Eden & Megan

[lightguy06222]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 5:34pm

sometime in july i believe??? 6 month contract, right?

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 6:06pm

They will both be there in the fall.

I know for a fact Megan will be staying for sure through October.

She has an open ended contract, so she can actually stay as long as she wants, but if she ends up doing the movie she was offered she will be leaving in October.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 8:37pm

Hilty is leaving the show in October. Espinosa was initially contracted through August but is in the process of discussing a renewal that could have her there through October as well.

No official word yet on replacements but both of the standby's (Emily Rozek and Julie Reiber) are likely to assume the roles full time.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:10pm

It astonishes me how long Megan has been doing that role.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:22pm

Blondey's got great agents. Take the money as long as she can....(even if she is working for scale, like rumored).

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:28pm

Sorry but, what does working for scale mean? I'm not in on all of these terms.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:31pm

Scale is the bottom line Equity payment ($1465). The Elphaba/Glinda portrayers usually get between $5 and $7 thousand a week. Megan, I've heard through different grapevines, is one of the most long running Glinda's because she works for cheap.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:37pm

I wish she would do something new.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:46pm

Hilty doesn't work for scale but makes significantly less than most performers in the role do (I've heard about $3,000 a week.)

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:50pm

Somebody should tell her to ask for a raise. Maybe her agents aren't so good...
Updated On: 5/12/07 at 10:50 PM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 5/12/07 at 10:54pm

If what somethingwicked said was true, she should have negotiated to get better money for the L.A. run of the show.

[Horton]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 8:19am

You are all ridiculous, you know nothing about Meg's contract, and you are insulting her and her agents, there are plenty of reasons why she could potentially be paid less, for example when my dad was a professor of statistical engineering at Columbia University he only made about $ 80,000--but the University gave him a 3 bedroom apartment, in a wonderful neighborhood, overlooking central park, so it was well worth it for him, a similar thing could be happening here.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 8:54am

Horton - that's like comparing apples and onions.

There's no doubt that they're paying for her living arrangements in Los Angeles, but in no way does that come out of her weekly salary.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 9:25am

Regarding her living conditions, I'm positive that her paycheck isn't going toward living arrangements or travel issues. For a performer with her experience and her age, I don't see why she should be making a HUGE salary just because she's in a high profile role.

It IS amazing how long she's been in the show but the good thing is that she's still great and she's still so fresh that you'd never know she was performing it for over two years.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 9:44am

My thoughts on why she's getting paid less than previous Glindas - she's a nobody. Kate Reinders, Kendra Kassebaum, Jennifer Laura Thompson, and Kristin Chenoweth all have numerous Broadway credits to their name. Megan does not.

And, while I cannot comment on her payscale, I do think she's entitled to a tad bit more having done it for so long.
Updated On: 5/13/07 at 09:44 AM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 12:38pm

Horton, that is a different situation in terms of careers.

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 2:27pm

Megan is making plenty of money, so you don't need to worry about her. The new contracts just cam einto the theater yesterday, and the wallets of these actors are not hurting. In fact most of the cast is making above equity minimum. Good agents these guys have

The understudys in the LA cast (Emily, and Julie) won't be assuming the roles once they left. The LA company wants to keep people who are a "name" in the community of wicked playing the parts...so tickets will keep being sold. They will likely fill in for awhile if no one has yet to have been cast, but don't look for a full headlining gig to be coming their way. Especially because Julie may be leaving again to go back to a different OZ.

In their contracts they also have full housing, travel, and per dium also

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 2:29pm

With all the $$ Wicked takes in, I should hope they're making above minimum.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 4:27pm

"The understudys in the LA cast (Emily, and Julie) won't be assuming the roles once they left. The LA company wants to keep people who are a "name" in the community of wicked playing the parts...so tickets will keep being sold. They will likely fill in for awhile if no one has yet to have been cast, but don't look for a full headlining gig to be coming their way. Especially because Julie may be leaving again to go back to a different OZ."

I disagree with your assessment of the production team wanting to keep "names" in the part to keep ticket sales up. People don't come to "Wicked" to see whose playing Elphaba or Glinda; they fill those seats to see the juggernaut that is the show, regardless of whose in it.

The producers have proven very prone to promoting standby's and understudies to lead roles and have done so in every single company so far (Shoshana Bean, Eden Espinosa, Victoria Matlock, Erin Mackey, Dee Roscioli, Kristy Cates, Derrick Williams, and Kris Cussick just to name a few.) I see no reason why they'd suddenly change their casting philosophy, especially when it has worked so well in the past.

Any time a new talent is hired even in the standby variety (like they've been doing lately) it is a suprise. While I think some new faces in these roles would do the show good, the company just feels more confident in people they've already had prove able to maintain the show (hence the constant recycling.)

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 5:42pm

completely random lol, but i was thinking. eden has worked with sooo many glindas.

kristin chenoweth
laura bell bundy
jennifer laura thompson
kendra kassebaum
emily rozek
megan hilty
katie adams
kate reinders

wow lol! thats alot of adapting
Updated On: 5/13/07 at 05:42 PM

[HumATune]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 6:01pm

In a general sense none of the actors are hurting for money—not at $1465 a week as the minimum. That said, they should make a competitive salary, which is certainly higher than that.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 6:14pm

You try living in NYC at $1465-a-week.

It's easier with the LA/tour companies - they get living expenses thrown in.

[HumATune]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 7:03pm

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area; therefore, know about high cost of living. I would be very happy making $1465 a week.

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 5/14/07 at 2:56am

SomethingWicked

-The producers have already offered the roles to two other women, both very well known in the Wicked world (and NOT Julie or Emily) Contracts are in negotitations for replacing Eden and Megan. the only way Julie or Emily will get headliner is if these offers fall through.

Only time will tell what happens.

[sweeedboy]

Posted: 5/14/07 at 11:03am

I find it funny when people say 'try living on equity minimum.'
I make FAR, FAR less than equity minimum and somehow I still manage to live in a very nice section of Manhattan in a nice apartment. I also still manage to go to dinners, drinks, shows, etc.

The thing that one must take into account is not the amount that these people are making, but the length they are on salary. If a show fails in four months, they are out of a job...and thus aren't getting paid. I think that is the real issue, not the actual amount the paycheck.