boycotting non-equity tours. — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 4:02pm

Using logos is fine in my opinion, theatregoers expect to see the famous logos for publicity.

However, to say "Direct From Broadway" is misleading. If I saw a logo for "WICKED" and it turned out to be "FROG AND TOAD," THAT would be misleading. But using the WICKED logo for the WICKED show is NOT misleading.

Again, to better this situation, I think a nice compromise would be to not use terms such as "Direct From Broadway."

"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

#27

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 4:04pm

Good summary of points so far, CKeaton.

Perhaps there is an opening for you as a mediator in the ongoing labor discussions in the theatre industry!

#28

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 5:30pm

"The current NON Equity company of CATS is coming through Austin this summer. My mother's boss is taking her grandaughter.. who LOVES Cats (God helps us all)... she shelled out 85 dollars A PIECE!!!!! for orchestra seats. I told her that she got ripped off.. NO sane person should pay that for a non equity tour!"

BroadwayGuy2 - So you're saying it's ok to shell out $85 for a crappy tour as long as it's Equity? Personally, if I paid $85, I wouldn't care if it's Equity or not as long as it's good. And I would be equally as angry at wasting my money on a bad show Equity or not.

I think it's interesting that this guy is a working actor and he's demanding people to try and put actors out of work simply because they are in a tour that is not a member of his union. Personally, I have never seen an ad for a non-Equity tour stating "direct from Broadway". As for the term "Broadway series", it is a description that the shows in the series have been on Broadway, but nothing says they are the same production. How about boycotting crappy Equity tours and see how this guy feels? I've seen a couple of Les Mis tours that I didn't stick around for the second act. Let him know that just because it's Equity, doesn't mean it's any better than anything else. From what I've heard about the current production of Rent on Broadway, it sounds like your money is better spent on the non-Equity tour. But of course, he doesn't talk about that. He also doesn't mention the fact that many of the actors in these non-Equity tours are not from NYC and therefore, being a member of Equity really doesn't benefit anyone outside of NYC who wants to perform consistently. There are those like myself that prefer NOT to be Equity so that we may actually get some work due to the extremely limited number of Equity theatres and those Equity theatres that only cast leads and supporting roles from NY and LA rather than from the local Equity talent pool.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#29

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 5:37pm

Besides, here in Chicago, some of the non-equity theatres pay as much as the equity houses. But you can not make a living as an actor here in Chicago (or anywhere, I imagine) doing only theatre.

PEACE.

#30

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 5:39pm

MTI is perfectly justified in offering use of the Broadway logos for a mere fifty bucks. God knows, thousands of community theatres rip off the original logos without permission. This way, the artist who created the logo is actually getting a few bucks in royalties.

Lord knows the Picasso estate makes no money from the numerous theatres who use his Don Quixote and Sancho as the logo for Man of LaMancha.

#31

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 5:46pm

why don't the folks who own the rights to shows being licensed simply insert into contract that non-equity productions cannot be billed as "direct from broadway" or the like? well, probably because the show itself, which is what they own, the book and the music and lyrics, is what non-equity producers would say is coming "direct from broadway." still, it seems like a reasonable concession for the unions to fight for in their next go round with the league. plus it would make even more sense for those pro-union writers and composers (shaiman i expect action on this front) to demand that their deals include such terminology. of course, i'm probably oversimplifying and just shifting responsibility around rather than facing the problem. but really, could the rights holders simply demand that any producer mounting a non-equity production avoid usage of certain terms in the advertisement of that production? where are all the entertainment lawyers when ya need 'em!

r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective

#32

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 6:01pm

Even if a tour has an Equity contract that does not mean it is "DIRECT FROM BROADWAY."

PEACE.

#33

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 6:20pm

The issue for me is not whether Equity actors are "better" than non-Equity actors, because heaven knows there's good and bad actors on both sides. The issue is when big theatres start playing non-Equity shows for long runs with Equity-type prices. Obviously a theatre is not going to go out of its way to say things are non-Eq, but probably there should be some distinction made somewhere, whether it's in not calling it part of the "Broadway Series" or whatever.

