Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 8/27/17 — Page 2

It just seems weird to run a show that's losing money weekly. I wonder what David Stone's motive is. For anyone who has seen the show, what is it lacking that has turned so many people away? Is it the book? Score? I know Patti and Christine are giving their all, so it's probably not the performances.

Itonlytakesajourney said: "It just seems weird to run a show that's losing money weekly. I wonder what David Stone's motive is. For anyone who has seen the show, what is it lacking that has turned so many people away? Is it the book? Score? I know Patti and Christine are giving their all, so it's probably not the performances.



"

I mean, its just my opinion but most of the songs are pretty bad.

I was a big fan of If/Then. I didn't follow the box office back then. Was it performing as badly as War Paint is now? If War Paint indeed runs for a year, it'll run until March? If so, at least, the crew will have jobs til then.

Anastasia is still performing very well. It has a strong, solid fanbase that lends themselves to many repeat viewings. Most people I've met/talked to have loved the show, and have you seen their stage door? Absolute madness.

I suppose Anastasia could collapse, but it's just lost what I assume was a big part of its audience - tourist families - and is still holding up well. Unless it gets crushed by Frozen next year, I think I will stick with my prediction that it will be the third-longest running show of its season after Come From Away and Dear Evan Hansen.

Yeah, I don't think we need worry about Anastasia. As for War Paint, I'm glad for the cast and crew as they continue to be employed. I really wish I could have fit this in to my show week (and I've been tempted to come in a day early so I can). While I haven't seen it and so can't speak to it's merit, my impression is that it's the type of show that - back in the day - would have been your typical modest one-season wonder - not a hit, not a flop but runs it's course over a season and moves out for the next show to move in. There were plenty of shows in the 50s and 60s that played a season or so and it was considered respectable. It's lamentable that the show isn't doing well because how often do we get truly original musicals written for an adult audience, with what I feel is a pretty solid score, and get to see two Broadway legends perform their hearts out in it?

Incidentally, This Week on Broadway's podcast from this Sunday features a great interview with War Paint composer Scott Frankel. They also review The Prince of Broadway much more favorably than I anticipated they would.

Off topic. ItOnlyTakesAJourney: I love your picture for your profile! So cool!

It is possible (as with all shows) that in a less crowded season they might have had a better chance - without Bette the Tony might have been LuPone or Ebersole's (should have been anyway) - and they would have had a better chance at scoring some more Tony nominations and wins without the multitude of other shows crammed into this season. The same could be said about Groundhog Day. It was a great season for a theatre lover - and it was surprising that almost everyone seemed to have a good start. But there is only so much audience, money and marketing space to go around.

Updated On: 8/29/17 at 12:33 AM

Itonlytakesajourney said: "It just seems weird to run a show that's losing money weekly. I wonder what David Stone's motive is. For anyone who has seen the show, what is it lacking that has turned so many people away? Is it the book? Score? I know Patti and Christine are giving their all, so it's probably not the performances."

It could be for his financials and tax purposes (either personal or for his company). "Wicked" is a money-maker, but to off-set it at the end of the year, he has "War Paint" which (allegedly) is a money-loser. They therefore balance each other out, and he's not stuck come tax time.

David10086 said: "It could be for his financials and tax purposes (either personal or for his company). "Wicked" is a money-maker, but to off-set it at the end of the year, he has "War Paint" which (allegedly) is a money-loser. They therefore balance each other out, and he's not stuck come tax time."

There is no strategy in which losing a dollar has a tax advantage. When you offset a dollar of Wicked profit with a dollar of War Paint loss, the tax benefit (let's say 40 cents) cost you a dollar to obtain. Net loss 60 cents.

HogansHero said: "David10086 said: "It could be for his financials and tax purposes (either personal or for his company). "Wicked" is a money-maker, but to off-set it at the end of the year, he has "War Paint" which (allegedly) is a money-loser. They therefore balance each other out, and he's not stuck come tax time."

There is no strategy in which losing a dollar has a tax advantage. When you offset a dollar of Wicked profit with a dollar of War Paint loss, the tax benefit (let's say 40 cents) cost you a dollar to obtain. Net loss 60 cents.





"

Does the producer have anything coming to Broadway this season? I wonder if, once warpaint was clearly a flop, he decided to take a loss to hold the theatre until his next show came out?...

I'm just curious what the number is that invokes the Nederlander stop clause for War Paint. $510k for a musical that big is just embarrassing.

Updated On: 8/29/17 at 12:28 PM