What Shows Are Going Non-Equity for 11/12? - Page 3

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/7/11 at 7:49pm

So true, tourboi. To somehow say that the talent will decline because it is Non-Eq is foolish. There are many talented Non-Eq people around.... many of whom - gasp - may be / ARE better than Haven Burton (whom I enjoy).
And they will obviously cut the automated deck but, with a good director, the show will continue to work.

[ravnquest1]

Posted: 3/7/11 at 11:02pm

I work for NETWorks. Last I heard SHREK was staying equity but dropping a few tiers down to SETA.

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 12:31am

Thanks for the info, ravnquest.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 12:54am

sigh

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 2:16am

Heights is going non eq? What producing house is sending it out... NETworks, Troika...?

[ravnquest1]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 8:44am

Worklight Productions will have HEIGHTS.

[BroadwayBound17]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 1:25pm

Shrek will be SETA by 2012 I believe. A stripped down smaller version will tour. I've heard numerous rumors around my town that Baton Rouge will get the tour, which is a city that only houses 1 night engagements of non-eq (Mammia Mia is SETA)

brrivercenter.com

Posted: 3/8/11 at 3:34pm

Rock of Ages is going Non Equity. 11/12
http://www.playbill.com/jobs/find/job_detail/35681.html

Memphis is going to be a SETA tour this fall.
http://www.playbill.com/jobs/find/job_detail/35732.html

[BroadwayBound17]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 4:39pm

Wow, that's a bit..much. And Memphis is seriously a SETA? Wow.

So, I'm guessing Rock Of Ages 1st Tour will be closing and reopening with a non-equity cast? Or will be there 2 tours, with the non-equity tour visiting smaller venues?

Updated On: 3/8/11 at 04:39 PM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 6:19pm

^ The whole show will most likely go non-equity. I don't think I have ever heard of a non-equity and equity tour of the same show running at the same time.

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 6:38pm

The ROA Eq tour was only ever booked for one season anyway, and has been give and take most of the tour... one market does well, another doesn't. So it makes sense.

As for MEMPHIS, SETA is the smart move with a cast that size and today's economics.

Posted: 3/9/11 at 11:35am

Here's proof that Networks is indeed taking over Shrek the musical.


Broadway Detroit

[jamiekennywicked]

Posted: 3/9/11 at 11:51am

Anyone heard about 9 to 5?

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/9/11 at 12:24pm

I don't think people questioned SHREK being taken over by NETworks. What was in question was its Equity status. And someone here who works with NETworks indicated that it was going out SETA.

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 3:12am

At a cast talk back tonight in Cleveland, OH current SHREK cast members (the current Lord Farquaad to be exact) said the show is going Non-Eq after July. And for those of you in love with Burton, I wish I knew why... I've never seen anyone sleep-walk through a role so badly as she did tonight. One of the worst performances I've seen in a long time.

[BroadwayBound17]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 8:44pm

Non-Equity this July? Wow, that's quick

[ravnquest1]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 11:04pm

I want to clarify that I said that I had HEARD that Shrek was staying equity- that was not a confirmation of any real concrete information, just inter-company gossip. I was kind of surprised to hear that it would stay equity being that it didn't sell all that well and most of the large markets that wanted the show booked the big kid tour this past year.

Tourboi, I have to disagree with you on the SETA contract. No first national tour- especially a tony award winner for best musical- should ever go out on a modified or reduced-rate contract. These tiered contracts do more harm than good for union members in all facets of this industry. SETA was inteded to be for split-week smaller tours, not first national tours. There are so many loopholes and exceptions and it's so easy for producers to make their shows qualify for the SETA agreement, nothing will qualify as full production anymore. Ticket prices are higher than ever, and the artists that work on these shows are seeing a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. It's sad what our union representation has settled for.
Updated On: 3/11/11 at 11:04 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 1:26am

Going to have to disagree simply based on the simple economics and realities of the road in our current climate.

It's harder and harder to get guarantees high enough to cover the costs of a full production contract on the road, and many first nationals are having to do what was unthinkable for first nationals years ago and that's suppliment their route with split weeks (IE, South Pacific has done a few split weeks, Xanadu had to do a split week or two, etc). First national, right out of the gate tours.Production contracts don't allow for that flexibility.

Also, actors on tiered contracts receive overage compensation (IE Profit Share) if the show turns a profit in each city. That's not such a bad deal.

I know several actors who have done SETA and Tiered tours and said that because of the overages, they've often made more than they would on a regular contract.

Sure, a WICKED could go out full production contract. But not every show, even Best Musical winners, can fetch those prices from presenters.

Take SPRING AWAKENING. Best Musical. It's first national went tiered, and most presenters lost a lot of money on that show. Had that one gone production contract, they'd have been lucky to book 10 weeks and the tour never would have happened.

I understand the actor frustration about getting paid less... but a lot of times there's a reason for going tiered. It's not always about "greed."


Updated On: 3/12/11 at 01:26 AM

[BroadwayBound17]

Posted: 3/20/11 at 4:12pm

BUMP.


Is West Side Story going non equity? I would assume that a show such as that sells great on the road, as it did in my town.

[BroadwayBound17]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 9:28pm

On the South Pacific website it mentions that this new production is "based off of the 2008 Lincoln Center Revival" as well as it does in the video montage. I wonder how much NETworks is going to butcher this as well as Young Frankenstein and Shrek. I also noticed that Mary Poppins was on the NETworks site. Does that mean it's going non equity or just labeled as a producer?

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/11/11 at 7:27pm

South Pacific was always under NETWorks.

Worklight Productions will have HEIGHTS.