All actors have to start somewhere and there are very talented non-Eq actors out there, but if they're playing to houses that are paying big bucks to see the show, yet the actors are getting paid a fraction of what Equity actors make, that's simply not right.

'"Contrairiwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."' ~Lewis Carroll

#34

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:12pm

Oy oy oy.

I think the question is: "when is the union going to start getting some cojones and defend its members who want to work at what they've trained for and earn a living wage from their chosen profession?"

I can go round and round about the "direct from Bway" logo but I think Papalovesmambo has the answer -- this is a minor contractual advertising issue.

There is a much more fundamental question at stake.

Stop worrying about what I'm doing -- focus instead on what you're eating.

#35

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:34pm

The idea of boycotting fellow members of the theatrical community is ludicrous. They are ACTORS. It doesn't matter if they're Equity! They are performing the art of theatre. We should embrace anyone who does so. The amount of money they are able to spend is in no regard a reflection of the hard working people. Take a look at Wicked vs. Avenue Q (14 mil. vs. 3.5 mil) They are all great actors but the amount spent doesn't diminish the quality.

BSoBW2: I punched Sondheim in the face after I saw Wicked and said, "Why couldn't you write like that!?"

#36

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:41pm

I think the thing is not that equity actors want non-equity actors to have a hard luck life or whatever, the issue is that non-eq tours are slowly but surely edging into venues where Equity shows have only played previously, and are playing at the same prices. This is not trickled down to the cast and crew, meaning more money for the producers, etc., which ups the liklihood of more and more non-Eq tours and on and on we go. If theaters can make more money by paying actors less, they're going to do it, whether the shows suffer in quality or not.

It's the classical union vs. non-union debate that's never going to go away.

'"Contrairiwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."' ~Lewis Carroll

#37

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:43pm

So what? The Equity tours have some competition. Good! Competition will provide incentive for the Equity tours to keep on their feet and realize there are others out there.

BSoBW2: I punched Sondheim in the face after I saw Wicked and said, "Why couldn't you write like that!?"

#38

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:45pm

Folks, do read the Millie letter in the AEA Contract thread. It gives one an idea of why actors need a union--why they need protections. To me, that is the main reason for all of this non-Equity vs. Equity business. Actors deserve proper compensation and protections. And, the audience does deserve knowing what they are getting. There are audiences who choose to pay the high ticket prices to subscribe to a "Broadway in ________" series or an Equity regional theatre like Theatre Under The Stars. And both of these organizations has hosted a slew of non-Equity tours. And, while we can certainly debate the quality of non-Equity vs. Equity actors, the real quality question is often in the production values. The non-Equity tours are typically less than desirable sets and costumes, if they are even the Broadway production's designs (an issue if the show is being promoted as the Broadway production).

Equity is not a cult. It is a non-profit union/organization that in the last 91 years has taken actors from slum conditions to a respectable career (when working). Did Equity possibly screw up by not consulting members before offering certain concessions to the Producers? It sounds like it may have. But, ultimately, the union is fighting to resolve this problem so that all actors who are touring across the country or are working on Broadway will be paid and treated like the professionals they all are--regardless if they are currently Equity now or not).

I can certainly understand frustration and resentment with the letter that started this thread. I don't think the actor articulated himself very well, coming off a little snobbish. But I believe that his intentions are genuine as they are certainly opinions that have been expressed by actors and audiences alike.

johnraymondbarker.com

#39

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:48pm

It's not about tours competing! Good grief!

It's about whether or not producers should be expected to take care of their actors or increase their own profits by not taking care of the actors.

The goal is to make all of the current tours Equity so that those actors currently traveling will be taken care of.

The idea is that Broadway and professional tours belong under the jurisdiction of the union. All professional films are made under the jurisdiction of the film actors union--it's the same thing.

And, I do not understand the disgust for Equity--all of the Broadway actors and stage managers that you guys obsess over are EQUITY. That's the way it works. You can do all the theatre you want without joining, but once you decide that you want to do Broadway, National Tours, or leading roles in Equity regional theatres, you join the union. It's what an actor who wants to work in those theatres aspires to.

