How much $$$...- Page 2

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:17pm

I somehow doubt that this show will ever play Broadway unless it seriously scales back the production. Union minimums and outrageous overtime costs will add six figures onto the weekly running costs -- break even would be well over $1 million per week in a Broadway theatre. Even if it played the Hilton (the only other Broadway houses with 1800 or so seats are booked for the foreseeable future) and charged $150 (which may or may not fly with the public) it would be an incredibly risky venture.

They might be better off at a much larger venue like the Theatre at Madison Square Garden (which would have to be convinced to give up its lucrative concert business for an extended period) where they could pack thousands in and perhaps have a more realistic chance at recouping. They'd be out of the running for the Tonys, but then I'm not sure how much that factors into the producers thinking with this show. It's not as if a $25 million show really needs to worry all that much about picking up a couple of Tony Awards in order to be able to run.

Updated On: 4/21/06 at 11:17 PM

[Tag]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:25pm

The thing with LOTR though is that if/when it is mounted in the West End or on Broadway then its intitial mounting cost will be significantly lower then it was for Toronto. The public figure given ($27 million Canadian) would be much lower for other productions because a significant amount of that money went into creation and invention. The real figure is a lot higher and would not be needed either since most of the money went into experimentation for the show.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:25pm

How big is the theatre in Toronto where it's playing?

[Tag]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:29pm

2000 seats, I have no clue if they are selling out though. They have already started to sell rear balcony discounted tickets, so I imagine that's not a good sign. BUT on the other hand they just extended for 12 weeks into September.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:39pm

Yeah, the best they could do on Broadway would be 1700 to 1800 seats. But, maybe there's some way they could make it work here. I'm sure there are people crunching numbers as we speak.

A big problem would be the union overtime costs which would be a huge financial drain on the show. There's a reason you very rarely see a Broadway show that is even a minute longer than three hours -- overtime for stagehands is outrageous. I can't remember the exact numbers, but for every minute past three hours, producers have to pay a huge penalty cost. The mind reels at how much a 4 and half hour show would set them back.

Another idea: whenever Cirque du Soleil is in town (as they are right now) they avoid all the main venues in town and play at a venue on Randall's Island (a few minutes from midtown Manhattan) which is large enough to accommodate their shows and gives them more seating room (it holds over 2500 seats). I believe the venue can be reconfigured for all sorts of different types of shows. Maybe a huge spectacle like LOTR might be better off there -- and I don't think they'd have to use union stagehands, but I'm not sure -- than in the more limited and expensive environs of a Broadway house.

Updated On: 4/22/06 at 11:39 PM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 11:57pm

^hence the reason for Les miz cuts.

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:00am

I don't know but is it possible that something was worked out with IATSE? When you think about it the show is about 3 hours and 40 minutes, not including pre and post show...that is A LOT of overtime.

Also if the show went into a non-traditional venue, I think it will loose some of its uniqueness. Its a big show BUT it still is intimate in a way.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:04am

It'll be interesting to see what the producers can work out. Clearly they want to get this show to New York and London, but they just need to work out all the details and union obstacles to make it financially feasible.

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:09am

I think it has been 'decided' that it will definetly go to the West End.
They won't need to spend as much intially as they did in Toronto. It was much higher then 27 million.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:26am

Whoa... all these LOTR talk is making me nervous. Does most of the producing cost come from salaries of performers and musicians? What about stage tech. and theatre space and ushers and such? Also, where does the money that they make go to (Gross-Operating cost=???) [I'm assuming the producer]

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:39am

Well right now the 1 million a week running cost is covering the salaries for actors, musicians, tech, FOH, venue rental, etc.
Right now they aren't making any money beyond that I doubt. When or if they starting making a profit they will need to recoup the 27+ investment and only after that can the producers start profiting from the show.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:40am

If they are just breaking even, they won't ever recoup

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 12:44am

Well we don't even know if they are breaking even.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:06am

Some of the $$ came from the Government (do they EVER expect to get investments back?) Esp to make LOTR a "destination" event in Toronto and is certainly featured in the Ontario tourist commercials. (tho WHY they decided to use "On With the Show" as tehir music is quite beyond my fathoming.
Truly, I don't see this transfering to N.Y. and frankly the problem w the West End transfer is that it would divert European audiences ( a prime target) from the original. The Mirvishes have already discovered just how impt tourist $$ are when you have competion. Its a survival of the most economic.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:06am

Some of the $$ came from the Government (do they EVER expect to get investments back?) Esp to make LOTR a "destination" event in Toronto and is certainly featured in the Ontario tourist commercials. (tho WHY they decided to use "On With the Show" as tehir music is quite beyond my fathoming.
Truly, I don't see this transfering to N.Y. and frankly the problem w the West End transfer is that it would divert European audiences ( a prime target) from the original. The Mirvishes have already discovered just how impt tourist $$ are when you have competion. Its a survival of the most economic.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:08am

"In many cases with shows that have a small band, there are musicians called "walkers" who just play cards backstage - all the while getting pay and benefits. It is, I believe, the same with IATSE, the stagehand's union (and locals please correct me if this has changed, I've been out here in Los ANgeles for a long time)."

As Margo has said, allmylife, this is no longer a terribly common practice for musicians and never has been the case with IATSE.

"There's a reason you very rarely see a Broadway show that is even a minute longer than three hours -- overtime for stagehands is outrageous. I can't remember the exact numbers, but for every minute past three hours, producers have to pay a huge penalty cost."

