Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 11/3/19 — Page 2

Impossible2 said: "HogansHero said: "OK so yeah there is the usual nonsense in this thread from people who have no idea what they are talking about but have a good imagination. I'm gonna ignore most of that and just mention something I have said here before which is that if you look at the Potter producers, you will note that the show is essentially controlled by the putative recipients of two big weekly checks, ATG (the landlord) and JK Rowling (the underlying rights holder), and Colin Callender, who is along for the ride for reasons that have zip to do with recouping his investment. Now that we have that out of the way, the show is fine (at any of these imagined nuts) even if it being a blockbuster was a miscalculation."

So instead of giving some facts and enlightening the rest of uswith somethingwe would all find interesting, you went your usual route of being an obnoxious insulting know it all prick?

Thanks for dropping by, it's always a pleasure x"

Have to agree. HogansHero, if you’re going to be impudent, you might as well back it up with the facts that apparently no one knows, since we have no idea what we’re talking about. Apparently.

bwaydreamer said: "Harry Potter was at 98% of its gross potential at still at 100% capacity. What are you people talking about? No producer in their right mind, let alone the extremely experienced producers of HP, would ever put up a show with a nut so high that at 100% attendance and 98% gross potential they would be barely hitting their nut. They are MORE than fine and still making bank."

Um remember when it was revealed that Hello Dolly! had an 800k/week nut which explained the slow recoupment?

Impossible2 said: "So instead of giving some facts and enlightening the rest of uswith somethingwe would all find interesting, you went your usual route of being an obnoxious insulting know it all prick?

Thanks for dropping by, it's always a pleasure x"

well, sorry, but it is annoying. People (not just me) post informed explanations week after week and some folks here persist in writing on a clean slate. As I said, I was limiting myself to one point (that I have made before) explaining why the Potter numbers can't be analyzed the same way as the typical show. But I have little confidence that no one next week will post something ignoring that. If you can't tolerate my disappointment, I guess move on.

leefowler said: "HogansHero seems to be under the impression that he's teaching a seminar, and he's impatient with the fact that we're not taking notes."

nope, just sharing some insight, something that a lot of folks here tell me they appreciate. If you don't, there are other posts waiting to confuse you.

JBroadway said: "Well, Hogan, if you wouldn't mind humoring me by answering these questions, I promise I'll remember your responses [you are not among those to whom I was directing my impatience]:

1. How does your comment about the paycheck division indicate one way or another whether the show is doing fine? Or was that meant to be a separate statement? [my point was that when the people who have money at stake are already getting a big chunk of the weekly take, recoupment becomes less meaningful as a focus.]

2. You say the show is doing fine "at any of these imagined nuts" - but how can that be? One of the "imagined nuts" was $1MM, and they just fell below that today, and have been teetering on it for weeks. The other 'Imagined nut" was my (admittedly uninformed) estimate of $900K - wouldn't you agree that that figure would put the show in imminent danger given their pattern of decline? [I'll answer #3 first. I think your $900k is a good midpoint between $800-1000. My guess would be a bit less, and I think they have trimmed it from what it was on opening night, but based on the point I discussed above, I don't think a show is in imminent danger when the folks who would be imperiled are getting big fat checks already. And ditto when they are not folks who will lose a millisecond of sleep if they lose money week to week. I think ATG wants the show to stay, if for no other reason than that the venue has a bad rep and this is changing it. And I think Rowling probably likes having it running and we all know that this capitalization is a drop in the bucket for her.This is not a show with investors that are calling the GM every other day.]

Having said all that, they can't be happy that the play is not the juggernaut they expected. And if it continues to slide, they will likely lose interest in propping it up. Finally, when I said the exact nut does not matter all that much to the analysis, remember that roughly 10% of those grosses are disappearing as fees before they make it to the production, so a $900k nut still looks pretty bad, and $850 doesn't look that much better.