There comes a time when an actor decides that they do not want to work for free or cheap or in ****ty situations. Acting is a craft. I went to college and grad school and constantly train--why should I not be paid accordingly? Would a doctor or lawyer or any or impassioned career expect any less?

johnraymondbarker.com

Updated On: 6/2/04 at 07:48 PM

#40

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:54pm

I think the chances of every tour becoming equity are not that great, but it's just so obvious that non-Equity actors are paid much less, and if theatres and producers can get away with spending less on the actors/sets/costumes and still charge high fees, they're going to do it, and that's not fair to audiences or the actors. When non-eq tours played smaller houses and had shorter runs with lower ticket prices, and were pretty clearly delineated from the "Broadway Series" or whatever, this wasn't so much an issue.

'"Contrairiwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."' ~Lewis Carroll

#41

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 7:57pm

Well, it will happen because at some point, a strike will occur and will affect those producers who produce both Equity and non-Equity productions. Additionally, the other unions who decide to join Equity in the strike will prevent sets from being loaded and music from being played.

As for small tours that go to small venues--I am not sure if Equity is concerned with those tours.

johnraymondbarker.com

#42

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 8:01pm

^ I was just pointing out that until the bigwigs decided to cash in with major non-Eq tours in major venues, this wasn't really an issue on the Equity radar.

Unfortunately, when you can tell actors, "Too bad, we can cast young hungry people for much less than what we pay you," and you end up in a strike situation, things don't always turn out happily for everyone. Obviously.

'"Contrairiwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."' ~Lewis Carroll

#43

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 8:23pm

If Equity wants to prevent non-union actors from performing in their sacred houses, then they need to give these touring actors a reason to join Equity. Until they start acting like a real union and make themselves more available to ALL actors nationwide, I really can't have much sympathy for their crying over some non-Eq tours trodding on their turf. They sure aren't doing much to encourage more Equity houses or make membership more accessible to those outside NY. I understand they have good intentions but certainly not for all actors.

And the hubbub over the use of "Broadway Series" or "Broadway in BFE" is just a semantic excuse. Tick Tick Boom was an Equity tour, but no one boycotted it because it never actually played on Broadway or because they charged as much for a three-person show with almost no sets as they charged for Mama Mia or Hairspray. When the non-Eq Oliver toured as part of the "Broadway Series", I guarantee that nearly all the season ticket holders knew the show was in fact, at one time, a Broadway musical and that there had been no recent revival on which the tour could be based.

I would love to see all actors become Equity and get the pay and benefits they deserve, but first, I really want to see Equity make a concerned effort to make themselves more available to actors rather than attempt to put them out of work for not being in their exclusive club.

If non-union actors do not want to be in a tour that pays them so little, then they don't sign the contract. I have a friend in a non-Eq tour that is a great production, he is paid very well, and is having a great time. Personally, I don't want to see Equity take that away from him.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#44

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 8:43pm

I don't agree with the boycott at all.
If a person is talented, they shall be cast. It has nothing to do with what equity status they hold. If anything, being a part of a great tour is a great way to become a seasoned performer, who eventually achieves Equity status.
You can't expect a performer to become "Seasoned" only doing regional theatre now can you?
Boycotting it would just be hurting the little people who will be tommorow's big people.

#45

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 9:57pm

"If Equity wants to prevent non-union actors from performing in their sacred houses, then they need to give these touring actors a reason to join Equity. Until they start acting like a real union and make themselves more available to ALL actors nationwide, I really can't have much sympathy for their crying over some non-Eq tours trodding on their turf. "

That's not how it works. The decision and the issue comes down to making Producers only use Equity contracts. Equity is giving current non-Eq touring actors a reason to join--more money, benefits, and protections. These actors can not join unless the producers allow it. And, it isn't SOME tours, it is becoming almost half of the tours out there--the same ones that would never have been non-Equity a few years ago.