I hesitate to question you of all people, Margo, but are you sure that's true? For if so, how did Les Mis run for so long in that fashion? Or Nicholas Nickleby (obviously some major deal had to be worked out with that one)? While Les Mis eventually did cut back so that the show ran under three hours, I believe they saved only the hour between 11pm and midnight. Seems unlikely the producers would have run the show for so long over three hours if they were paying a nightly outrageous overtime penalty.

Not to mention, since a show's running time changes from night to night, wouldn't the paycheck change from week to week? Sounds like an accountant's nightmare.
Updated On: 4/22/06 at 01:08 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:27am

I've been up to Toronto to see LOTR and believe me, the carrying costs problem is the LEAST of the problems the show is going to face if it ever comes to New York. It's so hard to call it a musical. It's hard to describe what it is. But whatever you want to call it, it would be a huge gamble because frankly, it's all over the place artistically. I just wasn't impressed and I'm very much afraid the critics in New York would borrow knives from The Carnagie Deli and eviscerate it.

And thanks for the update on the union situation. Frankly, I haven't mounted a live play since 1985 and things have obviously changed.

Updated On: 4/22/06 at 01:27 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:32am

I remember that Nicholas Nickelby worked out all sorts of concessions with both the stagehands and US Equity in order for the show to be able to transfer here and run with the original London cast. It was a strictly limited engagement (three months and only 50 performances), but because of all the hype it was totally sold out and still managed to turn a profit as I recall (at the then unheard of ticket price of $100 a piece -- three times the top ticket price in those days, but then again the show was over 8 hours long).

I don't remember the deal with Les Miz, but I think that since it was a completely soldout hit for the first decade of its run (at least) it was able to absorb any additional overtime costs and still turn at a huge weekly profit. When box office started to slip, they made cuts in the running time.

However, I remember that when Angels in America ran on Broadway in the early 90s, the stagehands dubbed the show the "cash machine" because each part ran over three hours and overtime was apparently huge (Kushner eventually made cuts to both plays later in the run so that they came in at around 2:55 each). Unlike Les Miz, Angels, despite its acclaim, was never a soldout hit and ultimately the show lost $1.1 million during its 19 month Broadway run, due largely to its high running costs of which the overtime payments were a large part.

Updated On: 4/22/06 at 01:32 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 1:53am

"Not to mention, since a show's running time changes from night to night, wouldn't the paycheck change from week to week?"

If you have a good stage manager then the running time shouldn't vary, at the max 5 minute differances(execept in circumstances where a show starts late or has a problem).


"The Mirvishes have already discovered just how impt tourist $$ are when you have competion."

The only competetion Mirvish has had recently is with itself! When they had Mamma Mia, Producers, & Hairspray running at the same time, they couldn't fill the houses. They discovered that they could only be successful with 2 sitdowns and their subscription season. When they stretched to 3 shows and a subscription season they realized that their audience was being stretched too.
I'm not too familiar with the competetion Mirvish had with Livent in the 90s. But Livent ran Phantom for a healthy 10 years (and tryouts Fosse, Ragtime, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Showboat, Sunset, etc.) All while Mirvish had Miss Saigon, Crazy For You, Lion King, Rent, Les Mis, etc.
Things would be SO different if Livent was still around.
Updated On: 4/22/06 at 01:53 AM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 2:07am

"If you have a good stage manager then the running time shouldn't vary, at the max 5 minute differances(execept in circumstances where a show starts late or has a problem)."

Not entirely true, Tag. The Producers, for example, used to vary in running time pretty drastically depending on the actors' whim and audience reaction. It also used to run almost three hours, and on occasion, the play-off music was cut (by a very good stage manager) so that the hour (11pm) wouldn't be broken, incurring not overtime, but instead a full hour's pay for all involved. It's not overtime pay, but it adds up, and understandably they try to avoid it. The Producers now runs a little over 2 1/2 hours, although nothing has been cut.

Besides, if what Margo says is true (and I've never known Margo to be wrong before), and there's a huge penalty per minute after 11pm, every minute counts, and the paychecks would vary every week.


Updated On: 4/22/06 at 02:07 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 2:55am

I did say except when the show has a problem

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 2:59am

It seems that a large contingent of lawyers, crown attorneys, federal prosecutors, RCMP officers and SEC officials are GLAD that Livent is no longer around, n'est pas?

Updated On: 4/22/06 at 02:59 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:11am

Has there really been that much prosecuting? There hasn't been any news in a long time.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:27am

From The CBC News Service:

"Drabinsky, Gottlieb charged with fraud in Livent case
23 Oct 2002 12:17:02 EDT
CBC News
TORONTO, ON - The RCMP charged Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb, the co-founders of the once high-flying theatre company Livent, with 19 counts each of fraud following a four-year investigation into the business's books.

"We are alleging that the accused defrauded creditors and private and public investors of approximately one-half a billion dollars between Dec. 14, 1989, and June 23, 1998," RCMP Detective Inspector Craig Hannaford of the commercial crime unit told reporters during a news conference in Toronto.

"In addition, we estimate that approximately $210 million in market capitalization was lost between the time the trading of Livent shares halted on Aug. 10, 1998, and when trading resumed on Nov. 19, 1998," Hannaford said.

Drabinsky and Gottlieb both face charges of fraud over $5,000. Gordon Eckstein, Livent's former vice-president of finance, faces 18 counts of fraud, while Robert Topol, the company's former chief operating officer, is accused of 13 counts of fraud."

And of course, they have not returned to the United States where they also face indictment.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/22/06 at 3:37am

Nicholas Nickelby ran 8hrs? I'm guessing it didn't play on an 8 show week. I guess with only 50 performances, it didnt? It must have started at the matinee time and ran through the evening? How many intermissions? Did they actors get paid a lot? I've never heard of this show. Where did it play, etc. thanks.