YOU'RE A GOOD MAN, CHARLIE BROWN to tour next year

[TheGingerBreadMan]

Posted: 8/16/19 at 8:20pm

Per Playbill. Michael Unger will direct, and new orchestrations will be written.

http://www.playbill.com/article/new-national-tour-of-youre-a-good-man-charlie-brown-will-launch-in-2020?fbclid=IwAR2B5O_J8wgI2VLZONzVwu_Pj8vZAQER6NQ5SNhoNACgfuAEPpwYTHy32Eo

Updated On: 8/16/19 at 08:20 PM

[BwayLB]

Posted: 8/16/19 at 9:17pm

Should be interesting indeed!

[2]

Posted: 8/16/19 at 11:56pm

This is most definitely a rip-off of the recent CincyPlay production.

[smokeline2]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:42am

And it's non-equity to boot.

Disgusting. I definitely won't be seeing this.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:45am

2 said: "This is most definitely a rip-off of the recent CincyPlay production."

Because the actors play instruments? Not exactly an original idea. Unless I'm missing something else?

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 3:55am

2 said: "This is most definitely a rip-off of the recent CincyPlay production."

further explination would be appreciated because I cant seem to make the connection 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 10:10am

I know Nick Cearley and Lauren Molina (The Skivvies) are very mad about this tour because the CincyPlay production was their concept. I can easily see how someone saw/heard about that production and took inspiration from the idea, but ultimately I agree actor/musician isn't exactly a new or original concept.

Updated On: 8/17/19 at 10:10 AM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 10:22am

Per Social Media posts, the tour production company came to Cearley/Molina/Bill Fennelly/Michael Holland and was like "we loved the Cincinnati production, we want to do a non-Eq tour of it." When they said no, the tour company decided to do their own actor/musician version of it. (The Cincinnati production was the 1967 script/score, but the tour will be the revised version.)

So, while concepts like this aren't wholly new, and while this is technically legal, it's a super shady, opportunistic situation that further illustrates the third-rate nature of non-Equity touring. Theatrical concepts aren't really copyrightable, especially outside of a first-class environment.

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 11:22am

Apparently, Lauren was at the Pearl Studio for an audition Monday & Tuesday at the same time YAGMCB was having auditions, and that's when & how she found out. Yikes.

Updated On: 8/17/19 at 11:22 AM

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 11:26am

where in any of the press material does it say this tour is going to be an actor/musician concept? maybe thats why I am confused...

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:02pm

The key artwork indicates that it’s an actor/musician concept.

If the above story is true, than I feel for Nick and Lauren, but at the same time, that’s showbiz. You can’t copyright a concept. It sounds like if they had been more willing to make a deal, than perhaps the production going on tour would have been the one they created. Theatre is always about a degree of compromise, and sometimes being too idealistic costs you the deal in the end. There probably isn’t a market for a union tour of CHARLIE BROWN at the moment.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:09pm

Casting Notice, posted July 31:  "We are seeking actor/singer/musicians for this production.  Reed/Woodwind players, String players, Percussionists and Piano/Keyboard players. All members of the company must possess excellent ability in one or more of the listed musical/instrumental disciplines."


"Apparently, Lauren was at the Pearl Studio for an audition Monday & Tuesday at the same time YAGMCB was having auditions, and that's when & how she found out. Yikes."

Per social media, they knew about the tour more than 2 weeks ago. Perhaps she was indeed there at the same time, but it wasn't new news.

Updated On: 8/17/19 at 12:09 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:19pm

Well, it sounds like she knew about this tour a lot more than two weeks ago if the story is that she and Nick were approached by the producers about using their production and they turned down the opportunity.

If there was any surprise, it was perhaps in seeing that the producers continued to forge ahead so quickly with their own production. But even that would be pure naïveté. Nobody is irreplaceable in the theatre.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:28pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Per Social Media posts, the tour production company came to Cearley/Molina/Bill Fennelly/Michael Holland and was like "we loved the Cincinnati production, we want to do a non-Eq tour of it." When they said no, the tour company decided to do their own actor/musician version of it. (The Cincinnati production was the 1967 script/score, but the tour will be the revised version.)

So, while concepts like this aren't wholly new, and while this is technically legal, it's a super shady, opportunistic situation that further illustrates the third-rate nature of non-Equity touring. Theatrical concepts aren't reallycopyrightable, especially outside of a first-class environment."

It would appear that they didn't have the rights to do the show after Cincinnati, which seems like a stupid thing to not do if they were planning for it to have a future beyond that production. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/17/19 at 12:38pm

Securing the first class rights to a musical can be a complicated and expensive proposition. Im sure Nick and Lauren were hoping the Cincinnati production would generate interest from a commercial producer with the wherewithal to secure the first class rights; and it appears that is indeed what happened. But it’s also within a producer’s prerogative to obtain the first class rights and do a non union tour if the rights holders are in agreement with it.  

If I had to wager the issue was indeed about the Equity / Non Equity factor. And as Union performers I totally get them wanting to take a stand against a non union tour, but you also have to look at this from a business standpoint as well. What was the market going to be for a union tour of CHARLIE BROWN? Two week engagements in 2,000 seat houses in major market cities?

A non union tour will play smaller venues and be more financially viable no question.

I suppose they could have tried to get a TYA tour going (children’s theatre) but I also suspect they might have wanted a contract that would have been appealing for them to actually go on the road with as performers (not just creatives).

It really does suck since it’s a winning concept and one they undoubtedly hit on first, but you have to be opportunistic in business or someone else will take an idea and run with it- as also is clearly what happened here.

Updated On: 8/17/19 at 12:38 PM