"If non-union actors do not want to be in a tour that pays them so little, then they don't sign the contract. I have a friend in a non-Eq tour that is a great production, he is paid very well, and is having a great time. Personally, I don't want to see Equity take that away from him."

The idea is to make him Equity so that he will get paid what he actually deserves--and the benefits and protections he is NOT getting now. (He's a friend of mine, too)

"If a person is talented, they shall be cast. It has nothing to do with what equity status they hold. If anything, being a part of a great tour is a great way to become a seasoned performer, who eventually achieves Equity status.
You can't expect a performer to become "Seasoned" only doing regional theatre now can you?"

Yes, I do--most actors do it just that way. OR, they are already good enough to be cast in an Equity role. If a producer wants to cast a person, they can make them Equity on the spot.

johnraymondbarker.com

#46

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 10:19pm

"you can't expect a performer to become seasoned only doing regional theatre now can you?"

"yes, i do--most actors do it just that way."

at one of the thousands of regional theatres around the country covered by the lort contract? oh wait, there's only 77.

maybe the msua contract? oh that's 4 theatres. or the neat, that's 14 more. man it just keeps adding up, don't it?

but hey, it's survival of the fittest, right? only the best should get the opportunities, right? that sounds downright republican. jrb, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself you little closet bushie, you.

#47

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 10:34pm

those figures do not at all convey how often and how many non-Equity actors work at Equity regional theatres. Plus, not every Equity regional theatre is under LORT (CLO is one such contract), therefore, your numbers are not complete.

How about these facts (my experience)?

Houston: 3 Equity theatres (at the time, there is a 4th now). At these 3 theatres (plus one in Seattle), I earned my 50 points over the course of 4 years.

Theatre (and film) is a very competitive business for actors. If I sound Republican in this, I have no problem with that.

Stuart Ostrow gave us this advice in deciding whether or not to stay in the business: "Are you getting paid for your work?" Because if you are not, than after years of not getting paid for your work, you will prob come to the conclusion that you do not belong in the professional theatre (or that you should wait until you reach a new age type).

So, I turn this question around:

Are you getting hired at Equity theatres in your city? Or, if you live/come to NYC, have you gotten cast by any number of Equity theatres or by a company like TheatreWorks, which gets a lot of non-Equity folk their card? One would guess that if the answer is no to these questions, then you probably aren't going to work in the professional theatre. If you are good, you will eventually get an opportunity to join Equity. Even some bad folks have as we have all seen.

johnraymondbarker.com

#48

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/2/04 at 11:01pm

"even some bad folks have as we have all seen."

true, they let me in.

#49

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/3/04 at 1:25am

But jrb, if your friend on the non-eq tour was given the chance to join equity he would most likely not be working. Instead, he is honing his craft, making a decent wage and am sure can decide for himself if he is "being taken advantage of."

I do agree with you that if you are not getting cast as a non-equity actor in your local Equity houses you have no buisness moving to New York.

PEACE.

#50

re: boycotting non-equity tours.

Posted: 6/3/04 at 1:42am

my point is my friend should now be made Equity in that very tour. If you are saying that he never would have been cast had he already been Equity and this were an Equity tour, I don't know what to say except that if he really is the best guy for the role, he will get it. Your comment and similar comments proves the point of giving people who pay $80 - $100 for a ticket a seasoned actor in the leading role--not someone honing their craft (assuming that that is referring to a newer actor or a young actor in an older part). Also, the reason so many actors are out of work right now is in part to almost 50% non-Equity tours. If the actors currently in those tours are good enough, they should and deserve to be Equity.

The point is--let people get experience in safer environments--not the stress of a tour. And, if he is experienced enough--he should be paid properly for it and given the proper benefits and protections for it.

Why should he merely be getting a "decent wage" for playing one of the leads? For being in a "Broadway tour". This isn't Simi Valley Community Players On The Road--this is supposedly a top notch tour.

I'm going in circles here, but I will gladly keep circling until you guys get it.

johnraymondbarker.com

Updated On: 6/3/04 at 01:42 AM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95