MATILDA Recoups Broadway Investment!
#2
Posted: 12/5/14 at 11:12am
CONGRATULATIONS! So happy for this show!
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#3
Posted: 12/5/14 at 11:20am
$16 million budget? wow. I had no idea it was that high.
#4
Posted: 12/5/14 at 11:30am
Congrats to a much deserved show.
#5
Posted: 12/5/14 at 11:32am
It took longer than I was thinking but with a 16 million dollar budget, I can now see why.
Congrats!! Good for them..
Congrats!! Good for them..
#6
Posted: 12/5/14 at 11:44am
Woo hoo! Always a good day when a show recoups.
#7
Posted: 12/5/14 at 1:14pm
But the fact that a hit show playing to great houses for the most part took so long to recoup is a great example of why it's so hard to get people to invest in musicals these days. And it's also why I hate it every time I hear people here bitch and moan about "greedy producers."
CZJ at opening night party for A Little Night Music, Dec 13, 2009.
#8
Posted: 12/5/14 at 3:07pm
^^^ Very true, good point.
I don't really understand how shows recoup - per se. Could someone more knowledgable than I explain.
I believe (and I hate to compare these two AGAIN but I am only bringing it up because it's a show I know something about..not that I am talking about show quality) Kinky Boots recouped in a much shorter time with a 13 million dollar budget. Is it because the Shubert is a larger theater, Matilda has more operating costs, etc. ? Both have had excellent sales and opened at the same time of year..
Does someone have more insight than I do (well obviously many people have more insight) in recouping?
I don't really understand how shows recoup - per se. Could someone more knowledgable than I explain.
I believe (and I hate to compare these two AGAIN but I am only bringing it up because it's a show I know something about..not that I am talking about show quality) Kinky Boots recouped in a much shorter time with a 13 million dollar budget. Is it because the Shubert is a larger theater, Matilda has more operating costs, etc. ? Both have had excellent sales and opened at the same time of year..
Does someone have more insight than I do (well obviously many people have more insight) in recouping?
#9
Posted: 12/5/14 at 3:30pm
"But the fact that a hit show playing to great houses for the most part took so long to recoup is a great example of why it's so hard to get people to invest in musicals these days."
It doesn't always play to great houses. They had ups and downs.
It doesn't always play to great houses. They had ups and downs.
#10
Posted: 12/5/14 at 3:43pm
This was a great article about Matilda and how it transferred, in relation to budget issues:
With those economics in mind Mr. Warchus and the “Matilda” producers opted for a Plan B in hopes of a long run on Broadway: Limit the musical’s weekly running costs as much as possible. In doing so they are hoping to avoid the surprising fate of another British musical with many children in the cast, “Billy Elliot.”
That show opened on Broadway in November 2008 to smashing reviews, won 10 Tony Awards and recouped its $18 million investment, yet it closed in January 2012, sooner than most theater executives expected. While ticket sales had softened, they were still good. But the weekly running costs were so high, because of the large cast and the frequent dance rehearsals, that the producers moved on before putting their Broadway profits at risk.
To minimize costs for “Matilda” Mr. Warchus told his designers to add nothing for Broadway; usually British shows become more lavish when they transfer to New York. And he decided to have fewer rotating ensembles of child performers than either the London version of “Matilda” or the Broadway production of “Billy Elliot.” (“Matilda” does have four girls rotating in the title role, similar to the multiple Billys in “Billy Elliot.”) By relying instead on actors’ rotating in multiple roles Mr. Warchus did not need to hire as many children, who can inflate budgets because of special needs like tutoring.
The weekly operating costs for “Matilda” are believed to be about $600,000, while the “Billy Elliot” nut was closer to $800,000.
One of the executive producers of “Matilda” in New York, André Ptaszynski, said the “budget paring” was critical because both the overall capitalization costs and weekly expenses can be three to four times greater than in London, in large part because of Broadway union contracts. Mounting the London production of “Matilda” cost £2.5 million, about $3.8 million, compared to the Broadway capitalization of $16 million.
Matilda Arrives on Broadway with Big Dreams
With those economics in mind Mr. Warchus and the “Matilda” producers opted for a Plan B in hopes of a long run on Broadway: Limit the musical’s weekly running costs as much as possible. In doing so they are hoping to avoid the surprising fate of another British musical with many children in the cast, “Billy Elliot.”
That show opened on Broadway in November 2008 to smashing reviews, won 10 Tony Awards and recouped its $18 million investment, yet it closed in January 2012, sooner than most theater executives expected. While ticket sales had softened, they were still good. But the weekly running costs were so high, because of the large cast and the frequent dance rehearsals, that the producers moved on before putting their Broadway profits at risk.