"

Just looked for HP in Melbourne for tomorrow 2 parts [visiting to see Come from Away and Ragtime] and there are only 2by2 seats left in the upper dress circle[The Gods]. They are A$310. for the 2 parts for 2 tickets. Online I was not allowed to buy a single ticket from the 2 available-it would have left another 1x1 for another lonely single[could have met the man of my dreams---did actually happen once--well it lasted a month].

Surely one can buy a single ticket but maybe only at the box office.

Trivia I know but obviously selling well and I miss out till next visit south

Could it be that the whole Harry Potter franchise is losing steam?

I think the board benefits from industry insiders like Hogan actually offering informed opinion.

FranklinDickson2018 said: "The Broadway production and the tour were jointly capitalized for $8.5 million"

Are most shows jointly capitalized with their tours? If so, what happens if the tour doesn’t happen?

Hogan can be quite snarky but as others have said he does give an informed opinion and actually responds, so I too appreciate their posts.

While the Potter Broadway experience may not be a blockbuster I don't think the brand as a whole is dying. I mean, its 20+ years old at this point so eventually it loses steam. As its proven in the past, a 2 part play is a hard sell no matter the show. It makes an increase in investment in not only tickets, but hotel bookings, staying an extra night, all add up to make people not want to go or just say "I'll catch it eventually". Not sure how long the Broadway show will last, but theres 3 more Fantastic Beast films, the theme parks which they're still expanding on, and who knows, with American film industry maybe we do eventually get a Cursed Child film with the original stars returning.

All that being said, Potter isn't dead. The Broadway show is proven to be a more difficult sell but that doesn't speak for the brand as a whole.

JBroadway said: "Thanks for clarifying, Hogan!

At the risk of opening another can of worms:

Wouldn't there be a ton of other investors who don't get a dime until it recoups? Or was the show mostly financed entirely (or mostly) by those parties you mentioned?"

My understanding is that there is no ton of other investors and that they kept it close to the vest. (This was also the case with Hamilton: they did not think it presented a risk, and the HP folks thought they were going to mint money as the franchise always had.) And in these sorts of cases (as in corporate produced shows like Disney's) the focus on recoupment is (to me) irrelevant (or impossible). One other point/quibble from what you wrote is that when there are other investors with their eyes on recoupment, they get many dimes back before recoupment. Obviously, the profit starts only after.

The main problem is tourism to the US is pretty much zilch and will remain that way until you get that man out of power.

Apart from 3 shows and the usual suspects, everything is doing pretty horribly atm and that has been pretty much all year.

Mike Barrett said: "Assuming your "3" are TKAM, Hadestown, and Moulin Rouge, and the usual suspects are Wicked, Mormon, etc... Isn't this really the case every season? Typically only a handful of shows survive each year. I dont think this is too out of the norm. To me there isn't much "star" power this fall to bring people to Broadway. Last fall had TKAM opening, Network with Cranston, Elaine May, Kerry Washington, to name a few. No one this fall has had that kind of box office power. I think that has had an effect on the straight plays Imo but I am admittedlynot a long time expert in the gross department."

I’ll just point out that while Network did great business, American Son and The Waverly Gallery did not. Even star power can’t necessarily attract audiences to straight plays plus May isn’t as well known as she should be.

Mike Barrett said: "Impossible2 said: "The main problem is tourism tothe US is pretty much zilch and will remain that way until you get that man out of power.

Apart from 3 shows and the usual suspects, everything is doing pretty horribly atm and that has been pretty much all year."

Assuming your "3" are TKAM, Hadestown, and Moulin Rouge, and the usual suspects are Wicked, Mormon, etc... Isn't this really the case every season? Typically only a handful of shows survive each year. I dont think this is too out of the norm. To me there isn't much "star" power this fall to bring people to Broadway. Last fall had TKAM opening, Network with Cranston, Elaine May, Kerry Washington, to name a few. No one this fall has had that kind of box office power. I think that has had an effect on the straight plays Imo but I am admittedlynot a long time expert in the gross department."

True, but everything seems to be VERY down all together the last couple of years.