How much do the main leads of the top 2 shows in Broadway get? — Page 2

Thanks for all of the info, Margo. I knew that they could never make that much, even despite of Tony awards. You're right, people go for the show, not the people. Hence the reason that if Glinda/Elphaba are out, there isn't a noticeable number of refunds and empty seats.

---

the two witches in wicked each get 7,000 a week.

that's a fact.

---

Someone wrote: THe weekly salary is for weeks worked, not performances.

That's only true for scale performers; star salaries are often prorated for weeks with less than 8 performances.

Also, some leads have raises for a Tony nomination and/or win in their contracts.
Rules governing actor contracts on Broadway

If I had a dollar for every time Riedel made a mistake or was just flat out WRONG, I'd be a wealthy man. While most theatre professionals enjoy reading him because he's funny and goofy, they know that almost every column is filled with inaccuracies (I could give DOZENS of examples -- including flat out lies about actors I know whom I'm was actually with during certain incidents he reported totally wrong) and they take what he says with a grain of salt. He's not a journalist -- he makes up stories to sell newspapers (and look who he works for).

Mmes. Menzel and Chenoweth were NOT making $25,000, according to some rather prominent inside production sources.

---

i still think that equity pays like crap. sorry, but it;s true - cost of living in NYC (plus your sanity) = more than they pay.

sorry. i'm still bitter :)

$25,000 sounds highly unlikely to me. So the show is grossing around a million a week, you take out $50,000 for the two leads who really aren't selling tickets to the general public, before you take out royalties, theatre rental, other cast, orchestra, crew costs etc. No I don't think so.

The FHM Chenoweth cover isn't being used in Australia as no one here knows who she is.

Reportedly, Lane, Broderick, Peters and Close all made $50,000+ plus a percentage of profits when the gross reached a certain level.

Crawford and Jackman were likely in the same ball park, though I don't recall seeing official confirmation of that.

Roberts is probably up there too.

My guess for the highest ever? Billy Crystal. In addition to being the sole writer and star of 700 Sundays, he and his wife were the producers (along with Clear Channell). The show grossed over $1 million a week, so his weekly take must have been well in excess of $500,000 (possibly as high as $750,000+ depending on weekly costs and Clear Channel's cut).

---

Updated On: 3/9/06 at 10:25 PM

" even though they aren't bringing in much money and the actors aren't very good much of the time" Ouch!

I'm surprised that Peters would be in the $50,000 bracket being that she isn't that big a drawcard, especially to tourists from outside the U.S.

And Peters made even more than that for GYPSY. She actually is one of the biggest stage draws that we have. She's very well known by tourists all over the country and after a career spanning some 40+ years has proven to be a solid box office draw.

---

Absolute hogwash with regards to Menzel and Chenoweth and to rely on Reidel for truth is flat out funny. He's nothing more than a mean gossip columnist who's no more reliable than someone writing for the Enquirer. As for the FHM cover, it is in FACT, turning out to be one of their lowest selling cover. That should come as no surprise. I know it's really hard for most on this board to grasp but she is truly unknown outside of the theater community. It falls under the "what were they thinking" category. So much does nowadays.

The real joke about the rumors of outrageous broadway star salaries is that one person (like Riedel) reports it without any validity or research (not that anyone is going to come right out and TELL you anyway) and then other journalists pick it up and report it as if it were true.

When Lane and Broderick came back to the Producers for the second run, it was reported that they were each making $100,000 per week. In spite of public interviews with the Times and other papers where Lane and Broderick both denied this salary, it was (and is) merrily reported as truth.

When Lane went to London to do the Producers there, it was also reported as fact and was then applied to his run THERE.

Rather like the game 'telephone' us old curmudgeons played when we were in kindergarten.

The fact is that you most people wouldn't want someone asking THEM about their salary. It is their business and as long as they are selling tickets and paying the bills for the producers, the performer probably deserves what they get.

And by the way, when a basketball player or football player makes millions per year and loses games no one blinks...when a CEO is paid millions per year and his/her company is hemorrhaging money, no one takes the salary away.

We live in a weird, mercenary world, folks.

---

That's still a good salary in anyone's language.

For well-known A-1 list movie actors (Julia, Denzel, Hugh, etc), you would have to reckon with their opportunity loss ( because they forego movie roles during that time) when they commit to a run on Broadway. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they got paid only a small fraction (on Broadway) of what they get paid for a movie role. I am not sure if that applies to Broadway stars like Nathan and Matthew, as they are not as highly-rated in the movie business for their box office draw.