Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
DAME
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/15/04
#1Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:57pm
I bet Warners will cover it somehow.
http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2011/07/17/“harry-potter”-london-premiere-cost-daniel-radcliffe’s-broadway-show-400k/
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#2Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:02pmDidnt WB buy out those performances months ago so he could go and do press for the film?
DAME
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/15/04
#3Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:05pmRead the article.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#4Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:06pmI thought WB issued a statement though saying they had done that.
theaternut
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/4/03
#5Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:08pm"There were reports that Warner Bros., the “Harry Potter” studio, had bought out the shows. But the box report indicates a week to week loss of $382,866 with no mention of the studio pitch in."
nasty_khakis
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/15/07
#6Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:13pmWarners DID buy them out, but it wouldn't be in the gross. They didn't purchase 10,000 tickets or whatever. They paid the producers a lump sum, not part of a weekly gross. At least that's how it was explained to me.
#7Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:23pmThat's how I always took it; WB gave them the money to cover the ticket sales, they didn't buy tickets.
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it." -Stephen Colbert
#8Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:28pmDon't cry for me, Argentina.
"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
--Aristotle
#9Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:47pm
This reporter is the guy that was fired from FOX for reviewing an illegally downloaded version of Wolverine - and he worked for FOX - so I always take his "balanced" and "complete" reporting with a grain of salt.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
#10Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:09pmDoes Mr. Radcliffe not have an understudy?
http://docandraider.com
#11Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:12pmHe does (more than one, I think), but think about how many people would want to refund their tickets if they came and saw that Daniel wouldn't be performing. Having the understudy is basically a formality when there's an option to just cancel the performance(s). I think the same thing happened when Hugh Jackman had to miss shows during The Boy From Oz. There were understudies, but they never went on -- performances were canceled instead. Daniel didn't miss any shows during Equus, but I suspect the same thing might have happened then, too.
#12Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:25pm
These were dates known WAY in advance that Radcliffe could not perform in. It makes sense to cancel them.
In addition to being required by the AEA union, under the circumstances of this production, an understudy would possibly get to perform if Radcliffe could not perform at very last-minute. Or if he needed to be taken out mid-show.
"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
--Aristotle
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#13Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:26pm
Equity requires understudies...even if it is well known that the performance would be cancelled should the star be unavailable.
I don't believe tickets were ever sold for these performances.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#14Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:17pmthey were cancellednever on sale when tickets first went on sale. but couldn't they have just announced that he wouldn't be performing in these three shows. they've done it with other celebrities(i.e. Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc.).
A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.
#15Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:22pm
but couldn't they have just announced that he wouldn't be performing in these three shows. they've done it with other celebrities(i.e. Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc.).
Daniel Radcliffe is a much, much, much larger name than the three people you mentioned. He's one of the biggest celebrities in the world at the moment.
#16Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:39pmHonestly, they would have lost just as much money had the show gone on with an understudy. Nobody would have purchased tickets in advance with the knowledge that Daniel would be out, and those not in the know would have exchanged their tickets. The house would probably have been 10% full on those nights. And honestly, that show has been raking in the dough the past few months. It's been exceeding its weekly nut by a ton, so I highly doubt the producers were terribly concerned.
#17Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 12:02amAnd if it weren't for Harry Potter they would not be doing so much money with this show.
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
#18Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:23am
"It's been exceeding it's weekly nut by tons"
I'm curious about that. Does anyone know what Radcliffe is actually getting a week, plus percentage?
I actually appreciate that Dan or his people are not discussing his salary, but these producers may gone out on a limb and he may be getting more than anyone before.
eatlasagna
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/6/04
#19Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 3:20amquestion... what's the policy if an understudy goes on mid-performance or during the second act... are audience members entitled to a partial refund or what? just wondering
#20Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 3:55am
Now why is this man sticking his head into something where he has no idea about what he's reporting? Does he have no idea what the grosses even mean? How much the show brought in THAT WEEK OF PERFORMANCES. If performances are canceled, but still paid for then it does not count toward the gross.
1) WB paid to have him for the two days
2) With the 5 performances last week they actually averaged $10K MORE per performance than they did the week before.
He seems to not know how this works.
Tom1071
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/1/04
#21Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 10:17am
"what's the policy if an understudy goes on mid-performance or during the second act..."
I believe that as long as he completes Act I, no money has to be refunded.
#22Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 10:34amThe box office is going to go through the roof now. The show will explode now with Daniel's profile being hotter than ever. I wouldnt be surprised if the advance swells and the show sells out for months.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
Gothampc
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
#23Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.
Posted: 7/18/11 at 10:44am
Whatever happened to stunt casting for vacations?
Liza in Victor/Victoria
Angela Lansbury in The King & I
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
lordtubbington
Swing Joined: 7/18/11
Videos