To minimize costs for “Matilda” Mr. Warchus told his designers to add nothing for Broadway; usually British shows become more lavish when they transfer to New York. And he decided to have fewer rotating ensembles of child performers than either the London version of “Matilda” or the Broadway production of “Billy Elliot.” (“Matilda” does have four girls rotating in the title role, similar to the multiple Billys in “Billy Elliot.”) By relying instead on actors’ rotating in multiple roles Mr. Warchus did not need to hire as many children, who can inflate budgets because of special needs like tutoring.
The weekly operating costs for “Matilda” are believed to be about $600,000, while the “Billy Elliot” nut was closer to $800,000.
One of the executive producers of “Matilda” in New York, André Ptaszynski, said the “budget paring” was critical because both the overall capitalization costs and weekly expenses can be three to four times greater than in London, in large part because of Broadway union contracts. Mounting the London production of “Matilda” cost £2.5 million, about $3.8 million, compared to the Broadway capitalization of $16 million.
Matilda Arrives on Broadway with Big Dreams
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
#11
Posted: 12/5/14 at 3:57pm
But the fact that a hit show playing to great houses for the most part took so long to recoup is a great example of why it's so hard to get people to invest in musicals these days. And it's also why I hate it every time I hear people here bitch and moan about "greedy producers."
It doesn't play to "great" houses. Only weekends are selling well. There have been quite a few weekdays in whhich the blacony was closed due to too few people in the audience. Unfortunately, there are enough people willing to pay the absurd premium prices to compensate for the low numbers.
It doesn't play to "great" houses. Only weekends are selling well. There have been quite a few weekdays in whhich the blacony was closed due to too few people in the audience. Unfortunately, there are enough people willing to pay the absurd premium prices to compensate for the low numbers.
#12
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:02pm
Congrats to the best show on Broadway!
....but the world goes 'round
#13
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:03pm
I wouldn't be surprised if this closes in June. Critics creamed but word of mouth is far from ecstatic. Over rated show.
#14
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:03pm
Congrats, definitely had a great time at this show more than once...
#15
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:04pm
Why do people use ejaculatory metaphors to describe being happy? It's crass.
As for the show, I'm glad an original musical with a high budget made its money back.
As for the show, I'm glad an original musical with a high budget made its money back.
#16
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:06pm
"Why do people use ejaculatory metaphors to describe being happy?"
You tend to be more sad when you ejaculate? ;-(
You tend to be more sad when you ejaculate? ;-(
#17
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:13pm
Matilda was based on a book, so it wasn't original.
As for "creamed," I always understood that as a negative thing. ("got creamed," etc.)
As for "creamed," I always understood that as a negative thing. ("got creamed," etc.)
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
#18
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:15pm
"Got creamed" is a different context than the way "creamed" was used earlier. It does describe a positive reaction, although it is often used somewhat condescendingly.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 12/5/14 at 04:15 PM
#19
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:25pm
Interesting. I was never good with English idioms, so confusing. 
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
#20
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:31pm
Best new musical on Broadway right now. Congrats!
#21
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:37pm
I'm actually more interested in why U.S. capitalization is so ridiculously high compared to West End: "Mounting the London production of 'Matilda' cost £2.5 million, about $3.8 million, compared to the Broadway capitalization of $16 million."
Leading to high ticket costs and even higher risk of not recouping... Doesn't look like a sustainable business model at all, really.
Leading to high ticket costs and even higher risk of not recouping... Doesn't look like a sustainable business model at all, really.
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
#22
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:39pm
Congrats to Matilda. I loved every minute of the show.
#23
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:42pm
Congrats to the best show on Broadway!
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so! I adore this show.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so! I adore this show.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#24
Posted: 12/5/14 at 4:43pm
As for the UK capitalization, they don't pay the actors on the West End as much as Broadway actors are paid. Our Broadway actors are required to join Equity which negotiates the higher salaries. UK actors aren't required to join their Equity.
Not sure how much of a difference that makes in capitalization but it does in running costs.
Not sure how much of a difference that makes in capitalization but it does in running costs.
#25
Posted: 12/5/14 at 8:22pm
^ Child Actors in the UK aren't pay nearly as highly as their American counterparts, I read somewhere that a child performer if a lead is paid £60 a show plus UK laws mean that they can only do a certain amount of performances hence why they usually triple or quadruple cast the children in these type of shows which makes shows that have child performers especially ones with groups of children like Billy Elliot or Matilda expensive to run both in the West End and Broadway.
Billy Elliot cost £5.5m to put on in the West End but $18m on Broadway and while it recouped on Broadway, it ended up losing money on the US National tour and the Australian production
Billy Elliot cost £5.5m to put on in the West End but $18m on Broadway and while it recouped on Broadway, it ended up losing money on the US National tour and the Australian production
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $70