Equity to Protest Non-Union Touring Productions at Oct. 29 Times Square Rally — Page 2

Yoda says: "To Master jrb_actor you listen...the facts he has."

---

i had to laugh reading this.

gawd jrb..i hope you're not an equity rep.

And as far as the rally goes, equity members have EVERY right to protest the way in which producers these days are doing business. The only reason these tours go out in the first place is that they enjoyed some sort of success on Broadway with equity actors. To then turn around and employ non-equity actors while surfing on the reputation garnered by equity performers is dishonest. As is the producers pocketing the vastly increased profits while not returning any to the lowly paid performers. Is it the producers right to do this, yea. Is it right and totally ethical, not by a long shot. Does equity need to begin to restructure it's touring contracts in SOME cases, yes and they have started to.

And WSS2, yea it sucks they up'd the work weeks for ins. but get real, do you have ANY idea what insurance costs are right now? That along with the recent recession that affected the Union's Health Fund!

so scooter...you're saying that because the equity actors were hired and paid to do their job, they should automatically have stake in all future productions?

correct me...but i always thought it was the producer who found the property, hired the composer, hired the set and costume designers, got all the backers, headed up the marketing plan and..basically overall....ran the whole show. Not the actors. got it?

a show is the property of the producer, not the actor. they have every right to do with it as they please. and if it pleases them to go non equity, then so so be it.

and for the person above..i have seen the non equity "rent" three times and loved it...saw the non equity "music man" and loved it....saw the non equity "miss siagon" and loved it. but since you're such an equity freak, you'd probably call me a liar too.

>I think you need a time out. Chill.

>I am voicing my opinion of this subject. I have backed mine up >with facts. Where are yours?

I've read your first post several times, your "facts" are subjective at best. They state seem to be of the quality of "I say this is so, so it is!"

>You go jumping down my throat for no reason at all. You claim >my comments are ignorat, yet prove nothing with yours (who >asked or cares about your EMC experience. So happy you had a >good one). The you claim I'm someone that I'm not cause you >don't like my opinions.

>Grow up. If you don't like what someone posts, THEN MOVE ON.

No, if you don't like what someone posts, you should post your own take on the subject. If you just "move on" then there's no discussion.

---

Hey, Dude, thanks for the follow-up. It's getting crowded in here, and it's hard to tell who's speaking to whom!

dude, before you go gettin your panties in a wad...maybe you should READ the otther posts.

and why do you think, like marissa, i was directing my comments to you?

guilty conscience

but hey..maybe you like them in a wad.