American Idiot to close April 24th- Page 2

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 8:21pm

If they have more weeks like last week, they probably won't recoup.

BJA might bring them close, but three Million Dollar weeks with BJA at the end of the run, won't matter if the weeks between now and his return remain dismal.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 8:58pm

Stark Sands would not be available for the tour. He is involved in a new tv show called Rookies. Don't know if this was public knowledge, but I found it out because I got an extra casting call for it, and was curious to what it was.

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 9:04pm

My first thought was also that maybe "Scottsboro" has found its theater. Come on, Weisslers, jump on it!

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 9:23pm

Scottsboro is gone. The Weissler's aren't idiots, and I think I heard that they tried to capitalize the necessary funds to bring it back and were not successful.

Why would they open a show they've already lost a LOT of money on?

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 9:40pm

Because they know it's an important show and would like to give more people a chance to see it. By opening as a limited engagement, they could probably draw in a lot of the theatergoing crowd that didn't get to see it last time (or those, like me, who are dying to see it again). They would also be hoping to get in more of the Tony voters to give it a better shot at Tony awards. I know it's unlikely, but the optimist in me is really hoping for some good "Scottsboro" news.

[shrekster224]

Posted: 3/10/11 at 10:17pm

I said tour dream cast. Of course Esper and Sands wouldn't do it, but it would be awesome if they did.

[Kevn520]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 12:35am

Saw the show tonight. I was surprised that 3 leads were out, but Chase Peacock was impressive in the role. Didn't Justin Guarini just start his run in the show?

[broadwayrocks2]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 12:43am

HOw do you know about the show recouping or not? Do you have the figures on how much it cost to build in Berkley or do you have the weekly nut figures ?? This show has a very small lighting package ,next to no automation ,5 in the band and a cast that are all mostly making broadway min. Aside from renting a big house there costs are all very low rentals .JUst curious how you know they wont recoup .. That question always makes me wonder where people get there info ?? DO you know what the show cost to build??

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 12:56am

Re recoupment, it's possible the poster read in the NYTimes and elsewhere that "A spokeswoman for “American Idiot” said the producers were not sure if the show would ultimately recoup its investment on Broadway before closing."

[Whatshisname]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 1:06am

The musical cost between $8 million and $10 million to mount on Broadway, and it has earned far more money — sometimes upwards of 50 percent more a week — when Mr. Armstrong has performed. So far the show has grossed more than $34 million, and has been seen by 440,000 people.

NYT

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 2:30am

Maybe "Other Desert Cities" could have booked it in time.

[timote316]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 2:33am

The musical’s spokeswoman said it was not yet known who would play St. Jimmy from March 15 to April 3.

Maybe they should figure that out.

[steven22]

Posted: 3/11/11 at 9:08am

They should bump up Chase.

[BrianS]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 2:00am

"Bad timing, IMHO. If they had faced reality and closed already they could have cut their own losses... and something else could have booked the St. James for spring/summer, instead of (probably) leaving it empty all year."

What are you talking about? All those people would have been out of jobs and there is no show waiting to replace it. Why don't you give the producers a little credit for keeping things going through lean times. And you do understand that producers and theater owners have different agendas so your comment doesn't even make sense, right? If the theater owner had another show in the wings they would have kicked AI out when the gross fell below a contractual number.

[wcoyote]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 10:14am

Expect to see the new Harry Connick show (On a Clear Day) booked for the St. James in the fall. Same director and producer and creative team as Idiot and Spring Awakening.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 2:46pm

BrianS: Sorry if my remarks make no sense. They are just my opinion; I could be wrong.

If Armstrong's final three weeks help Idiot recoup, great.

Everybody: Jujamcyn evicted Finian to make space for Idiot. In retrospect, was this the correct business decision? Discuss.

Does anyone KNOW Idiot's stop-clause, and/or why Jujamcyn never exercised it?

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 2:52pm

I don't know this case, but in general, no theater owner would evict a show if they didn't have another show waiting in the wings. A paying tenant (even one that isn't making as profit) is better than no tenant.

