Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 3/9/25- Page 5

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 11:59am

I don't understand the sympathy comment either.   While I'm not paying 900 bucks to see ANYTHING, I'd still rather see that $ go to those that invested and made it possible rather than some yahoo/bottom feeder trying to make profit off of others work.

 

And AGAIN: ALL tickets were not 900 bucks out of the gate.   I bought mine the day they went on sale (or very soon afterwards) and paid less 200 a ticket.  In fact, next week I'm seeing Othello, OM and Streetcar - paid less than 900 for all 6 tickets.  Yes, Othello was the most expensive followed by OM. Do I have FABULOUS seats for any of these shows?  No, but they also aren't the worst seats available - by far.  Mid mezz for two of them, mid orch for the third.   

 

And all this crap about what the stars should do for the other actors or crew?  It's not their responsibility.  Would it be nice?  Sure, but I also don't think it's any of our damn business if they do or don't.  

[Dreamboy3]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 3:26pm

ScottK said: "To Dreamboy3/Lawyer--you obviously do not understand alot about this investing/business


"Not sure why there is so much sympathy for the investors."--nobody is asking for SYMPATHY,. But UNDERSTANDING (which you seem to lack in this instance)--but investors are PASSIVE in all this, and we make the production possible (since we are "paying" for it)

Not sure Iagree here. The production I was considering investing in was going to (and did) raise sufficient funds whether I invested or not. There are a lot of people who have enough money who are willing to put money in as a hobby.  Small investors are fungible.  


"No one who hoped to make any money would invest based on those documents." We HOPE we do make money--but realize it is not too likely (and maybe the show you worked on had REALLY BAD financials)

 

No. I’m referring to the investment documents themselves. There are absolutely none of the basic protections that investors in other assets require. It’s an entirely speculative investment. I didn’t ultimately make the investment in the production because I didn’t have the appetite for the risk given the significant (to me) investment. I don’t know whether this production broke even — it didn’t seem to perform at the ticket price and capacity necessary to do so over the course of its run based on the model the producer provided. . 

"The producer who pitched the investment to me says a lot of people make a $50k (or much bigger) investment do it for the loss to offset capital gains"--WRONG---show profits isPASSIVE INCOME and CANNOT offset capital gains 1:1

ok well a distinction without a difference in this context.  . 

"and for the opportunity to go to opening night"--finally ,CORRECT!

"and, if the show wins a Tony, the right to buy a Tony award"--WRONG! "investors" do NOT get the right to buy a Tony--one needs to be a Producer above title(of course, an investor of a large amount of $$, can "demand"/request a Producer credit)"

The producer who was bundling money told me that I could purchase a Tony. It’s possible he was wrong or I misunderstood him. 

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 3:37pm

Well...it seems you've never invested..I've done 30+ shows--so "trust" me... :)

What show were you pitched? I probably know if it recouped--or you can google it, since producers love to announce recoupment! (tho 80% do NOT recoup fully)

And, it doesnt seem realistic that the producers were raising ADDL/extra funds pre-opening--that would be more than 100% of capitalization, and sounds like the plot of THE PRODUCERS--of course they raised sufficient funds without you! They always (are supposed to) raise SUFFICIENT funds before opening nite.  If they dont RAISE the $, they are supposed to put it in themselves

And, there IS a DIFFERENCE betweem Passive and Active gains/losses--ask an accountant

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 5:47pm

Wow, it’s been a long time since I’ve gone through 5 pages of comments on grosses here!

“But, with young audiences dwindling, pricing out normal people is bad for the future of theater. Commercial theater, in theory, should be our most accessible — not completely unaffordable for the common man.”  This quote from the Post column, posted towards the beginning of this thread, is something I’ve been saying for a long time.

Azenberg’s opening answer to Reidel’s first question said it all, too. Again, the link’s posted earlier in this string.

I fear that the poster who wrote about the goalposts having moved—and that they’re not going back—is accurate, too.

Today, when I read about the grosses here, I don’t feel like I’m seeing winners and losers. Instead, I’m seeing posts of excitement over a $2.63M week’s haul. There’s no common ground to really evaluate the grosses anymore. I’ve been around long enough to see Broadway prices make banner headlines when Liza’s THE ACT (1977) commanded a shocking $25 for best seats. That made a true left-to-right front page headline in Variety (it was one of those great Variety headlines that I can’t remember word-for-word…)! Soon, however, a lot of Broadway followed suit and $25 ticket prices were well on their way to being the norm. I was a student then and I could still afford great seats. Today, that shocking $25 ticket would run about $130 when adjusted for inflation. When’s the last time you paid $130 for the best seats in the house for a show in demand?

