#51
Posted: 12/2/16 at 10:08am
Rowling was adamant about the ticket prices remaining affordable in London. I wonder if she'll have the same clout here.
PARAMOUR to Close as the Lyric Prepares for 2017 Renovation/Harry Potter — Page 3
#52
Posted: 12/2/16 at 10:13am
Even if the tickets are more affordable than say, Hamilton, we have an out of control resale market here in the US that doesn't exist in London.
#53
Posted: 12/2/16 at 2:06pm
In an honesty I wouldn't be suprised if a Rowling forces the show to not sell premium tickets, and simply charge $250 per set of orchestra tickets ($125 a performance), $175 for Mezz, and $100 for balcony. The producers know this show is in it for the long haul, and Rowling has final say on every decision.
I also wouldn't be suprised if she enstates a policy of ones name must be on the tickets to use them, to try and ban second hand ticket sellers like she has in London.
#54
Posted: 12/2/16 at 2:08pm
"In an honesty I wouldn't be suprised if a Rowling forces the show to not sell premium tickets"
"Rowling has final say on every decision. "
Where are you getting this? She is not the lead producer.
#55
Posted: 12/2/16 at 3:41pm
She's not the lead producer but she is the Harry Potter godess. You bet she has some clause stating she can control everything she wish.
And yes, being a fan for a long time of her, I do believe she will make the tickets very affordable. Also, this is the second market control you always wished for. Apparently in London they keep search second hand tickets for sale and when they do in places like eBay and whatnot, they just void the tickets. I'm sure that will happen in Broadway as well.
#56
Posted: 12/2/16 at 3:56pm
Rowling's license can and presumably does give her the right to dictate pricing. But that just kicks the can down the street. The venue is being retooled to enable premium pricing. Preventing it means the show won't recoup before it wears out its welcome.
#57
Posted: 12/2/16 at 4:57pm
Interesting to see Riedel report that the Ambassador Theater Group is paying Cirque $20 million to vacate!
#58
Posted: 12/2/16 at 6:14pm
Tag said: "Interesting to see Riedel report that the Ambassador Theater Group is paying Cirque $20 million to vacate!"
Even more interesting would be to find out where he got that number from. I am pretty sure the Times did not report that and I'd be willing to bet it is wrong.
#59
Posted: 12/2/16 at 7:02pm
HogansHero said: "Tag said: "Interesting to see Riedel report that the Ambassador Theater Group is paying Cirque $20 million to vacate!"
Even more interesting would be to find out where he got that number from. I am pretty sure the Times did not report that and I'd be willing to bet it is wrong."
Perhaps ATG set aside $20M to cover the costs - including payment to Cirque, planning and construction, lost revenue, relicensing and permitting...
#60
Posted: 12/2/16 at 7:34pm
Or maybe if they had to buy them out of a 10 year deal, $20 million doesn't seem like that much?
#61
Posted: 12/3/16 at 8:55pm
I wonder what this means for the future of Cirque in New York.
They're due to co-produce The Wiz, right? And still doing the NFL thing?
Would be a shame to see them go - there's definitely an audience here, it's just Paramour is not the optimal vehicle. Why don't they just do a regular Cirque show here instead of trying way too hard to do Broadway?
#62
Posted: 12/3/16 at 10:07pm
Agreed. Why not create a super unique experience rather than a "musical." I wish they'd build a Cirque theater here or a permanent spot on Randall Island.
#63
Posted: 12/3/16 at 10:11pm
Rowling is very protective of this franchise, and will absolutely have a say in ticket prices for any major production, whether she's a lead producer or not.
#64
Posted: 12/3/16 at 10:29pm
I love that they're making changes to the theater. And I think the huge lobby will lead to a nice opulence for the show- make it feel like a special treat.
#65
Posted: 12/3/16 at 11:56pm
re "the future of Cirque in New York"
Their track record is abysmal. This was supposed to be the way they tapped into the consciousness. It is inconceivable to me they would have any interest in building a presence at a remote location that would flummox even the most intrepid tourist. I just think there are too many entertainment options here to compete with successfully.
#66
Posted: 12/4/16 at 12:06am
They come back every year touring, so there is mild interest. I just think the confines of a normal theater don't work for them. After seeing their Vegas shows and even Toruk, I don't think they work in any traditional settings. And NYC doesn't have space. But said to see their lease was bought out. Curious what else they would have done with that space.
#67
Posted: 12/4/16 at 1:26am
yes there is some interest, and no most venues in New York are not a good fit, but it is also true that they have lost money in New York and (notwithstanding the waffling in the statement) on this production as well.
#68
Posted: 12/4/16 at 12:07pm
Not necessarily. It may be a $25m production but Cirque doesn't jump in without a co-producer; I suspect they put up about half of that. The show's been consistently hovering around $800-1m gross and I don't think their op costs are > ~$800k/ week, so don't think they're in the red, especially if ATG is buying them out at the reported $20m.
#69
Posted: 12/4/16 at 12:14pm
If that $20 million figure is correct, it could cover the cost for PARAMOUR to switch theaters. I'd say the Marquis is most likey.
A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.
Updated On: 12/4/16 at 12:14 PM
#70
Posted: 12/4/16 at 1:47pm
There is no transfer, there is no co-producer, there is no $20mil.
#71
Posted: 12/4/16 at 2:05pm
Willie4316 said: "Perhaps Rebecca or Love Never Dies for the 2017-18 season?"
LOL. If that was a joke, it was hilarious.
#72
Posted: 12/4/16 at 4:42pm
If Paramour is ever seen in the US after April, it will be in Vegas. And that's a big "if."
#73
Posted: 12/4/16 at 4:48pm
They need to ramp it up for Vegas.
#74
Posted: 12/4/16 at 5:23pm
taking this show to Vegas is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This was their effort at creating "theatre." It failed. The last thing that sells in vegas is "theatre" anyway. Why would you take a failed brand to Vegas when you can create a spectacle geared to the audience? They may (or may not) ship it off to Germany where it may or may not find an audience, but they do have a penchant for what we label garbage for some inexplicable reason.
#75
Posted: 12/4/16 at 5:39pm
^^ agreed on all counts
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95