Leading actor's salaries

[DoubleDown11]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 1:57pm

Hey guys. I was reading the other day about how much the producers will pay Matthew and Nathan to come back and reprive their roles in The Producers. Is this large weekly pay what leads usually get now-a-days on Bway or is their price incredibly inflated? What do the leads, supporters and chorus members usually get for their talents...I've always wondered about this? I get so bummed that some of those no-talent Hollywood types get 10-20 million (aka J-Ho) for crappy flicks but those on Bway who work every single day who can sing, act and dance get considerably less. Anyway...any discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 2:01pm

it veries GREATLY depending on the show, its producers, and teh person's 'star' status.
In a show like RENT, even the leads don't make a lot above minimum. On teh other end of teh spectrum, lane and Broderick pulled in about one million each for their original one year run.

[NuggetMonkeys]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 2:46pm

Nathan Lane got 2.5 million for his original run

[ShineOn]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 2:48pm

Leading actors usually get about $8,000 a week or more (depending on how big of a name they are, etc). For every show they miss that week, they lose a grand and their u/s gets it in addition to their regular salary.

[ChristineDaae]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 3:54pm

What about Sutton Foster, Hugh Panaro or Cary Shields? They make 8,000 a week to? All three are in title roles but they are not well known actors.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 3:54pm

cary is not in a title role.
like i said, the leads in rent are not highly paid at all.

[sondheimfreak]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 3:56pm

Whatever Melanie is getting is robbery. Highway robbery.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:00pm

I believe 1500 is base salary for a lead per week but agents usually negotiate ^ based on previously negotiated contracts, perks experience "name" value. Moral: get a good agent!!

[Al Dente]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:08pm

I'm not going to pretend I know this answer but I think it's safe to say that there is NO WAY Sutton Foster is getting 8 thousand a week. Perhaps now that she has a Tony and has renewed, maybe, but I'm sure she started with far less. The only people that pull in major cash are actual *stars* with name recognition beyond the confines of Broadway.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:22pm

al dente~ I would guess that Sutton Foster makes every bit of $8,000 +. That is not "big star" salary for a principal leading role, but more of an average salary for an average bd'w actor in a leading role.

Some leads, not major names either, in touring Bd'w productions make about $10,000 wk.X 50 wks.= $100,000. Not bad, if you spend a little and save some for a rainy day.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:26pm

I'm going to have to disagree with you PB. Not becuase I don't trust your knowledge on the subject (again, I have none) but it sounds preposterous!

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:36pm

So a "Hollywood" name makes much more than a Broadway legend? Even if the big Hollywood name has no Broadway or even musical/theatre experience? I think that's unfair. Updated On: 8/26/03 at 04:36 PM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:45pm

Sutton could well be nailing 8-10 per.

Big names (think Bernadette Peters or Hugh Jackman) are on a percentage vs. guarantee, whichever is higher. For convenience sake 75 grand against 10% plus perks like a car/driver. Stars on a percentage are not that many--Nathan and Matthew were probably on one and this 100G per will probably put them against 10-12.5% of the gross each. On the other hand it could be a flat fee.

Who ever said in a previous post that there is a WIDE range of salaries for leads hit the nail on the head. Depends on the show, the role, the particular actor, how much the show is grossing, a whole host of issues. The cast including leads of a long running, low grossing show without stars like Rent are probably not making a whole lot more than minimum.

Then there is the 'favored-nations contract'. This means that no one is paid more than anyone else with this clause in their contract. I would not be surprised if some of the actors on Enchanted April have this kind of clause. I wonder if Redgrave and Dennehey have it in Long Day's.

Stars in hits can make a nice piece of change especially in a high grossing musical.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:47pm

that's ok aldenti. I'm not the 'walking woman of theater knowledge", for sure. But I'm basing my guestimation on what I know others make and it seems reasonable to me. Hey! Maybe I'll ask her. She's doing a Pops Concert I'm covering in Jan. (just kidding).

Good question.."who makes more Hollywood name or Broadway Ledgend?" ummmm...my guess is Hollywood name, because films cost considerably more, have bigger exposure and earn bigger $$$. Next?

[Mattio98]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:48pm

$10,000 wk.X 50 wks= $500,000 not $100,000

big difference

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:54pm

See That!!! Is it easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
when did my wild oats turn into prunes and all brand?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:58pm

" when did my wild oats turn into prunes and all brand? "

when people started refering to CATS as a musical from teh golden age of Broadway. ::cringe::

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:02pm

ok Bd'w guy..meet me in the back room too! you're getting a beating with Namo...seperately!

WOSQ~ you are very right about the "favored nations" contract. One of my clients wisely implements this with all his concerts. It can be tough to price out with venues, but it's surely fair.

I am on awe of the prices some performers secure. Makes me want to have a baby and send HIM to Julliard toddler school!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:04pm

hey, I was simply meaning that it is frightening that peopel consider CATS to be from teh Golden Age of broadway.

Golden Age of Broadway is more like Jesus Christ Superstar.

::laughs while ducking to avois Playbil flying at head::


Just kidding. :)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:04pm

Oh, Patti, I tried that. It didn't work out. Lotsa love and what did it get me? "Thanks a lot" and out with the garbage.

Updated On: 8/26/03 at 05:04 PM

[DoubleDown11]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:14pm

So...I'm getting all kinds of numbers here. What's the average for:
HUGE Stars that carry a show: Matthew, Nathan etc

HUGE Bway Stars that carry a show: Bernedete etc

Bway leads: the Foster's etc

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:19pm

Like we said.. it varies greatly. It is honestly hard to post an estimate as to exact salaries of all performers.

I do know that both Marissa Winokur and Tina Maddigan have said that they live in Manhattan and have paid off student loans and credit card debt with the salries they made doing their respective shows. Updated On: 8/26/03 at 05:19 PM

[Jamie]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 5:25pm

Marissa was getting about 5,000

[QueenS]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 7:51pm

It also depends on whether you were in the original cast or not. Starting salaries are much higher and replacements go down considerably.

Minimum Bway salaries are $1300 a week and there are principals out there right now that aren't making much more than that.

What a star makes is not puplic information and unless anyone has seen the contract is only speculating on salary.

[nycgirl]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 7:57pm

true, jlo is over rated and makes to much for having a big butt and having a hott pheonsay(i have no idea how to spell that)and Broadway stars do deserve MUCH more they do 8 shows a week LIVE and do a wonderful job everynight....where as Hollywood stars get millions for lip-singing???? GRR that makes me angry