I would first like to say that I am in agreement with the idea of producing Seneca's version of Medea. I personally feel as if Seneca's version is more modern and entertaining. I also respect Seneca's version because there is no question that Medea dominates the play with her long speeches and she never leaves the stage. Given that Seneca is notoriously noted for having a fascination with magic, death, and the supernatural, theatrical production choices can be as big as the "protagonist" herself.
Before we go into the logistics of staging and production choices, I would like to take this time to point out significant differences in the two scripts. Most of the audience members will be familiar with Euripides Greek tragedy of a devoted wife who is deceived by her husband, giving justification to revenge. I think it would be a fascinating choice to do a story of a woman obsessed with reconstructing herself by making her deceitful husband feel the same loss she did. Euripides portrays Medea as more human since it is only after her suffering that she was able to commit her crimes. This can be seen with the way the main characters, Jason, the Chorus, and even Medea, treat herself. Jason is not empathetic and almost arrogant in his responses to her. The Chorus, although sympathetic, is mainly used to patronize Medea. This in turn creates a woman who sees her self as a pawn in the eyes of the Gods and is overcome with self-pity. Euripides further explains the dynamic in Medea's mind by comparing childbirth and battle. Medea is stuck in a paradoxical world because she feels like a warrior of male heroism tragically confined to a women's body. .
Seneca's Medea however, has completely different characterizations and motivations for his main character. From the beginning we see Medea as an angry, vengeful sorceress; whereas in Euripides' version, though she is known to be a witch and has skills in potions, it is not as significant as in Seneca's Medea.