So is the tour non-equity now or what? Quite honestly, I don't understand what happened with having 3 US productions and then now all we have is one touring production that's doing split weeks and apparently is not drawing too many...?
Marla: I have to go sing about a life I never led.
It is an Equity tour. Many of the cast members came either from the 2nd National Tour or the Chicago/Toronto productions. They aren't doing split-weeks. Mostly 2 week engagements in major markets (opened in St. Louis in November) and they are currently playing a 5 or 6 weeks in LA at the Pantages. It's actually quite a good production and in my opinion the cast tops the one that closed the show on Broadway. I would highly recommend it.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Well, its only playing 2 nights at the Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater, FL: January 29 & 30, 2013.
Equity, huh?
So what does that make you, Brody? A zero-trick pony? - Wanna Be
A
Foster
.........................The only power brody wields is in his own mind, joe.
But it's amusing to watch him pretend nonetheless. - tazber
It's most definitely an Equity tour. They tiered down from a full production contract to a SETA (Short Engagement Touring Agreement) Contract, which allows for Equity split-weeks. Mamma Mia is still equity and is having one nighters.
The tour was taken over by Networks last fall, which is largely a Non-Equity producer. But they are also known for getting Equity tours that are looking to save money (i.e. Mamma Mia, South Pacific 1st National, Mary Poppins, etc).
And as far as what happened to having 3 companies to 1. Apparently, due to the success on Broadway, producers thought they would crank out two tours as fast as possible, in order to make more money. In most cases, you'd send out a 1st national tour and see that it's wildly successful and selling out, so you plan and send out a 2nd national tour. But they were already in the process of making the 2nd national happen when they realized the show just wasn't selling as well as anticipated. So they closed the first national, tiered down the 2nd national and sent it back out, paying the actors almost half of what they were making and cutting sit-downs from 2-4 weeks to 1 and 2 week-ers and the occasional split weeks.
"cutting sit-downs from 2-4 weeks to 1 and 2 week-ers and the occasional split weeks"
Though, to be fair, it is not the producers who necessarily wanted to do shorter engagements, it was the local presenters who did not want to book the show for longer stretches. A longer engagement is going to always work out in favor of a producer, as load in/load out costs are then reduced, as are transportation costs. It costs them a whole lot more to move the show to multiple theaters in one week than it does to have the show sitting in one space for the same amount of time.
Did you know that every day Mexican gays cross our borders and unplug our brain-dead ladies?
With a SETA contract, does the orchestra get reduced? I saw the Tour just a few months before it switched contracts. I thought they were perfection. I see Poppins has done the same thing too. I could never picture the two going non-equ.
AEA contract status has nothing directly to do with the orchestra size.
Though, two examples to buck the stereotype that you are thinking of -- 1.) Memphis - the show is out on a SETA contract, playing mostly one week stops. The cast is a few people smaller than the NYC version, but the band is the same size as the Broadway production (comparing my tour and NYC Playbills) and they travel the full band with the show and do not take it locals. 2.) Mamma Mia! The first national tour (which predated the Broadway production) toured with a core group of musicians and pulled in locals in each city, but the 2nd national tour, which had a slightly reduced physical production, toured with the entire 9 piece band in tact, continued to do so after the physical production was further reduced and now this tour, which is for all purposes the 3rd national tour, has a cast on the SETA contract and still tours with the full 9 piece pit..
For what it's worth, as much as people knock the SETA contract, I've become increasingly familiar with the contract recently and it actually isn't so shabby. Not at all. There were quite a few points that causes me to raise an eyebrow, rather impressed at how well the actors can be treated. The only change I would say, from observation, that it NEEDS to make is the requirement of an advance Stage Management team to oversee load-ins...
Some cities just do better with one week runs. They can pack the house to near capacity for a Tues-Sun run, but when an extra week is tacked on, the numbers stay pretty similar to a one week run, but with audience stretched across two weeks. In other words, lots of empty seats. This is true of the theatre I work at anyways. Shows like Wicked and Lion King are obviously exceptions, but shows like Movin' Out, Billy Elliot, Jersey Boys, and The Color Purple have never fared well with the 2-3 week runs.
"There's nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music."
They established two tours becuse the company in Chicago was expected to sit-down for at least a year, and they wanted a tour on the road. Billy Elliot isn't a known property, and isn't exactly family-friendly, so it's not surprising that it didn't do well on the road.
The tour is a wonderful production that made me fall in love with the show. Yes, Billy's bedroom halved in height, the "Expressing Yourself" dresses are different, and set changes are done manually by the actors, but it's still the same amazing show. In fact, many of the main cast from the old tour carried over when it reopened in St. Louis.
joined:9/12/10
Posted: 5/1/12 at 09:47pm