Hamilton Casting Offered a $35k Bonus?

Has this every happened before? An original cast getting either a bonus or a share of the profits?

Per Reidel:

"A revolution’s brewing at “Hamilton.” I hear the cast is demanding at least 1 percent of the show’s profits because of its success and the effort they put into the workshops. Writer-star Lin-Manuel Miranda supports them, and helped them draft a letter setting forth their demands. Fortunately, it wasn’t in rhyming couplets.

Sources say the producers offered each actor a $35,000 bonus, but that the cast is holding out for more. (The producers refused to comment.) Stay tuned."

How is this any part if a vendetta? I don't see how it's negative...IF they get anything, the producers look good....sharing the wealth.

I have no idea if it's true. They aren't entitled to anything, legally, as they all signed contracts. No way they didn't know after the public that this would be huge.

It's even debatable if the deserve "more", they put in no bigger risk then actors in any other show.

In a perfect world, I'd always like to see the worker bees of any industry be financially rewarded when their effort is part of success for an organization. I don't believe you'll find too many that are like that, however.

We had a local family business (very successful furniture store) that decided to sell, although they are still the ceo's of the company. They sold for a poop load of $$, and turned around and gave every employee bonus checks based on length of employment regardless of job title. I think you had to be there for a minimum of two weeks. (That could be way off) I can't remember what percentage if their payout they gave back, but it was pretty impressive. Pretty classy. And so rare that it's newsworthy.

Updated On: 9/19/15 at 05:21 AM

If this is true and the "final" deal/agreement is leaked, you can expect other casts to begin demanding this. Quite unprecedented, even when factoring in BOOK OF MORMON (assuming that's true), but it makes sense. I'm surprised it has taken this long.

Oh yes, soooooooooooo unprecendented. COUGHachoruslineCOUGH

Updated On: 9/19/15 at 09:44 AM

At the bottom of this: http://nypost.com/2015/09/17/daniel-craig-wants-to-play-someone-more-badass-than-bond/

What AEA says above is true. In a workshop agreement, all performers share in a royalty after the fact. The "Rent" cast got this, for instance. It's not uncommon. Lately, however, an agreement has come into existence called a "Workshop Lab" that does not pay future royalties. Technically a Lab contract is to be used to work on a "specific element" - the choreography, the stage combat, the music arrangements, etc. Usually I've found they're just used instead of the traditional Workshop contract to avoid paying the future royalties.

For "A Chorus Line", the dancers whose stories were used were famously given very small buyouts. Am I correct in recalling that Priscilla Lopez was offered $1? The original cast of "Hair" felt that they should have at least gotten some credit because so much of the show was their improvs (compare the published pre-rehearsal script of "Hair" to the licensed script and you can easily tell what were ad libs and improvs) but they never were.

'Twill be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not like the production can't afford it, though I imagine there are people on the producing/management team wailing as loudly as possible that they simply can't. The same way "Kinky Boots" can't afford to pay full production contract salary for the road tour, despite the Broadway production grossing over $1M every week. The rich get richer and artists should be grateful to get to do what they love.

Updated On: 9/19/15 at 10:32 AM

Equity's comment would be "no comment." They have no dog in this race.

I wonder if they're going in and asking for the same % increase of current pay , otherwise, that might lead to more trouble since there are some cast members that producers could see as replaceable.

I don't really see how this can possibly apply to actors and not also apply to the musicians and other talent.

Also, yes it would be unprecedented. While stars often have a box office cut, if it is true that the whole cast is going after extra $$ after the fact of signing their contracts, just because it is a hit...... That isn't how the union contracts are set up.

If so - wouldn't the casts of Wicked and Mamma Mia and Lion King, etc, have been able to do the same? It would be a sketchy precedent for the producers to set. These things are best laid out in initial negotiations. Which could still be the case - it is Reidel after all so his facts may not be solid. But if they are, it seems a bit shady.

I don't understand what's going on with all of this, but I spotted a tweet floating around and thought it was relevant:

https://twitter.com/Actor_Friend/status/649016828539314176

They're all replaceable in my eyes