HogansHero said: "Let me explain a bit, not from any inside info but simply by culling the numbers that have been reported and what we can reasonably project based on the experience of other shows. If the gross is $900k (that's high for a week with nothing and no one selling tickets but let's just assume that Dave Malloy is wrong and the show was not about to fall off a cliff), then the net gross would be about $810k available to pay expenses (let's assume the $700k is right which if true at all only applies with no star). So now let's pay the percentage rent and the royalties. Not knowing the precise royalty pool arrangement, let's err to the investors' side and say they end up with $65k for the week. Finally, let's assume the unrecouped amount is $12mil (I suspect it is more but again, benefit of the doubt). At that rate it would take 185 weeks (>3.5 years from now) to recoup, assuming you could sustain that level of business (and no one in their right mind would think that). So there you have it."
In the end, the numbers are what doomed Great Comet. I don't know if HogansHero's guesstimates are correct, but they sound reasonable (taking into account that I'm no expert on these things). The number that jumps out at me is the need for the show to keep up its box office pace for another 3 1/2 years. Even if it's three, or 2 1/2 years, that's a big ask for a musical that was never really designed to appeal to a large audience of tourists. How many musicals last that long in the first place? Will Dear Evan Hansen last another 3 1/2 years?
You never know what show is going to become a major hit, and Hamilton is the most recent example of that sort of phenomenon. But you can't count on your unusual gem of a show to become a smash, especially when you needed a mainstream star to get it on Broadway. Howard Kagan deserves credit for believing in the show, and getting it to Broadway, where more people (like me) got a chance to enjoy it. I do believe that Comet will be remembered as one of those unique, special, ahead-of-its-time musicals that people talk about and remember for years. That's no small achievement.
But as a business venture, it seems like it was doomed. Kagan must have known his show wasn't winning Best Musical in the spring, because I did (and I'm a dumb tourist). He must have known Great Comet wasn't a runaway hit, because all he had to do was look at the box office receipts. People like me loved the original cast, but the show itself didn't capture enough people's imagination. Dear Evan Hansen captured the zeitgeist, and a lot of the young audience. Come From Away got a lot of the good word of mouth. It was cult hit, plus a mainstream star, and it cost too much.
All of the unpleasant drama which has deprived Great Comet of the dignified ending it deserves flowed from desperation. Mandy Patinkin wouldn't have saved the show, and if there was a TV star waiting in the wings who would have goosed the box office in a serious way, the producers wouldn't have needed to grab Patinkin for a three-week stint in August (even if they were hoping he would stick around a little longer).
Onaodowan doesn't help his career prospects in the New York Times story. His version of events doesn't really ring true. Was he hired in February and not expected to learn the piano and accordian by July? I suppose that's possible, but it seems unlikely. And he's just fine with the criticism that rained down from his Twitter friends. Maybe everyone will blame Kagan, or even Rachel Chavkin, whom Onaodowan is obviously criticizing for expecting too much, but who would you rather hire? On the one hand, you have a talented director who created a unique, Tony-nominated musical and has plenty of other shows under her belt. On the other, you have the guy who's complaining about her and stood by while his allies trashed a show. Onaodowan didn't kill Great Comet, but he seems just fine about it being dead.
Updated On: 8/30/17 at 03:54 AM
