Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 3/9/25 — Page 3

binau, the major point you're missing is that the average actor will never be able to take a risk on mounting a Broadway show because they will never have the money to do so. Most theatre actors in New York will never be able to gamble with their money in any kind of way period. Many don't even know when and where their next paycheck will come from or if it will even be related to acting. So yes, I am suggesting it is unfair when two actors in the cast (who are already millionaires) are making over a million dollars a month and the rest of the actors are making 8K a month. And no, I don't feel bad for the investors who might lose some money on a risky production if they already have millions in the bank. And will make more from touring the show, future productions, licensing, cast albums etc. that the actors will never benefit from.

gibsons2 said: "Did Hugh Jackman passed anything to the actors/crew? Did Josh Groban? People paid very high prices to see them both, especially Jackman. The Music Man was making over 3 mil a week and people stayed outside in the frigid cold in winter for a chance to buy a rush ticket. Both men were celebrated for selling out shows.

If not, why Denzel should be doing that? Just curious about your train of thoughts."

I don’t know about Groban, but as a matter of fact, Hugh Jackman gave extremely generous bonuses to everyone who worked on Music Man

And for the record, 300k is a lowball estimate for how much names like Washington, Gyllenhaal, Clooney, etc will be making weekly.

At least Actors Equity struck down the dues cap a couple years ago- prior to that, any salary above a certain threshold was not subject to dues deduction.

Updated On: 3/11/25 at 04:56 PM

Kad said: "And for the record, 300k is a lowball estimate for how much names like Washington, Gyllenhaal, Clooney, etc will be making weekly.



That is totally 100% false. Not even Rudin in his heydays paid Stars anywhere near HALF of that figure. In her best weeks in DOLLY, Midler made close to $150K.

JSquared2 said: "Kad said: "And for the record, 300k is a lowball estimate for how much names like Washington, Gyllenhaal, Clooney, etc will be making weekly.



That is totally 100% false. Not even Rudin in his heydays paid Stars anywhere near HALF of that figure.In her best weeks in DOLLY, Midler made close to $150K.

"

And that was a decade ago, sweet baby. Things have changed.

I kind of agree that it would just be the nice thing to do, to share in some of the money. Where I struggle a little (and where I might be a slave of capitalism myself) is if we are speaking about this specific situation as opposed to the general economic state of broadway then as discussed above the arguments seem to centre more around how much money people currently have vs others and how much they need (e.g. Denzel W and Jake G probably don't need more money and could probably re-distribute some of it to their fellow actors).

But this just isn't how capitalism works, and I know it's brutal to say, but Denzel W and Jake G are the ones who are creating the economic value here. The $350 average price is because of them. The other actors can't command their salaries because they can't provide the same economic value - even though everyone are 'actors' they don't have the same job. The job is not simply acting and reading lines the job is getting people to pay $350 for tickets at scale. The economic value of the other actors is much less because there are many others who can do that job (and for less money too but thanks to unions are helping make sure they get the $8k per week at a minimum if that is the current rate - higher than I remembered it to be).

The more positive reframing would be that thanks to Denzel W and Jake G the actors around them CAN earn $8k a month because they essentially have given them a job that would not otherwise exist.

I think it would be a very kind and nice thing if they could share in the wealth - if they did though I would see it more as a donation not an obligation because you could swap out any of the other actors for anyone else and the $350 tickets would still be coming, which highlights the exact issue of what is going on here that the money coming through the door really has nothing to do with the actors. It's almost none of their business in literal terms.

I'm not trying to come across as a greedy capitalist - reflecting on this discussion I think some kind of regulation that guaranteed more money to actors (and other creatives) for shows that have earned back their investment by a substantial amount is something that would make life better for actors, for example, that I think we can afford.

We're arguing about ticket prices, Matt, it's your time to shine.

Except for some crazyness that criticism of Denzel W's high salary is now white supremacy (are there no limits to this ideology? It's literal madness!) and occasional personal jabs has the thread really been THAT bad? I think a lot of people have made some good points, there has been some humorous jabs, and I personally find it more refreshing than hearing the same 'predictions' every week that Moulin Rogue is on its last legs etc.

I would take this thread a million times over than where some of the Sutton or Broadway flash threads have gone in the past..

Updated On: 3/11/25 at 05:35 PM

I miss the days when we argued whether or not Harvey Fierstein was doing a page one rewrite of Gypsy because Audra demanded it.

Updated On: 3/11/25 at 05:38 PM

AKarp2013 said: "Imiss the days when we argued whether or not HarveyFierstein was doing a page onerewrite of Gypsy because Audra demanded it."

"Let's go to New Orleans, Herbie!"

Beyond the actor's pay part of this discussion, for better or worse these Othello prices have moved the goalposts. Someone mentioned it upthread, but these prices are getting press pieces and headlines. It will change the overall view of what a Broadway ticket costs.

The goalposts have moved. They will not move back. And we have a clear indication that producers want "star in play" to mean a minimum spend of roughly $200 a ticket. Dorien Gray is a perfect example. Entered the market with the last row of the theatre somewhere in the 170-200 range. It didn't sell, and they have lowered the price. But hold on - they've lowered the price for previews. After previews the pricing goes back in line to what was initially offered. Clooney is also around $200 for the last row.

We won't see effects for a couple seasons. But the prevailing knowledge producers will take away when this season is over and done with is that a star in a play means $200 a ticket. If you have 2 stars you can chase Othello prices. Whatever these celebrities make will be known to their agents. The next time one of their clients is in contract negotiations, guess where the ceiling is? "He is the next George Clooney, and we are demanding commensurate salary to cement that fact." This won't always work, but the goalposts have been moved so far out that the compromise will land beyond where we sat even a year ago.

The aggressive pricing may be what the market can bear. It can also be bad for the industry. Both can be true. All the aggressive pricing is going to do is kill off the casual theatregoer. People only have so much money to spend per year on theatre. I'd argue the poor presales at Dorien Gray are more connected to Othello than many would like to admit. A not insignificant amount of Gray-curious audience blew the budget at Othello. It has two stars.

25 years ago the line was "only Matthew and Nathan will ever be able to support this idea of premium seats because they are offering such a premium experience." 10 years ago, around about the time of Hamilton, it was decided that the producer shouldn't fight the scalper, the producer should become the scalper. 2025 and the market will bear $340-360 tickets.

The goalposts do not move back.

kdogg36 said: "This may be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has never made anywhere close to $2,439 per week but has spent a large portion of my three-figure weekly salary on Broadway tickets, I'd rather any new system ofBroadway wealth redistribution be geared towards ticket-buyers. Does that make me greedy?"


Keep in mind that most actors are giving a percentage of their pay to agents and managers.