I, and a group of my friends—five of us—planned to fly across the country to see Lea Michele in FUNNY GIRL. We were all at a dinner when we excitedly started to make plans; airfare, hotel, restaurants, etc. Plans went right down the drain when we realized the tickets we wanted were going to cost $1 - 1.3K each; orchestra seats that we’d been buying for years.

When I read here, about last row seats in the mezzanine going for $250, it’s not just gross (as Jordan wrote), it’s sad. Obviously, not everyone feels the way I (and many people on this board) do. I just think it limits a huge segment of the public that would be attending Broadway plays and musicals. Even more importantly, it’s preventing students and younger audiences from seeing a lot of these productions; a lot of them potentially being the next generation of theatre talent.

To wrap this up, a $1,000 ticket in 1977 would equate to about $195 today. In 1977, though, $25 was the record-breaking price. Just connect the dots, guys. Thanks for reading.

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 3/12/25 at 6:28pm

DanS3 said: "What is going on with Gypsy? 79 percent capacity? Ouch. Did Audra McDonald miss a bunch of performances?"

I got 3rd row orchestra center pair last Sat eve at TKTS for $124. Before heading to the booth, I checked the map and there were quite a few front center orchs available. I paid nearly triple that for front row just two months ago.  Audra and the entire cast was on except Jordan. Happy for me, worried for the show.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 11:33am

gibsons2 said: "Did Hugh Jackman passed anything to the actors/crew?"

I don't know about giving to the the actors/crew, but he definitely gave each member of the FOH staff a 4-figure check. (Less than $10K, but more than $1K).

[gibsons2]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 11:56am

Fosse76 said: "gibsons2 said: "Did Hugh Jackman passed anything to the actors/crew?"

I don't know about giving to the the actors/crew, but he definitely gave each member of the FOH staff a 4-figure check. (Less than $10K, but more than $1K)."

Good for him. I'm sure it was done towards the end of the very successful run. Othello has barely played for 2 weeks and people on here already complaining about Denzel not sharing his paycheck with the crew. Notably, not a word about Jake. Amazing and very telling.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 12:04pm

gibsons2 said: "Good for him. I'm sure it was done towards the end of the very successful run. Othello has barely played for 2 weeks and people on here already complaining about Denzel not sharing his paycheck with the crew. Notably, not a word about Jake. Amazing and very telling."

Not sure what dog whistle you’re blowing on, but several people in this thread - myself included - are talking about both Jake and Denzel when we’re talking about the celebrities in the cast being paid exponentially more than their fellow castmates and crew. And we’re also not complaining about them specifically; we’re complaining about the producing system that allows that kind of alleged pay disparity and profit-mongering to occur.

I would love to eat my hat come June if we find out that the cast and crew were, in fact, being paid an additional percentage of the box office earnings on top of their normal paycheck. I doubt we will.

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 12:41pm

Your hat is safe...You will have to find something else to eat in June.

There is absolutely no way "box office earnings" will go to anyone except tho those who were ENTITLED to "box office earnings" at the beginning.  Should people want to share their "largesse" is a different matter completely, but NOTHING should be expected from the "box office."

This is a VERY limited run--and is NO WAY comparable to Music Man, nor, Hamilton--except that each make LOTS (and,lots) of money.

The ONLY reason people are going to OTHELLO is to see Denzel and Jake.....if they wanted to see Shakespeare's Othello they could go off-bway or to a local regional/college/high school.  

Does any feel cheated that they are missing OTHELLO? or the STARS in the PRODUCTION?

(and that is why the STARS/PRODUCERS and the INVESTORS get to make MONEY!!!!)

Why dont the Unions invest in all the shows so then they can distribute profits to all of their members involved in the productions?  Why do you keep complaining about the people who are the REASON that it is all possible?!?!

It is show BUSINESS----the "WINNERS" of this show are likely the "LOSERS" of another (stars excluded)

[Kad]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 12:55pm

For someone who openly admitted they lacked the talent or skills to participate in theatre so they decided to essentially pay their way in, you're awfully full of yourself.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 1:58pm

See, Kad! Just another demonstration of my belief that the organizing principle of the American theater is to make the most important people in the room (the actors) feel like the lowest on the rung. Keep them insecure and on edge, and you control them perfectly. But no actors...no theater. That's just a fact. 

Also...it's reeeeeeeally weird that people here are acting agog at the suggestion that actors in successful productions get access to bonuses. Because I'm pretty sure if you've worked in corporate America, you can reasonably expect a bonus based on company performance. I work for a billion dollar company and I expect a bonus every year. At this point I'm getting around a 30-35% bonus on my base salary. I'm one person in an organization of about 4K. I don't actually add meaningfully to the profit of the company (in fact, in my role, I spend their money rather than make it). And still...I get a very nice chunk of change at the end of ever year. I'm not special. It's standard. 

Why is the suggestion of a bonus pool for successful productions so out of left field. I hear over and over how it's capitalism and we have to deal with it. I'm deeply entrenched in capitalism and they know if I didn't get my bonus, I'd walk. It would actually be a scandal for our company not to pay bonuses. Like...make the news kind of scandal. But actors? Heavens to Murgatroid, they should just be grateful they can feed themselves!

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 2:44pm

The acting community is lucky ScottK is a talentless wannabe - who would want such a pompous bootlicker in the cast?

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 2:45pm

Kad...I am NOT full of myself.  I'm just giving one investor's perspective (repeatedly). I barely post on this board...but this is a topic that hits close. Obviously.  And, I am NOT an investor in Othello, nor GNGL (once those grosses get posted, this will all get notched up again)

Also, I am NOT against actors making money--or MORE money in a successful production.-let EVERYONE make money--the question is HOW. (and, I do believe the Unions should invest--they certainly invest in stocks/bonds/annuities etc etc)

For MOST businesses, when people get bonuses, it's from an ongoing business. Shows are not like that--and especially all these Limited Run productions. As the adage goes, "You can't make a living, but you can make a killing!"

So WHO should give up their $$$ for the others?

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 3:17pm

Thanks, Totally Effed!! Be the star you are, too!! 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 4:12pm

You're suggesting that Unions become Management?? That level of conflict of interest is bat-sh*t bonkers!

Most shows won't make a killing. Hence why Union minimums are in place. But for the rare shows do make a killing, performance incentives for the actors (and hell...other folks as well) would be completely appropriate. 

Actors are the ones who have a face an audience every night. When they're in a flop, they at least get to console themselves with their Equity minimum (or negotiated salary). Sure, they get to enjoy the applause of a crowd who loves a hit. But applause doesn't pay the bill.

Actors will also take the brunt of public discourse via social media. Remember...it was Cynthia Erivo that closed The Great Comet...not the actual terrible producing. 

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 4:28pm

Me?  Im NOT suggesting the Union become MANAGEMENT. Im saying that they can become an INVESTOR (like me/others), NOT a PRODUCER, just an investor--and that their passive investment (like mine) will be rewarded in a HIT--and then those proceeds can be distributed amongst their Union members of the production (since the performers/crew themselves cant afford to invest in the show--as someone else had said). I know most shows dont make a killing. Most shows dont fully recoup--and that is the point of all my posts in this thread.  There is risk to invest, and the risk "needs" to be rewarded. My posts are to those who feel "no sympathy" for the investors when they lose money. TO ME (as an investor), that is a RIDICULOUS statement. I take my losses (which are somewhat frequent), but I want (and am entitled to) my wins/gains when I get them in a hit.  That really is my ONLY point. My "gains" are NOT at the expense of others. And, I do not expect my losses to be compensated by others.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 4:57pm

Suggesting that a Union takes the money of its members to make high risk investments is so fiscally irresponsible that there's no need to continue discussing it.

And your wins are not yours. Your 'win' is on the backs of creatives. The labor of the director, writer(s), designers, and, most importantly because without them there is no theater, the actors is what gives you a 'win.' You invest your money and that's great. You deserve a nice return on your investment. But the labor used to produce the work is the commodity and the group providing that labor should also reap the rewards of the rare hit. But you've said some stuff in this thread that makes me guess just how you feel about labor.

In your first post, you assured us that you weren't a trust fund baby or have millions in the bank. But then you've mentioned you've been an investor in 30 shows over 20 years. Might I suggest that you have access to capital that most people in this thread and in this country couldn't ever dream of. So you may not be playing to the right audience. I've produced some stuff in my life (mostly film) and I'm very grateful to my investors. But (and maybe it's because I started out as a creative) I never lose sight of the fact that the art doesn't exist without the artists that create it. I'd never take a single moment in my life to tell them to be grateful for what they have...because it's rarely ever enough. 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 5:01pm

SonofRobbieJ knows what's up. 

[binau]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 5:11pm

gibsons2 said: "Fosse76 said: "gibsons2 said: "Did Hugh Jackman passed anything to the actors/crew?"

I don't know about giving to the the actors/crew, but he definitely gave each member of the FOH staff a 4-figure check. (Less than $10K, but more than $1K)."

Good for him. I'm sure it was done towards the end of the very successful run. Othello has barely played for 2 weeks and people on here already complaining about Denzel not sharing his paycheck with the crew. Notably, not a word about Jake. Amazing and very telling."

