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

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:47pm

Othello not offering a Rush or Under 30 Day of Tickets is nothing but pure greed. Making 6 seats a show available via a lottery is not accessibility 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:50pm

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.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:51pm

BoringBoredBoard40 said: "Othello not offering a Rush or Under 30 Day of Tickets is nothing but pure greed. Making 6 seats a show available via a lottery is not accessibility"

 

You are a racist.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:52pm

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

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:53pm

This isn't about pay cuts for flops or getting paid more for shows that do well. (Is WICKED paying actors more without a major star now that they are taking advantage of the movie's success? Because those prices are insane.) It's about film actors who are already multi millionaires coming in to do theater and getting paid thousands more a week than the people who make their living doing theatre. If Washington is making 300K a week, he stands to make about 4M for the 15 week run. When he is done, he, or any other multi-millionaire star who does a show, can afford to take a break. Maybe take a nice two week vacation in Europe. Maybe even at a house they own there. He is already worth about 30M. On the flip side...those in the show who are not making that kind of money will be out there auditioning for their next gig. Some will be auditioning while doing the show to possibly have another show to go to.  But they work their butts off. They aren't being sent scripts and deciding what they want and don't want to do next. And yes, they do it because they love it.

My thought is that if these film actors, who are already millionaires, "love" the theatre so much then why can't they take a cut in pay from their film like salaries closer to what theatre people actually make? It's not going to break them financially. Washington can make 20k a week and be quite fine financially. But I suspect that with his and Jake's salary, that helps jack up the production costs and ticket prices, along with the greed that seems to be permeating the boards. The argument that you can walk up to a box office and get a rush ticket is kind of crazy. Why should a person who loves and has supported the theatre for so many years, (Including dropping money in red buckets, spending at the flea market and attending fundraisers) now have to get a cheap seat with a possibly obstructed view because they now can't afford a regular priced seat to these shows with stars in them (that they have probably also spent money to see in their films), or has to put it on a credit card, if they have one? I have never put a show ticket on a credit card. If I feel I can't afford a ticket, just don't want to pay the high price or it's not on TDF, I don't see the show and life goes on. But that's me. I am not going to pay the equivalent of about 20 movie tickets just to see a film star live in a theater for 2 to 3 hours even if they are in a show I really love. 

Just my random thoughts and my own opinions. As stated, we all have our own opinions but I totally agree with TotallyEffed's opinions on this.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 4:56pm

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

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:03pm

Just moving to New York to become a theatre actor is a bigger gamble than a trust fund baby investing some of their fortune into a Broadway show for the fun of it.

Updated On: 3/11/25 at 05:03 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:03pm

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.  

 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:04pm

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.

 

You have NO idea what you're talking about.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:06pm

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.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:10pm

I think it's neat that The Outsiders is in the top 5.

[binau]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:14pm

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. 
 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:22pm

AKarp2013 said: "Woof, it's getting hot and steamy on theboard today."

Yeah, where the hell are the moderators? I dared to reply to America’s Sweetheart, Sutton Ross, with a slightly snarky comment in response to little Madame completely trashing me on here, and it was deleted. Meanwhile, half the posts in this thread are personal attacks. Whomever is running this board better decide what their rules are and apply them evenly. 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:23pm

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

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:33pm

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

Naw, sounds like all the pompous self righteous “experts” on here have it covered. 

[binau]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:35pm

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

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:36pm

To Totally Effed--and those who support his arguments in the thread, you are WRONG.

To say:

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.

....is really asinine and uneducated--but mostly inexperienced.

I have been investing for over 20 years, in over 30 productions. I am NOT a "trust fund baby" and dont have millions in the bank.

I love theatre--but dont have the talent or skills  to be on the other "side."  

I invest to participate.  

IF i wanted to make money (and MONEY ONLY), I certainly would NOT invest in theatre.

80% of shows LOSE money (some or all)

You mentioned all the other ways shows make money--but perhaps you fail to realize that those other "ways" are also separate investments (therefore more funds I cant/dont invest elsewhere)

If you look at the ENORMOUS list of PRODUCERS above the title for OTHELLO, it might seem that PERHAPS it wasnt such a "sure thing", or why share "the pot"--and that each of those producers probably reached out to many investors--who FINALLY got to make money on a show (re: Ken Davenport's investors, as a likely example)

Yes, it is disappointing to NOT be able to go to a show because of ticket prices--but NOONE IS ENTITLED TO GO.

There are SO MANY points that need further discussion, but do not S%!T on the investors, or the producers. We probably lost money on a show at some point that you LOVED, and wouldnt have been there without us.

 

 

 

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:38pm

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

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 5:42pm

Of course, the right thing to do in Denzel and Jake’s cases would be to negotiate some kind of profit sharing for their fellow cast members that would make the high demand and exorbitant ticket prices less icky. I’m sure that’s a pie in the sky line of thinking, but as it is, it just looks like a money-printing machine for the producers and their two cash cow actors.

Yes, a rising tide raises all boats - the actors who are now guaranteed employment through at least June, I’m sure, are happy to work on such a high profile production - but it sets the wrong precedent for producers, in my opinion. Most of them won’t be putting that profit toward a risky project; they’ll be hoarding it while they court another A-lister or two to headline their next cheaply-produced Shakespeare venture (to save on playwright fees or residuals, naturally).

I’m not opposed to celebrities popping over to Broadway to flex their artistic muscles, and especially not frequently excellent theatre actors like Denzel and Jake, but the dynamic pricing rising and rising while the salaries for the ensemble stay the same feels gross. Painting it as some kind of good thing for the actors or Broadway at large that audiences are paying this much to see Othello does smack a bit of simping for late-stage capitalism.

[Fordham2015]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:21pm

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!"

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:28pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "Of course, therightthing to do in Denzel and Jake’s cases would be to negotiate some kind of profit sharing for their fellow cast members that would make the high demand and exorbitant ticket prices less icky."

But then, why should those particular (very hard-working) actors get paid more than all the others because they've had the fantastic luck to be cast in a production with big stars? If there's a solution to this, it should benefit the actors in Purpose as much as those in Othello.

[dan94]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:30pm

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]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:30pm

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 of Broadway wealth redistribution be geared towards ticket-buyers. Does that make me greedy?

Updated On: 3/11/25 at 06:30 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:35pm

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.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 6:59pm

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

Thanks for pointing that out. I do know it's not apples-to-apples; I also know that most actors don't have dependable long-term prospects (though that one applies to my career trajectory as well).