According to a post on Davenports blog this morning Macbeth earned back 89% of its investors money, how is this possible considering it was making next to nothing for most of its run?
It was such a small-scale show though. I can see how he would have reason to lie to convince investors that investing money in shows is less risk-averse than it may seem. But I don't think he would risk this considering an investor of MacBeth could surely out him as a scam.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
I think it's a conspiracy to get us to believe in the power of the gay agenda.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
I have not seen the papers on this show but if Cumming had a deal with a low salary bumped with a substantial percentage of the gross/net, then these numbers make perfect sense.
Unit set, 3 actors onstage, and normally one person covering sound and light cues on the board. I'd be shocked if it didn't come close to earning back its budget. It looked fantastic but the set-up was really simple. It probably cost them more to have Alan Cumming onstage than anything else and even then he probably too a lower salary in exchange for points.