Worklight did phenomenal work on their Avenue Q tour even retaining the set from prior tour as well. I have faith in them. Though yikes, apparently they're responsible for the Mamma Mia tour. They work better with unit sets. lol. I can actually see why they did change Mamma Mia's set though. I know when we got the tour last season we had increase the size of our loading door to fit the Taverna in.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/11/11 at 8:35pm

I believe (could be wrong) the current tour of MAMMA MIA is still under Judy Craymer/Littlestar, and that Worklight simply holds the non eq touring rights for the non eq tour (which will probably go out when this third national equity tour wraps up).

And yes, NETworks was always producing the SOUTH PACIFIC tour, even when it was Equity. From what i've heard the changes won't be drastic. They MIGHT lose the plane (although there were several stops on the Equity tour where they didn't have the plane, because it didn't fit backstage), and the deck will be a roll up floor, and it'll be a few feet shorter. Nothing major.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/12/11 at 11:10am

Tourboi, you're speaking like a producer(not an insult). Actors already don't make anything. Those tiered contracts make the road look real unattractive. Why would you leave your family, friends, and comfort for a year of touring if you're not going to come back in a markedly better financial place? Cost allocations need to be prioritized. I don't pretend i know how to make it happen, but something seems wrong about ticket prices rising and actors getting paid half/ less than they used to. Touring is not easy.

So i stick with the idea that the tour will be of lesser quality. Seasoned actors don't wanna work for 650 a week on a national tour. You get newer (while talented) less seasoned performers to take those gigs.

While you've had friends who have made bank on SETA contract overages, I have some who have not. Whether a producer is able to turn a profit in each city should not dictate what an actor makes. That's a producers risk. Actors already have their own set of risks to deal with. In my opinion.


Oh and id just like to point out that i called it correctly on Shrek hehe.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/12/11 at 2:20pm

Here's the thing... If you're making 650-850 a week, PLUS getting a per deum (NON TAXABLE) to cover your living expenses (hotel and what not) how are you struggling? How are you not making anything? That's still more than a lot of Americans.

And seasoned actors won't do tiered tours? Tell that to Dee Hoty and Diana DiGarmo, currently on the Tiered 9 to 5. Sure, they're making more than the minimum. But they're doing a tiered tour.

Touring life CAN be grueling, it can also be quite comfortable. In the touring world (which I'm obviously a part of) there's a saying: There's two types of person. Those who can tour. Those who can't. Many find it quite comfortable, and yes... easy.

And you missed my terminology: I said PRESENTERS want to turn profits. REmember that producers need the show to RECOUP before they earn a dime of profit. Profit in a city is not profit for the overall run of the tour.

And yes, bringing cast (AND road management! It's not just actors.) salaries down DOES help tremendously.

Here's how touring works in the Broadway world:

A Presenter (or Theatre) needs a show for their season. They book a show a Producer is putting together to send out.

The Producer charges the presenter a guarantee, which is based on how much the show costs to run each week with a little (and I stress the word LITTLE) extra for a set "profit" to go towards recouping.

IF (big if) the Presenter sells enough tickets to reach "overage/profit" for themselves (more income than the cost of the guarantee, local marketing costs, local union costs, etc) then that is split between producer and presenter (and on tier and SETA contracts, actors also get a piece of the pie).

Here's the problem. Producers USED to be able to send out tours on full production contracts. Guarantees were higher and they could pay everyone Broadway rates. It was a magical, special time.

These days the economy is in the toilet, subscriptions are shrinking as people tighten their money belts. Presenters can't afford high guarantees anymore. Producers NEEDED to bring down those guarantees. And thus the Tier and SETA tours were born. People think it's all producer greed... it's not. Plain and simple. And if you think that it's just the actors that took a "hit" you're just not right.

As for the quality being less. Last year I did work on a SETA tour. We had hundreds of die hard fans coming to see it everywhere. And a majority said the same thing to me night after night: "Better than Broadway."

[julesboogie]

Posted: 4/12/11 at 5:22pm

Spoken like a true producer. If youre making 650/800 a week, then youre bringing home around 400/600 dollars. Last i checked you could make that at burger king with NO degree and NO prior skill set. And yes your per diem is meant to cover your expenses, but really..?

I Got to read some of the SETA rules. And please correct me if im wrong... but it states something to the effect of 550.00 minus either 40$/38$ per day for single/double occupancy in provided hotel rooms (im paraphrasing). So lets say 550.00 minus 280.00(hotel cost). That leaves 270.00. Divide that by seven (days a week) and then three (meals a day). That leaves $13 a meal. Enjoy your mcdonals, dancers.

Unless you wanna room with a castmate like this is college, Then youll have a bit more. Sound like something Digarmo would go for?

So now whats left? 400/600 bucks a week with which to pay bills and live life. Is Subletting the only way to make that liveable? Can you provide for a family on that? Doesnt sound to great to me.

You can put any saying together that you want about those who can and cant tour. What it boils down to is living out of suitcases, moving once a week or possibly more with seta. Bus rides, airports, being away from your life... that gets tough for anyone. Add that to low wages, and what youve got is a job that is only good for a credit. Seasoned actors have plenty of those. They want money, and to make a comfortable living doing what they love. Im just reasoning here.

And you said it. Dee Hoty and Digarmo are making well above minimum. Digarmo isnt going out on the road for 400/600 after taxes. And neither are alot of the broadway/touring folks with tons of credits and no name. Why take that kind of pay cut?

Also thanks for the lesson in how producers make money. What that said to me is "we cant make a killing, so you dont get a fair wage" ! Its what's happening all over America.

Please dont take my tone the wrong way tourboi. Im not arguing with you. I get it, theatre is about making money for presenters, producers etc. Actors are last on that list, and i just think its a bit busted. Tis all.