Most Expensive Musical- Page 2

[Jon]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 10:54pm

Why, there certainly was a ship = don't you recall those badly painted canvas flats that looked like they came from a high school show?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:01pm

Everybody is ignoring it but "Follies" is one of the most expensive shows in history, it never recouped its investment.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:07pm

for titanic we did get to see the ship sailing across the ocean for the act one finale... but I doubt that effect was hugely expensive ... and everyone keeps mentioning flop musicals. I don't think the initial question had anything to do with lost investments. just initial capitalization, but I could be wrong...

[GovernorSlaton]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:09pm

Follies was the most expensive musical ever when it opened, costing 800,000. I think it's being ignored because, though I'm not sure what it would cost when adjusted for inflation, it doesn't seem like a lot of money compared to shows now.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:16pm

Adjusting for inflation isn't really accurate, because not everything adjusts at the same time. I really hope B&B didn't cost $17 million, because I've seen better sets in college.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:24pm

I doubt the national tour sets that the Broadway show now uses cost 17 million...

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:26pm

Fosse76, where did you see it? The original sets at the Palace Theatre were quite impressive due to their shear size. They were very very expensive. ALl of the tours except for the 1st national tour were pretty scaled back. The Broadway production has been scaled back some. The ballroom and town sets are the tour sets.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 9/1/05 at 11:40pm

With known figures, Wicked WAS the most expensive, but Chitty topped that.

[RockabyeHamlet]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 12:01am

Im betting The Lion King, but Chitty is probably seccond, but its the one we have a definate fiqure for. But The Lion King HAD to cost at least 15 mil, not counting what Disney put into rebuilding the Amsterdam.

[Popular]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 12:14am

Didn't Livent go broke with RAGTIME? Not saying it was the most expensive but can someone clear up for me what went on with it? My friend toured with it and I saw it in several cities. It seemed by the end they had half the cast and it was VERY scaled down.

[DefyingEDCT]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 12:29am

When Wicked came out it was the most expensive musical. About musicals after it Im not sure.

[DefyingEDCT]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 12:32am

http://www.kqed.org/spark/artists-orgs/bestofbroa.jsp#

watch the movie. it should say its the most expensive.

[Jon]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 5:44am

I don't know why everyone is focusing on scenery. Most expensive scenery does NOT equal most expensive show.

RAGTIME put Livent out of business because the cast was too big, and Garth Drabinsky "cooked the books" to make it seem like it was earning more money that it really was.

[WickedJerseyGirl]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 6:21am

Though I know I heard that Wicked was the most expensive when it opened, everywhere I search still says that The Lion King still holds the "most expensive" title. Actually, at $14 million, I may have heard it was the most expensive of the season. Chitty has the most expensive prop ever.

[Lamenting_Alto]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 7:30am

i thought that spamalot got like a 25 or 27 million dollar advance...maybe thats different...i dont know...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 10:24am

Advance is ticket sales, not the cost of the show (and Spamalot didn't cost anymore than $15 million).

I strongly believe the title goes to Lion King, though it's hard to know even the ball park figure for the show (and Disney will never tell). I've heard quotes of upwards of $50 million that they spent on that incredible renovation of the New Amsterdam and then the actual creation and mounting of the show. All estimates I've ever heard about the cost of just the show by itself have been in the $20 to $25 million range.

Updated On: 9/2/05 at 10:24 AM

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 9/2/05 at 10:43am

Oh who cares? Let's just stay locked up for another half an hour. The police are coming and there are two dead bodies in the study!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 12:49am

"Fosse76, where did you see it? The original sets at the Palace Theatre were quite impressive due to their shear size. They were very very expensive. ALl of the tours except for the 1st national tour were pretty scaled back. The Broadway production has been scaled back some. The ballroom and town sets are the tour sets."

Broadway. The night "Harry Potter" came out.

[whiskedaway]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 1:23am

I think the title may go to the new production of Phantom of the Opera opening in Vegas

"Clear Channel Entertainment will produce a 90-minute, $35 million version of the Tony Award-winning musical, set to open in the spring of 2006 at the Venetian hotel-casino, according to a source familiar with the hotel's negotiation."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2004/jul/24/072410693.html

and that dosent include the $25 million they are spending to create the theater that will house it.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 1:25am

Livent's problems had nothing to do with Ragtime. Garth Drabinski was known for his elaborate musicals. As a result, to make the shows look more profitable than they actually were, he cooked the books so that he could a bigger return on his "investments". It all came out just as the Chicago sit-down was opening, and since Livent owned the Oriental Theatre, it doomed the show. It was in the papers everyday, and people stopped buying tickets because they were afraid the company would close the show of it declared bankruptcy. What actually happens is each new production of a show is actually a separate company. I guess you could say it runs like a subsidiary of the Broadway show. Each production runs independently. Had Livent gone under while Ragtime was playing (it was bought out I believe), it was making enough money to sustain itself.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 2:46am

So the video says Wicked cost $14 Million, which is what I had orignally heard, yet Spam. cost $15 Million? Is that cause of the cast? How much do they pay the leads? I mean the set and lighting and costumes and effects are way inferior to the Wicked sets and stuff. Also - on a sidenote - I thought Wicked played its outta town tryout at the Orpheium? But the video says Curan?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 3:09am

Spamalot cost $10 million I believe, due to previous articlesin playbil and broadway.com

[AnotherDay46]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 3:10am

I always thought it was Dance of the Vampires, maybe it was just the most expencive flop?

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 9/3/05 at 6:34am

Now I KNOW the biggest money loser in Broadway history was TE CAPEMAN, at a whopping $75 million in the red! Thinks of the things that could have been done with all that money!

FYI, the first Broadway show to lose $1 million was the Robert Goulet/David Wayne musical THE HAPPY TIME in 1968.