[wcoyote]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 3:49pm

That is such a naive opinion to think a theater owner would keep a show in it's theater while losing money. Try not paying your home mortgage for a while and see what happens! Is the show paying their bills in this theater while not covering their weekly nut? Besides the utility and insurance costs for the theater owner there are labor costs to consider and the contractual obligations to meet their payrolls. A 3 to 5 month down time for a theater is not uncommon and is ultimately cheaper than keeping a theater open for a show that can't pay it's bills. All theater employees are "per-diem" for a reason!

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 4:09pm

It's not naive, it's a fact of the business. Even when a show is making less than its weekly nut, it IS still paying the bills. The reason a show closes is because the producers decide that they will not rebound soon enough and they do not want to completely spend the cushion they built up when they were doing well.

You said that it's similar to not paying your mortgage. Try this:

You take a temporary, three-month position that paid what you used to make in a year. Because you know it's only a three-month job, you save the extra money. When the three months is over, you are still able to regularly pay your mortgage because you have those savings.

THAT is the case we're dealing with. The difference is that most shows don't know how long they're going to last, so the producers always save the extra during good weeks just in case. Trust me, a show that is struggling at the box office is still paying all the bills. If it wasn't, it would have closed already.

If you rented a room in your house, and your tenant had lost his job or gotten a cut in pay but was still regularly paying his rent on time, why would you kick him out if no one else wanted to rent the room?

Of course it's cheaper to have a dark theater because you don't have to pay the employees, but when a show is in there, you are MAKING money. Who would rather get nothing when they could get something?

You say I'm naive. But I am telling you, it IS a fact of the business that theater owners very rarely evict a show without another show lined up.

[acassimaty]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 5:39pm

Are they likely to offer a discount during the final weeks? (outside of appearing at the TKTS booth) Or is the current March Madness offer the last we'll see of such a thing.

I ask because my companion for my upcoming Broadway trip doesn't want to see this show and I'm hoping a discount might be able to convince him.

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 6:36pm

It's no industry secret that before BJA came in the show had a number of losing weeks as far as meeting its nut.

[wcoyote]

Posted: 3/12/11 at 7:16pm

OK - I'm having a good chuckle on this one and have to ask. What is your background on Broadway finance and the intricacies of theater owner/production contracts? I've been in this business for 35 years. It's true the owner controls the settlement after each performance (that's why the bills get paid). They effectively work with the production when it's obvious they can no longer carry the weight of the bills. Yes, the owner has reduced the rent. Yes, the owner had reduced the payroll fees. yes, the owner has reduced their vig for the total gross. Then when all is said and done, and the producer doesn't see the writing on the wall, the theater owner can pull the plug per their contractual agreement. They have a mutual symbiotic relationship.

[bandit964]

Posted: 3/13/11 at 9:30am

The St. James is HUGE. They would never WANT to bring Scottsboro Boys there. I am all for bringing it back. I wish I had seen it, but bring it to a smaller theatre with less then 1,000 seats.

I do wish they could have close a week or two earlier, just in time to let another show come into the St. James before the TONY cut-off.

[wcoyote]

Posted: 3/13/11 at 10:23am

I think ultimately the size of the theater did in Idiot as well. I know the producer, he ideally wanted a 1200 seat house for that show. Jujamcyn cut him a nice financial deal for the St. James but he still had a high nut. Remember, bigger theater means bigger sets, more lighting, more sound, more staff and oh yeah and lets not forget - those pesky Green Day royalties!

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/13/11 at 12:34pm

You say I'm naive. But I am telling you, it IS a fact of the business that theater owners very rarely evict a show without another show lined up.

Where is this "fact" coming from? I can think of many cases where prime theatres sat vacant for months after long running shows were forced to close after falling blow the agreed-upon stop clause figure.

Examples: The 1996 revival of FORUM closed Jan 4, 1998 and the St. James theatre sat unused until HIGH SOCIETY came along in April. (There was a 2 week booking for Patti La Belle - Jan 13 to 25) More recently at the same theatre THE PRODUCERS ended its long and profitable run April 22, 2007 and the house did not have another booking until November when THE GRINCH came in. Should these shows have extended their runs possibly losing money for their producers/investors just to keep a theatre open? Using your twisted logic they should have but that would NOT be a good business decision.

Check the theatre histories: Frequently over the years shows have been "evicted" even when there was no other show booked for the space.