MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG Reviews- Page 23

[binau]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 5:35pm

Yes I can understand it must feel odd or even unfair but the reality is that hard working ensemble member wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for Radcliffe - and the show wouldn't be grossing the way it is either. The value that the ensemble member adds is an acting job that many others can do for the same cost or often even less. The value that Radcliffe adds is acting + ticket sales. I do take your point that for very, very long running shows that just seem to rake in profit such as Hamilton it feels like there should be a little bit more to go around than currently. But I can't say I'm that sympathetic about this particular scenario - Merrily is a Sondheim show and was a historic flop, these are major stars, and the producers did take a risk bringing it to Broadway. The key people that took the risks and brought in the dollars would be the Producers and the lead stars, so it only makes sense to me that they receive a much greater share of the money than people who are more commodities that could easily be replaced in an instant if necessary. 

As far as I understand, correct if wrong but the original Hamilton cast did more than just act a part written on a page they were part of the creative process too and shaping of the material/direction/production for what is seen on stage even today. If true, I think they were more than just wise I think the deserve the money because they are adding irreplaceable value. 

Updated On: 7/9/24 at 05:35 PM

[binau]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 5:36pm

...

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 5:39pm

You make a lot of fair points but you also have to admit that the difference between $2,000 a week and $50,000 is pretty staggering.
 

Even retail workers get a bonus or commission when a certain budget is hit. If they can charge $1,500 a ticket I think the whole cast making Equity minimum should get a bonus.

Updated On: 7/9/24 at 05:39 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 8:18pm

TotallyEffed said: "You make a lot of fair points but you also have to admit that the difference between $2,000 a week and $50,000 is pretty staggering.


Even retail workers get a bonus or commission when a certain budget is hit. If they can charge $1,500 a ticket I think the whole cast making Equity minimum should get a bonus."

 

Going by that logic —- would it also be OK to ask all cast members to take a pay cut when a show is underperforming? 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 8:33pm

JSquared2 said: "TotallyEffed said: "You make a lot of fair points but you also have to admit that the difference between $2,000 a week and $50,000 is pretty staggering.


Even retail workers get a bonus or commission when a certain budget is hit. If they can charge $1,500 a ticket I think the whole cast making Equity minimum should get a bonus."



Going by that logic —- would it also be OK to ask all cast members to take a pay cut when a show is underperforming?"


How is that the same logic?

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 9:10pm

They should all be getting paid less and lower the price of tickets.  And he says it’s 1400 after tax, yes well, elect the people who will cut your taxes then. 

[Wick3]

Posted: 7/9/24 at 9:54pm

I agree it's Radcliffe who helped sell out this production with his worldwide fanbase. I believe Sondheim only knew of Radcliffe being casted before had passed away. Personally I wished they had casted 3 truly longtime friends in real life (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson,... and another longtime friend) but I'm also very happy with this trio. I still think this musical would have struggled if it didn't have an A-list celebrity (Radcliffe) in its cast.

Corey Mach makes a good point. Hopefully there was a bonus given to the actors and front/back of house folks? I recall at the end of Music Man a bonus was given to front of house folks though I believe someone on this board stated it was from Hugh Jackman or someone else and not from the producers.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 7/10/24 at 10:25am

That sounds very unlike Scott Rudin to do something like that, but in line with Hugh Jackman’s kind and generous personality.  And the word is CAST not casted. The word casted does not exist. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 7/10/24 at 10:42am

Broadway Flash said: "That sounds very unlike Scott Rudin to do something like that, but in line withHugh Jackman’s kind and generous personality. And the word is CAST not casted. The word casted does not exist."

Annoys me to no end when people use "casted" 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/31/99 at 7:19pm

Wick3 said: "I agreeit's Radcliffe who helpedsell out this production with his worldwide fanbase. I believe Sondheim only knew of Radcliffe being casted before had passed away. Personally I wished they had casted 3 truly longtime friends in real life (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson,... and another longtime friend) but I'm also very happy with this trio. I still think this musical would have struggled if it didn't have an A-list celebrity (Radcliffe) in its cast.

Corey Mach makes a good point. Hopefully there was a bonus given to the actors and front/back of house folks? I recall at the end of Music Man a bonus was given to front of house folks though I believe someone on this board stated it was from Hugh Jackman or someone elseand not from the producers."

I don't know what that would prove.  Per your example, Emma Watson would have been all wrong as Mary.  You could also not come up with a third name.  I don't imagine there are three close  longtime friends the right age who all have the talent and charisma to pull off those roles, and I am really not sure what the point would be.  I guess it could be considered stunt casting if they were famous enough.