Posted: 8/1/17 at 3:25pm
21 isn't a huge cast, Kinky Boots has 22, Waitress has 18, 21 is within reason. You think the complexity of the lights and sound add to the weekly? I would think that adds to the start up costs.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 3:36pm
Comet's total cast, including swings, is about 35, not 21.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 3:50pm
I feel like War Paint may actually be the first one to post a closing notice. They're the musical with the lowest earned of their gross potential, as well as third lowest capacity (behind Miss Saigon and OYF, both which have much larger houses)
Posted: 8/1/17 at 3:53pm
It almost feels like a game of chicken. No one wants to be the first to admit defeat. (Of the shows still running, of course.)
Posted: 8/1/17 at 3:58pm
VotePeron said: "I feel like War Paint may actually be the first one to post a closing notice. They're the musical with the lowest earned of their gross potential, as well as third lowest capacity (behind Miss Saigon and OYF, both which have much larger houses)
"
Agree...play out the rest of August and close after Labor Day followed by GHD and possibly Bandstand!
Posted: 8/1/17 at 4:02pm
VotePeron said: "I feel like War Paint may actually be the first one to post a closing notice. They're the musical with the lowest earned of their gross potential, as well as third lowest capacity (behind Miss Saigon and OYF, both which have much larger houses)"
bad metrics both.
@10086Sundays "game of chicken" It doesn't work that way.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 4:29pm
Up In One said: "21 isn't a huge cast, Kinky Boots has 22, Waitress has 18, 21 is within reason. You think the complexity of the lights and sound add to the weekly? I would think that adds to the start up costs."
"Complexity" has little to do with it. The amount of equipment that is being rented (a LOT) does.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 5:42pm
Liza's Headband said: "CFA's nut hovers around $400-450k. Comet's nut hovers around $800-850k.
"
Any idea where we can find out this for other shows? I'm curious how much Sunset Blvd was on a weekly basis. This type of information used to be a bit more well known
Posted: 8/1/17 at 5:46pm
Where has the 800 to 800k weekly running cost for Great Comet come from?
Posted: 8/1/17 at 7:06pm
dramamama611 said: "EVERY show is a risk.
I agree, but in most cases it is a case of whether the creatives will do a good job this time, and we know that the greatest producers, directors, authors, composers, lyricists, stars have lots of flops.
TGC is a different type of risk to me; I think it expected more from its audience than most musicals do. Agree with me or not, I think that is why it is in the trouble it is in now...despite excellent reviews, word of mouth has not been that good among occasional theatergoers: 'Josh was great, the staging was amazing, there were some good songs, and it was kind of boring'. That is why SITHWG has never been a big financial hit, minus Jake Gyllenhaal. It asked too much of its audience, the majority of whom want to be entertained after dinner.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 9:23pm
If "Comet.."''s nut is that high, or even over $600, it explains some of the agita and anxiety.
Anyone guess "Bandstand's? They are always about half a million, is that in the black every week?
Posted: 8/1/17 at 9:53pm
trpguyy said: "Up In One said: "21 isn't a huge cast, Kinky Boots has 22, Waitress has 18, 21 is within reason. You think the complexity of the lights and sound add to the weekly? I would think that adds to the start up costs."
"Complexity" has little to do with it. The amount of equipment that is being rented (a LOT) does.
What were the producers thinking saddling something as special as Comet with an 800k + weekly operating cost without having a major star lined up? Earlier in the season not even TDF could sell non-Josh performances at drastic discounts. A similar special show The Band'sVisit is taking the completely opposite tact with a very low weekly nut and a very low capitalization. Comets capitalization included reimbursing prior producers for the off Broadway runs of the show. Comet could have recouped already without that heavy weight to drag forward.
Posted: 8/1/17 at 11:50pm
COME FROM AWAY's word-of-mouth is amazing. It's a highly talked about Broadway show right now.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 8:02am
Up In One said: "21 isn't a huge cast, Kinky Boots has 22, Waitress has 18, 21 is within reason."
I believe Phantom has about 35.
Updated On: 8/2/17 at 08:02 AM
Posted: 8/2/17 at 9:34am
songanddanceman2 said: "Where has the 800 to 800k weekly running cost for Great Comet come from?"
from facts
Posted: 8/2/17 at 11:54am
I know this doesn't affect the running costs, but as far as recouping, I recall Riedel writing of many raised eyebrows at the Kagans adding the production costs of COMET in *each* of its iterations to the Bway capitalization. Often a show will add the out of town tryout, but they included the previous 2 runs, as well - and those lost money.
I'd imagine running costs in the 700s. If it's in the 800s, that's extremely expensive and would mean you'd have to be at a mil each week to be paying back investors. And if that's the case, they should have *known* they'd need a star! Oak ain't in the million dollar club yet.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 12:58pm
BJR said: "I know this doesn't affect the running costs, but as far as recouping, I recall Riedel writing of many raised eyebrows at the Kagans adding the production costs of COMET in *each* of its iterations to the Bway capitalization. Often a show will add the out of town tryout, but they included the previous 2 runs, as well - and those lost money.
I'd imagine running costs in the 700s. If it's in the 800s, that's extremely expensive and would mean you'd have to be at a mil each week to be paying back investors. And if that's the case, they should have *known* they'd need a star! Oak ain't in the million dollar club yet.
"
It is in the 800s, as mentioned here multiple times now.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 1:02pm
The high running cost is in fact prohibitively high for them to make back their money. Unless Bette Midler was playing Pierre. But the Kagans have always been less than the brightest bulbs.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 6:47pm
If you haven't got the offering papers or recent financial statements, you really don't know the running cost with or without Josh Groban. That said, this production was clearly planned to make huge grosses during his original run. While the show sold well, it simply didn't sell the number of premium seats that were hoped. This is one of the risks of star driven productions, the costs are higher and show might not flop but it needs consistently sky high grosses to maintain the margins necessary to make a profit. This is nothing new, Broadway has a history of big, can't miss (usually star driven) shows that sold well, had long runs but were expensive and never moved into the profit category (probably Irene with Debbie Reynolds or Woman of the Year with Lauren Becall).
Posted: 8/2/17 at 8:53pm
The SEC offering documents, which are easily accessible online, provide you with a basic understanding of the capitalization but not the weekly running expenses or weekly "nut" (there's a distinct difference). No clue what 'financial statements' refer to, unless you're speaking of the reports distributed to investors on a recurring basis; sometimes monthly, sometimes quarterly.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 10:02pm
Well I can tell YOU from facts that you are wrong.
Posted: 8/2/17 at 11:03pm
songanddanceman2 said: "Well I can tell YOU from facts that you are wrong."
Everyone has their own facts here too now?
Posted: 8/3/17 at 12:28pm
songanddanceman2 said: "Well I can tell YOU from facts that you are wrong.
"
Please leave the petty sniping out of threads dedicated to factual discussion. Thank you.
Posted: 8/3/17 at 2:24pm
PThespian said: "You just made my head spin with that circular argument, but we'll leave it at that.
You know I adore you, Liza, so go ahead and keep your little secrets. It's actually quite endearing."
One person's "endearing" is another person's "childish".
