Posted: 8/20/18 at 10:48pm
An investor said that Network is the most expensive play ever, with a budget of $7.5 million. Is this because of the dining area, which added an exciting dimension to the production? And is it only playing seven performances a week. Ticket prices are probably going to be very high since it's in a smallish theatre with a second balcony. If it's the National, is it a non-profit production?
Posted: 8/20/18 at 10:54pm
Posted: 8/20/18 at 10:55pm
Saw it in London. Cranston's excellent but the play itself is considerably less than the "dazzle" of the production. Ivo is a master of creating stage magic at the expense of content and here that's mostly a good thing. The William Holden-Faye Dunaway relationship is shortchanged here and the drama lacks the power of the film.
Posted: 8/20/18 at 10:58pm
Whoops, forget about that. But, even though it won the Tony Award, I consider that more an entertainment event than a play...the spectacle is truly overwhelming.
Posted: 8/20/18 at 11:01pm
fitzdavid2 said: "Whoops, forget about that. But, even though it won the Tony Award, I consider that more an entertainment event than a play...the spectacle is truly overwhelming."
What you consider is not relevant. It is a play, get over your wrong statement.
Posted: 8/20/18 at 11:16pm
Posted: 8/20/18 at 11:18pm
Angels in America was supposedly 7.5 million last year. If Angels couldn't make its money back in 20 weeks in a 1450-seat theater (plus Tony Awards), how's Network going to make its money back in 18 weeks in a 1100-seat theatre?
If it were a non-profit production, your friend wouldn't be solicited as an investor... The NYTimes article listed 5 commercial theatre producers who are bringing the National production to Broadway (similar to the Angels situation).
Posted: 8/21/18 at 6:25am
Posted: 8/21/18 at 7:52am
Production will be scaled-down. Understand there will be no dining-area...maybe there will be no videography on Broadway; that was certainly a distraction at the National. Of all the imports they've done recently, this was the least interesting. Hope they bring over The Lehman Trilogy...
Posted: 8/21/18 at 7:55am
SomethingPeculiar said: "Angels in America was supposedly7.5 million last year. IfAngelscouldn't make its money back in 20weeks in a 1450-seat theater (plusTony Awards), how'sNetworkgoing to make its money back in 18 weeks in a 1100-seat theatre?
I have no idea if the 7.5 is accurate. I will say that the lower capacity isn't necessary a bad thing at all, as it will increase demand and allow for the sale of more premium seats. I also think Angels' ticket sales were hurt by it being a two part commitment. I believe Cranston's last play recouped, so even if the 7.5 figure is accurate, it seems like a solid investment, as far as plays go(obviously a risky bet).
Posted: 8/21/18 at 8:17am
I'm not an investor or producer, so I don't have access to actual numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my house that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child cost more to mount than Network.
Updated On: 8/21/18 at 08:17 AM
Posted: 8/21/18 at 9:44am
Posted: 8/21/18 at 9:56am
According to The New York Times, $35.5 million to capitalize Harry Potter, plus $33 million to clear out and redo the Lyric.
Posted: 8/21/18 at 12:15pm
CT2NYC said: "According to The New York Times, $35.5 million to capitalizeHarry Potter, plus $33 million to clear out and redo the Lyric."
Wasn't the payout to Paramour like 17 or 20 mil?
Posted: 8/21/18 at 12:24pm
zainmax said: "CT2NYC said: "According to The New York Times, $35.5 million to capitalizeHarry Potter, plus $33 million to clear out and redo the Lyric."
Wasn't the payout to Paramour like 17 or 20 mil?"
$23 million was paid to Paramour, with $10 million for the renovations.
Posted: 8/21/18 at 12:28pm
Hard to guess for Potter since there was so much going on with renovations, paying people off... etc... Will be interesting to see how much the sit-down productions cost.
