difference between equity and non equity tours

[winston89]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 1:52am

What is the difference between non eq and equity tours. I know there are some broadway shows such as RENT that choose to do non eq tours. But, why is it that there are some peopel on this board who say that they hope such and such a broadway tour does an equity tour cus it would suck if it were to be non eq. I mean is it like there wouldbe a difference between the acting? I think that a non equity cast can put on just as good a show as an equity cast.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 1:53am

PAGING MICHAEL KOSTROFF! PAGING MICHAEL KOSTROFF! PAGING MICHAEL KOSTROFF!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 2:01am

I just ran into Michael a little over a month ago.


We kissed and made up.


I still have to read his book.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 5:27am

I've seen both kinds of tours, and these days, there's precious little difference. More often than not, both are equally bad and equally sloppy (case in point for all the Equiy supporters out there: the current tour of TMM, which has to be one of the worst productions around).

[Justin D]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 7:24am

Ive always assumed that an equite show remains as alose to the broadway version as possible (sets & costumes) while a non equity tour can do as they like, usually wuth disasterous results.

but i could be wrong

[winston89]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 7:55am

That is not always the case. There tours of broadway shows that choose to be equity but unless someone told you that you wouldn't be able to tell the diffference in terms of production value.

I know that RENT is non eq so that they can wided the choices of young actors they have to choose from at the auditions.

I also know that the national tours of hairspray and producers are non equity as well.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:27am

winston, they chose to be non equity to save the butt load of money. Not to have more young actors. They can find young actors and make them union if they want.

The difference is they pay non equity actors FRACTION what they pay union actors. Non are less experienced, younger and generally not as talented or polished. Shows like "hairspray" it doesn't really matter because they always use young people anyway...HOWEVER....it sucks for people in the union because they are loosing precious jobs!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:29am

Not necessarily, Mercades. I was called back for the non-equity HAIRSPRAY, and I'm 44. I saw the others there for the roles of the adults and they were all my age and older.

And the money offered was not bad at all - in fact, significantly more than what I'm currently making sitting behind a desk for 9 hours a day.

I'm not saying that's ALWAYS the case - I also went in for the non-union MILLIE and saw girls MUCH younger than I there for the same role, as well older than I. I don't know how they ended up casting it.

Updated On: 1/5/07 at 08:29 AM

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:32am

Avenue Q also hires Non eq. actors...so I hear.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:35am

Every show can hire non-equity ACTORS. We're talking about the entire production here.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:44am

I know they need 30+ for the adult roles for "hairspray"....however....75% of that show is kids.

the money for non equity tours is nothing compared to a production contract. They probably offered around the $800 mark, when on a production contract that is simply your per diem. The money is not unemployment here....but it is a fraction of a equity production contract.

The bottom line is: the producers are charging the same price for tickets....but paying the actors half the amount. The producers make out like bandits when choosing a tour to go non equity.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:45am

It was quite a bit more than that, Mercades. I was quite surprised.

Then I REALLY wanted the job.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:47am

that's awesome it was so much. I have a friend who is a dynamite, and I thought her pay was offensive. We should be paid MUCH MUCH more. Especially that show is so physically taxing.

[Lizzya9]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:48am

Well I heard that the AIDA tour (I saw it yesterday) was non - equity, but I wasn't sure. I didn't see the Broadway production but I heard that the two are very different. For example, in this one the props & costumes aren't neccasarily from that time period, like they wear jeans & pinstripe suits & stuff. But it worked well. Anyways, I have nothing to compare it to, so I'm not entirely sure.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:48am

Yeah, I don't know what they were being offered. My part wouldn't have required any dancing, so hardly physically taxing.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 8:49am

hehe. I love discussions of the union.
The difference between the tours is 100% answered in the title of this thread. That's the real, tangible difference.
Quality is...well, harder to define. Generally, the Equity tours of Broadway shows tend to recreate the original staging, original costumes, original orchestrations (etc) and even get original stars to tour while non-equity tours often have reduced each aspect of the show in order to both save money and also book the show into smaller markets. My hometown almost solely featured non-equity tours (usually one large-scale show - like Cats - could afford a week sitdown or more but mostly we're talking one or two nights) that flew in for a day and out the next; very much the definition of bus-and-truck.

