for those interested, Evita did not recoup -- and would have need a run of approx 1/2 again as long to break even.
The salary paid to the five leads totalled MORE than what was needed to pay the salaries of the ENTIRE 27 person cast of Book of Mormon. (Yes, I realize there are no names in that.)
Someone didn't do some homework before investing here.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Just further proof that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a terrible producer.
He brought this revival to Broadway at the same time as a production of SUPERTAR was opening - a transfer from The Stratford Shakespeare Festival that he himself encouraged. Both closed with heavy losses.
Someone should sit this man down and explain to him that Broadway is NOT an Andrew Lloyd Webber museum.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks." Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
I said it was more than the enitre cast of BOM -- I misspoke: it was more than THREE times the salary of the entire cast of BOM!
And -- was ALW a producer? The article goes on to say how much he and his Really Useful Company rec'd from the rights:
Composer Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Really Useful Group, which owns the rights to the show, was paid a onetime fee of $100,000. In addition, Lord Lloyd Webber and Really Useful earned fees and royalties totaling about $70,000 a week. From that, lyricist Tim Rice received an undisclosed portion of the authors’ $6,300 weekly license fee.
I have a bridge in London, anyone, anyone?
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Her Fosca was brilliant. I actually liked her voice in Evita, but the vocal range in Passion sat in a really good place for her. She sounded lovely, and her characterization was fascinating. I don't think we will see her back here for a while, though. She is focused on her film career, and if she wants to return to the stage, I imagine she'll go where she is appreciated.
How insane to think that Follies, the last tenant at the Marquis, had a 40 member cast, well over 20 pieces in the orchestra, and if I remember correctly, their weekly running cost was reported at under 700,000!
It's a cautionary tale to any producer that is hanging all hope on one big star. If the $$$ totally hinges on that star, you are setting yourself up for disaster.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
It's hardly fair to say "that beyotch stank" and not talk about how awful Ricky Martin was. I thought Elena did fine, and this revival was obviously not structured for her. It was always Che's show, at least on Broadway, and he was just so weak. Listening to his monologue during Buenos Aires is painful.
"It's hardly fair to say "that beyotch stank" and not talk about how awful Ricky Martin was."
I just don't like Elena Rogers, and I don't think I ever will. Was she even in Evita?
But Elena Roger was alright, even if the score may have been a bit beyond her at times. The score sat decently in Ricky Martin's voice, but the role was beyond him. Eh, can't do much about it now.
Uh...heck no. Elena Rogers as Velma...HA! While celebrity Roxies have to go thru "Chicago" boot camp to play the role, usually the Velmas are long time veterans of the show. from RC in Austin, Texas
"Noel [Coward] and I were in Paris once. Adjoining rooms, of course. One night, I felt mischievous, so I knocked on Noel's door, and he asked, 'Who is it?' I lowered my voice and said 'Hotel detective. Have you got a gentleman in your room?' He answered, 'Just a minute, I'll ask him.'" (Beatrice Lillie)
"It's a cautionary tale to any producer that is hanging all hope on one big star. If the $$$ totally hinges on that star, you are setting yourself up for disaster."
Totally agree. We have to remember that the bigger the star most likely the bigger the cost of him or her. Which means if that person is going to cost more than the show can produce, it is set up for disaster.
The reason why FOLLIES did so well is that most of the names in the show were not BIG stars that attract much more money. You had well known people like Peters, Paige, etc..but I highly doubt they were making anywhere near what RICKY was contracted for.
I produced a show once in Los Angeles. We had stars and great talent. But, we wanted to see the show just be produced. So I was able to work out a contract that started their salaries at the lowest wage possible and as business got stronger, and even stronger, raises were then in order. The show made a profit and was able to get the stars and non-stars a great salary by the time the show closed.
That's how it should be. Stars should be willing to do Broadway for the "art" of it rather than because it's paying this much, blah blah. But I understand it. We all have bills and if producers are willing to pay it then why not ask for it?
But who are the 5 leads? I can't imagine Rachel Potter was getting paid that much. Was she even a "name" before this show? I hadn't heard of her. I'm sure Ceveris wasn't getting paid too much? Who is the fifth? The Evita alternate? She can't be making a ton.