Cursed Child Cast Contract Drama?

$200/week raise ($10K/year) doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since the play is so expensive and won't recoup for a while. I don't know how much of a raise Book of Mormon or Hamilton gave original actors who extended, but those shows recouped in about 8 months.

Each actor is making minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum) and the principals probably make a little more –– not a bad gig! For most of these 40 actors, Potter is the longest straight-play contract they'll ever have. And if other opportunities (TV guest spots, films, other plays) arise from being in Potter, that's a great thing.

I don't think the UK actors can even extend past a year? And hasn't the West End company replaced most of the actors after the 1-year mark? The piece seems poorly written.

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 10:43 AM

SomethingPeculiar said: "$200/week raise($10K/year) doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since the play is so expensive and won't recoup for a while. I don't know how much of a raiseBook of MormonorHamiltongave original actors who extended, but those shows recouped in about 8 months.

Each actor is making minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum) andthe principals probably make a little more –– not a bad gig!For most of these 40actors, Potteris the longest straight-play contract they'll ever have. And if other opportunities (TV guest spots, films, other plays)arise from being inPotter,that's a great thing.

I don't think the UK actors can even extend past a year? And hasn't the West End company replaced most of the actors after the 1-year mark?The piece seems poorly written."



Apparently, some of the original UK cast members that came over with the show are on quite a lot more than that. I have a friend involved with it but I couldn’t say whether what they said is true or not. I’d certainly be interested if anyone can shed any light on that...

$200 per week equates to $800 a month, which means an extra $9600 a year. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd kill for a $9600 raise.

I don't consider the offer unfair at all.

Wait, are you telling me that an ensemble member of a Broadway show is making "minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum)"?

If that is so, I am clearly in the wrong profession.

I'm curious as to why people are seemingly questioning the $105K/year figure. That's the Equity minimum. There should be no question that the cast is making at least that much. The Equity contract is publicly available.

Hamilton was a very different situation, their argument was that they had contributed to the show in significant ways and were partly responsible for the show's design (so to speak). Lines added that the actors had ad-libbed, the harmonies for The Schuyler Sisters coming from the girls as well, stuff that will live on long after they left. Their argument was we helped make this show what it is, we deserve to share in the success.



This argument seems to be "Pay us more because you can afford it". Now it's entirely fair to say "I could be making X dollars if I took this other job offered to me, you need to offer me comparable money if you want me to stay". But it's also fair for producers to say "Cool, happy trails"

In my opinion, Hamilton caved quickly, as those contributions' by actors leading to the show's success is questionable at best (unlike say, A Chorus Line). But Hamilton has 8 different audiences per week, and only requires 1 performance for the show. Harry Potter is in a more tenuous position. With only 4 unique audiences weekly, and a two-show time commitment, it's probably making less money than if it wasn't two parts. It's cheaper to see both parts in London, so it isn't quite clear how long audiences are willing to pay the current high prices. Especially once productions become more ubiquitous.

I know New York is expensive, and actors have union dues, agent, and management fees, but $200/week is a 9.8% raise for anyone paid Equity minimum. I am luck when I get a 3% raise at work. And most people don't even get that, if they get one at all. And the kids' parent should be happy with that raise. The two boys are being paid 105K/year and only perform four performances a week each, while the two girls are paid 105K/year and only perform twice a week each.

AEA minimum production contract salary is now $2,348.89 (including the term and media fees), so that's actually $122,142 a year. PLUS health and pension benefits, PLUS if the actor is not an American citizen (as is the case for much of the Potter cast), they are also getting at least $74 per day for food and possibly some form of housing stipend. Not bad. Sure there are dues and agent commissions --- but just like most any other profession, those are just part of the cost of doing business.

For those who think they should still be getting a higher raise just because the show is doing well, would you also support the producers of an under performing show, say, HEAD OVER HEELS reducing the AEA salary by $200/week?

JSquared2 said: "For those who think they should still be getting a higher raise just because the show is doing well, would you also support the producers of an under performing show, say, HEAD OVER HEELS reducing the AEA salary by $200/week?"

It's an interesting question. Salary floors are there for a reason, but say if a show brought it a bigger name actress at 10k/week and the show was doing poorly so they asked her to take a pay cut down to 5k/week, would that provoke outrage?

I think it's always the right of a performer to decide what they are worth, and what they are willing to pay for. However, it's also the production's right to decide how much they're willing to pay for a performer. If they can't agree on what someone is worth, that person will have to find another gig. (Keeping in mind equity requirements that ensure no one is being exploited)

Regardless of the Equity minimum, a near $10,000 a year raise is more than reasonable. I am all about supporting actors, but they seem like they need to get a grip. As others have pointed out, no one in the real world gets raises like that. My last raise equated to $19 a paycheck, so around $38 a month. And I was thrilled to get that, and it took arbitration to get to that number.

I saw the original cast of this show and thought they were wonderful. However, they are not irreplaceable, and if they think attendance is going to drop just because they left then they're deluding themselves.

I am just shocked to learn and compare the minimum wage set by Equity. Because, if a member works for a full year, they would be making as must as some senior principals in my school board, and professors at universities...which we consider high paying jobs in my area. I'm in a 120,000 person town.

It's just mind blowing. Good for the performers! They deserve it.

fashionguru_23, it can certainly be very lucrative if an ensemble member sticks with a show for a few years (thinking of someone like Thayne Jasperson at Hamilton, or some of the folks at Phantom). But unlike a school principal, they're not guaranteed years of employment. They could get hurt, or replaced, or the show could close. They could work for a year and not book another Broadway show for 3 years. Or make $500 a week Off-Bway/regionally for 6 weeks at a time.

Any kind of screen work is coveted because it will usually pay more per week than Broadway. Ed Sherrin and Warren Leight have talked about how they tried to cast as many theatre actors as they could on LAW & ORDER, and it's great that there are more TV shows/films filming in NYC nowadays. But theatre is a tough gig.

Dianne Weist (a 2-time Oscar winner) had trouble paying her rent a few years ago. Lainie Kazan got caught shoplifting last year. Total speculation, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons Elaine Stritch continued concertizing until the very end was that she needed the money –– an apartment at the Carlyle ain't cheap! (She also loved performing and it kept her active)

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 02:18 PM