As for quality of performance...that's just apples and oranges. I think we're all in agreement here that having a union card doesn't automatically qualify you as a better performer. But I will say that the rate of pay is almost across-the-board unfair on non-equity tours.
The very first role I was offered in NYC was a non-equity tour...for $300 a week. I ended up taking a union job with a children's theatre for almost twice that plus per diem and followed that with an overseas job (which was non-union) for twice the children's pay.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 9:00am

Would just like to make three points:

1. There is no definitive answer about talent, experience, use of original sets or production values, in non-Equity vs. Equity productions.

2. I have never seen even one non-Equity show that charges the same price for its tickets as any Equity show. In any case, the venues set ticket prices, not the tours.

3. If Equity is so concerned about these non-Equity tours, there's an easy solution. Extend an offer of Equity cards to these actors, or at least ease the ridiculous requirements for earning through the membership route.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 9:05am

erin, Equity doesn't want to add that huge amount of further competition to their membership. That's why it's so difficult to join, unless of course you are cast in a Broadway show/National Tour, in which case you're automatically a member.

It's self-preservation.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:11am

Rath, I'm well aware of that. That was my point! They should quit bitching and moaning about non-Eq tours and the fact that those shows are "taking away Equity members' jobs".

[HumATune]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:24am

I have no problem with non-equity tours if a show has played out equity tours first, such as RENT. However if SHNSF ever makes a non-equity tour part of their “Best Of Broadway” series, they will get a piece of my mind.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 10:50am

So much mis-information in this thread. Erin-Equity wants as many people as possible to join as possible. IF you knew the status of the Health fund, you would never make such a claim. This year they have made all qualifying actors pay a quarterly fee to continue health benefits. This is in addition to working the minimum qualifying weeks. As a member I am not at all threatened by the union having more people. However I wonder what Non-Union performers would think if Equity started allowing its members to perform Non-union work. There would be riots at Chelsea, Nola, and Ripley Grier!
The membership requirements are not at all restrictive to join Actors Equity. If anything they have made it easier than ever to join and get seen. Since last year, Equity has allowed all membership candidates to be seen at all auditions before non-membership candidates when time allows(and after all full members have been seen). There are currently over fifty theaters in the U.S. that offer the membership candidate program, as well as hundreds that just simply offer you a contract. If you are an Actor in the New York area who has the talent and the drive to have a career, then there should be no problem getting your Equity Card. The requirements are there to make sure that those who become members are serious about their commitment to making acting their profession and not just something that they do for fun.
As for the statement that Non-Eq tours don't charge the same amount for tickets as Equity ones-I know first-hand that this is not true. I performed in Non-Eq tours years ago and when we went into major markets (Boston,D.C, Atlanta, etc.) we were charging the same prices as Les Mis or Phantom. Really sobering when you are cashing your $300 paycheck. That being said, I wouldn't trade that experience for the world.
P.S. -we used the sets and costumes from the Broadway production on that tour.

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:20am

Rath what happened? I want to hear all about "The Hairspray Tour"-- Starring Rath! I assume you were up for "authority figure" but I'm daydreaming you as Motormouth or Edna.....

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:23am

Well, I was all prepared to audition for Motormouth, but I was typed out, if you can believe it.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:32am

OH! The production! haha. Sorry.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 11:34am

Neverandy, I'm am very well acquainted with the requirements to become an Equity member, and I fully understand the issues involved. My point is that Equity continues to bemoan the fact that there are an increasing number of non-Equity tours, yet those same tours are the ones which give jobs to newly graduated actors and allow them the experience they need in a professional environment. Instead of supporting this, even just in theory, Equity denigrates the tours, organizes boycotts of the shows, and complains that its members are losing these jobs. I was somewhat facetiously suggesting that a solution would be to give every graduating actor an Equity membership and it would eliminate the existence of non-Equity tours. I am well aware that this will never happen and is not practical, I'm not delusional. I simply get tired of the Equity complaining and attitude. I have many friends who are currently on tour in non-Equity productions and, amazingly enough, they are very happy with their experiences and are gaining valuable professional experience and, honestly, are having a blast.

As for ticket prices, the non-Eq tours I've seen in the past five years have usually had a top price in the $50-60 range. I haven't seen a price that low for an Equity tour in more than ten years.