If there IS any focus on Denzel it's because he is likely perceived as the bigger star. He is one of the all time greats - two oscars with 10 nominations, a Tony award, a presidential medal of freedom, a string of successful commercial and critical successes over decades working with the best. Beloved by audiences. The people discussing him here, even if they don't like the commercial aspects, know this and are not condescendingly reducing him to his skin colour. 

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 10:27pm

Hey all! Hopefully this will be the last of my replies/harangues about this.

All here, love the theatre. I did not say I was talentless or unskilled, but I realized that I would not be able to make a living at it. And, I chose another way to be part of it, and to make a difference (albeit a very very VERY small part of it).

SoRJ, I started investing in the stock market when I was 13--yes, it was $1000 from my bar mitzvah. I started working at 16--I have saved and invested forever--that is how I was raised. Yes, I had good jobs. I started my own business at 30.  I am a commissioned salesman for SWAG.--and have been for the past 34 years.  It is not my "access to capital", but the life I led.  Whereas "most of the country" might be married and have children, I did not have those responsibilities to expenses.  More to save/more to invest.  And, I was fortunate during 2000-2005 that my business took off--as did the stock market.

I know that ANYTHING I do within the theatre is on the backs of those who create it---and all those people who listed are rewarded for their efforts.  They sign on a project KNOWING what they are signing up for financially.  And the big creatives (directors/choreographers etc etc), get a percentage.

As a (film) producer, of all people SoRJ, you should know that INVESTORS are the LAST to see any money (except the producers). So all those actors/creatives are paid BEFORE I am.  And IF there is anything left, then it gets put aside HOPEFULLY so that the investors can recoup. 

And, if those investors did not put up the funds, there would be no rehearsal spaces, salaries, sets, wigs, etc etc NOTHING!--again, I am SO SMALL an investor in all this. But it is the money that greases the wheel.  So what do I get out of it?

I get to know (and feel) I am a SMALL part of it.  I get to launch careers (im NOT taking credit for the talent). I get to see my shows receive/win Tonys/Pulitzers/Oscars (that I do NOT have on my shelf)---I get to hear my 14 year old niece hum a tune from a show that I invested in.

So yes, I'd like to be compensated for that. You said the union would be "fiscally irresponsible" to use their funds to invest their members money that way. So, I'M fiscally irresponsible and should share the OCCASIONAL success with those who wont/cant take the risk.  Again, I get paid AFTER everyone else gets paid. (and the Union suggestion was not something I propose in reality).

People have said they support the theatre by buying tickets--and then explain they get their DISCOUNTED tix--how do those discounted tix help the production? And why is that money that is spent on tix, "better" than the way I spend my money to help the theatre. This whole discussion has made it sound icky/dirty/GROSS to want to make money in an investment. Well, that's what investors do.

But, in the theatre, investors know that it is NOT likely (and that the lawyer previously said didnt even want to do it)--but he feels NO SYMPATHY for us if we lose money (again, NOT asking for sympathy).

Our INVESTMENT/OUR INVOLVEMENT changes lives / brings JOY / etc etc--without the $, you cant complain about a show--because there would be no show to complain about!!

The discussion seems to be about how much is "enough"--and who gets to share in it. That is NOT our place to say. I was going to say that everyone is welcome to participate--but that's not true either.  I did not get approached to invest in Othello (or GNGL, or Hamilton, etc etc)--but I have had others.

Btw--thanks if anyone is still reading...

Lastly, I was fortunate enough to invest in three Bway shows in 2024. The first one (beloved by many here) failed to recoup. The next two were/are SMASH HITS--those gains still do NOT make up for the loss of the first show. And, yes, I invested the same amount in all 3. I have invested in a new show in 2025 that seems LIKELY to become a hit.  So PERHAPS, once the 4th show starts distributing PROFITS, I MIGHT wind up even.

So, that's "alot" of people who got to create and live their dreams, and find joy--with  my SMALL (fiscally irresponsible) investment.  My niece cannot hum a tune to my shares of Apple stock.

 

 

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 10:40pm

*a lot

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/13/25 at 11:00pm

Thanks!--I do spell it wrong intentionally--i like the way it looks, e.g: I've invested in alot of shows (that's for the braggadocio in me)

[What The Dickens]

Posted: 3/17/25 at 4:56pm

EDSOSLO858 said: No slight to the new cast members whatsoever, but SIX and HADESTOWN aren’t long for this world on Broadway. New tenants are being thrown around for the two houses as it stands. 

Wondering where you heard this? I seem to recall being told on this message board more than once last year (maybe earlier) that Hadestown was due to close.