Posted: 8/18/17 at 5:26am
I saw that an international tour was announced for Groundhog Day after it was announced that it's closing on broadway. I was just wondering about how likely it is that Andy Karl will be on the tour and when more information will most likely be announced? Thank you!!!
Posted: 8/18/17 at 9:49am
I would say
1. Exceedingly unlikely
2. When they figure out what they are doing
If you're in NYC, the first question is easy to answer definitively: Andy stagedoors after every performance, so ask him. For the second, it's not clear to me whether they even have the cash in the bank yet or they will need more capital to tour. If the latter, it may not happen anytime soon.
Updated On: 8/18/17 at 09:49 AM
Posted: 8/18/17 at 9:53am
I think it's very, very unlikely that Andy would do this, or any, tour. He's past that in his career and has said in interviews he'd only do one if Orfeh were also in the show.
I honestly don't see this touring at all. It'd be far too expensive to move the equipment necessary to keep the 5 revolves and without them the show would be a shell of itself.
I do hope it returns to London, but again, I have my doubts about that. Despite its good initial reception, not sure investors will want to back it now that it wasn't a success on Broadway.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 3:12pm
Another problem with a potential tour is they would have to completely redesign and restage the entire show, as they can't tour with those turntables and so much of the show is reliant on them. Granted stranger things have happened, but this is a super expensive show to run, so they only way it will tour is if they can significantly scale down the show, and restage it to not include turntables. I do think the show would do well on tour though, the name alone will sell tickets.
Also i saw Andy's understudy, Andrew Call, in the role and he was fantastic. He would be a wonderful person to bring on the road with the show.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 3:36pm
They *can* tour the turntables, but it would be extremely expensive and time-consuming -- not likely to happen with a show that flopped so spectacularly.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 4:06pm
The thought of him going on tour is pretty laughable. I'd say a tour of this show will happen, but it definitely needs to be downsized for touring. I'd kill for Andy to go on tour, but that really won't happen.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 4:57pm
Re: Casting - you have to admit it'd be cute as hell if they got Orfeh to play opposite Andy as Rita, and they got to travel together!
Posted: 8/19/17 at 7:54pm
It could very well get a non-Equity, non-union tour similar to Catch Me if You Can, Bullets Over Broadway etc.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 8:27pm
markypoo said: "It could very well get a non-Equity, non-union tour similar to Catch Me if You Can, Bullets Over Broadway etc."
Those tours were non-Equity, but they were not non-union.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 8:39pm
For clarification, just what purposeful union were they affiliated with?
Posted: 8/19/17 at 8:49pm
Actors typically make up only about half of a touring company. The stagehands and musicians on those tours were union members working under union contract. So again, those tours were non-Equity, but not non-union.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 9:43pm
I understand what you're saying. But for the purposes of a tour it's a non union tour. And yeah I mean the fact that they figured out how to tour Ghost and on a much smaller scale is pretty impressive.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 9:50pm
The point is the tour is not non union, because the tour employs union members. That's a fact. Not a personal opinion.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 10:37pm
RippedMan said: "I understand what you're saying. But for the purposes of a tour it's a non union tour. And yeah I mean the fact that they figured out how to tour Ghost and on a much smaller scale is pretty impressive. "
For the purposes of the English language, that is absolutely not a non-union tour. It is non-Equity, but not non-union. I don't know how else to explain it.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 11:40pm
You are all pretty and technically all correct on this one.
Yes those tours are non-equity, but employ "other unions" and technically not "non-union"
BUT...
Even internally within these tours themselves, there are often referred to as the "Non-Union" Tour EVEN though they have other unions. The moniker has come to refer to the Equity status only...so Cupcakes for everyone
Posted: 8/19/17 at 11:42pm
Exactly I get what you're saying but it doesn't matter. It's an Equity vs. Non-Equity thing. And most people would still call them a "non-union tour." Sure, the techs and the director/choreographer are all in unions, but it's referring to the actors.
Posted: 8/19/17 at 11:56pm
Therefore the term "non-Equity" is appropriate. Casting calls will often refer to these shows as "non-union" because they're casting calls, which only deal with actors.
Words matter. "Non-union" and "non-Equity" are different things. Furthermore, the original comment was about those specific tours being "non-Equity, non-union," which is both incorrect and also negates the argument that those terms mean the same thing.
Posted: 8/20/17 at 9:37am
Let's set both the crew and the musicians aside temporarily.
Strictly from the ACTOR'S perspective, the double term "non-Equity, non-union" clarifies everything he or she needs to know; especially if one is a newbie and any verbage involving the word "Equity" is foreign to them.
Posted: 8/20/17 at 11:29am
trpguyy
In this case it really doesn't matter what the English language dictates or what is "technically correct" this simple fact is Non-Union Tour is ABSOLUTELY used to reference Non-Equity tours both internally and externally within the business, including the companies that produce them.
Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:40pm
BobPopa said: "trpguyy
In this case it really doesn't matter what the English language dictates or what is "technically correct" this simple fact is Non-Union Tour is ABSOLUTELY used to reference Non-Equity tours both internally and externally within the business, including the companies that produce them."
It's not. I'm in the business and use these terms internally and externally. They're different things.
Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:45pm
See also: "soundtrack" vs "cast recording"
lots of people "in the business" use the wrong term, that doesn't make them correct
Posted: 8/21/17 at 11:42am
It's Not? Then when was the last time by your definition was the a "non-union" tour of a musical coming out of New York?
It's Not? Just because "you don't" doesn't mean it's not used, IT IS used whether you like it or not or think its proper or not is fine but saying It's Not is just being arrogant because IT IS
Cast Recording v Soundtrack totally different world...and yes many people say it wrong, but that's mostly because we group up with the word Soundtack on the brain especially anyone over 30
Posted: 8/21/17 at 12:04pm
The last time I recall a non-union "Broadway" tour would be roughly eight years ago, before the crews at NETworks organized.
Now even companies like Worklight and Prather have IATSE and AFM contracts (and the former is putting out larger, AEA shows like Something Rotten and Motown)
As I stated earlier, casting agents (and actors) will use the term non-union because they're only referring to themselves, which seems perfectly reasonable. But anyone else with a wider audience calling these tours "non-union" instead of "non-Equity" is incorrect.
Finally, if you insist on using the wrong terminology (which many of you apparently do), I'll stop wasting my time trying to help.
Updated On: 8/21/17 at 12:04 PM
