay is already gone. Factor in bills, groceries, voice lessons and dance classes and that's pretty much it for her.

I know another person who is also in the ensemble of a Broadway show who has a second job as a Realtor because he barely scraps by on his Production Contract salary.

It isn't all wine and roses.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/22/05 at 1:12pm

A lot of us are living in NYC on a lot less. And we're not doing what we love (because we thought we needed security - and as it turns out, no one has that), and we're working a lot of hours at it.

Updated On: 2/22/05 at 01:12 PM

[Tom1071]

Posted: 2/22/05 at 3:01pm

That is a matter of personal responsibility and what you feel is right for you. Different strokes for different folks. Some people couldn't be happy not being able to do what they love. I know I couldn't. But I guess not everyone gets to be happy. I work two jobs right now and audition waiting for something to happen with my career. But I take responsibilty for me and I don't blame other people for what I have or don't have. Everyone has to decide what they are willing to risk for their personal happiness. Some are just braver than others I guess.

If no one wanted to take the risk at being a performer then there would be no Broadway and no broadwayworld.com for that matter.