Remember When I said that 9-5 had a poor advance?- Page 2

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:43am

It's actually not 370. But I am not getting into this with people who say that "9-5 DESERVES to have been nominated" and "{tos} got screwed". People who base their decisions on emotion and not logical fact have no place in the business world. Those are the people who invested in Title of Show and lost their entire investment.
ROA has no orchestra, 18 people in the cast, small theater for rent. Its nut is like a big PLAY.
and guys and dolls and shrek and 9-5 have NOT been making their nut. seeing as Shrek's is 750, 9-5's is 650 and guys and dolls is 600. Yes SOME weeks they do but it doesn't equalize the losses.
And I am tired of people asking for LINKS to op costs. You know full well they are not published so stop asking.

Point being. ROA's demographic is bigger than almost any other shows' on Broadway. It appeals to the mass population of America. When you look at the line to get in and see Dale Earnhardt jackets in front of women with pants suits, and boys who are 12 who love the music from Rock Band, its only a matter of time before the show receives national attention (tony nom) and tix sales sky rocket. Supply and Demand Economics. They are supplying a show with 80's music and beer. Find another show that does that. Movie musicals are becoming a dime a dozen, and if i see one more costumed "actor" on Broadway I am just going to call it Disneyland (yes I know Shrek is Dreamworks).
Ugh. It's like talking to children..wait..you all are children right? I loved seeing people write, "darnit, I have to go to school i can't see the tony's". ha ha ha. Have fun in P.E.

[mzk2004]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:49am

It is virtually impossible to operate a musical these days for any less than $300k, regardless of cast size or orchestra size. Ask anyone involved in N2N, Story of My Life, TOS, etc.
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:49 AM

[mzk2004]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:49am

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:49 AM

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:53am

or ask Ave q. their nut is 180,000...sooo you are wrong?...again?

[perfectliar]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:56am

mass - Where exactly are you pulling your information from? Your ass?

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:00pm

I'll pose my question is a different way.

Is RoA fronting the costs for the alcohol and extra staff needed or is their rent merely higher than say, Grease's, was because of the extra alcohol, extra staff, and expense of cleaning due to spillage or other "mishaps".

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:07pm

Curtain, a Bettyboy is a male who is hopelessly devoted to Ms.Betty Buckley. :)

[tazber]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 12:31pm

PJ wins.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 1:52pm

It's not possible that massofmen works alongside/lives with a GM (or something similar), and so has some sense of the truth of these numbers. Right?

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 2:33pm

"Is RoA fronting the costs for the alcohol and extra staff needed or is their rent merely higher than say, Grease's, was because of the extra alcohol, extra staff, and expense of cleaning due to spillage or other "mishaps"."

It is my understanding that alcohol sales all go to the theatre, as well as the cost of the bartenders, waitresses, extra staff. The theatre is making a killing off of the extra beer sales, so they aren't gonna charge ROA for any extra.

No clue on the nut of any of these shows, or mass or whoever's allegations that producers are buying up tix.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 2:48pm

"its nut is actually lower than that.
And for a show to be opening in MARCH in one of the biggest economic downturns in the history of America, and not even hitting the summer yet, its doing GREAT business. Its making op costs every week and actually making a profit. Which is more than I can say for Guys and Dolls, 9-5 Shrek N2n..shall I keep going?
And now with tony nom's and tons of TV appearances to come because of those noms, the avg tix price will escalate during the summer which will drive grosses up.
So its a little different than Xanadu. Also because ROA's fan base is about half the country where xanadu's was about..Chelsea and the Village?
If ROA is the xanadu for striaght people, the show is going to run for a long long time. "

I've said it once, and I will say it again...you are putting down 9 to 5 to make yourself feel better about ROA. I don't know how long 9 to 5 will last, but all I know is that HAIR will run for over 2 years by the rate its going.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 2:50pm

"It is my understanding that alcohol sales all go to the theatre, as well as the cost of the bartenders, waitresses, extra staff. The theatre is making a killing off of the extra beer sales, so they aren't gonna charge ROA for any extra."

The FOH staff is paid for by the production...despite not being employed by the production. They aren't included as part of leasing the theater.

Posted: 5/6/09 at 2:58pm

ROA producer was on a business television show and said that all profits from alcohol go to the theater. And alchohol profits are huge. So, I'm sure that is part of their lease deal with the theater.

The weekly minimum is far below $370K. The producer said that in order for investors to recoup their original investment in a year, they need to be at 85% of gross. They are at about 75% now. After investors recoup, they will make 60% return at 85% of gross. Not a bad deal at all, I'd say.

ROA is doing well and already giving their investors a return. Teh movie rights figure into the longterm, plus it is a show with mass appeal outside of NYC and will likely have touring companies for years to come.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:05pm

Thanks for the answers. I was kinda curious of how that worked out. The alcohol is provided by the theatre and the get all profits while the production provides the extra staff needed. Is there a limit on drinks? I've heard so many reports of people being beyond intoxicated at the show. If I owned the theatre I'd raise the rent just a tad to cover cleaning costs due to spillage (because everyone leaves those lids on lol) or, heaven forbid, someone gets sick from overindulgence.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:06pm

Keep sweet talking it. Keep shoving it down our throats about its investment to try to clear our minds about how bad the show is.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:15pm

Man, CS, whasssssup?

I've said elsewhere that I'm not one of those Dregs Of The Earth who'd be likely to fall all over this show (because one of my top five shows of all time is, like, I Do! I Do! and also, King David (Rice/Menken)) -- I'm not the Stereo Type:

But ROA is simply a great time in the theater. It's not Waiting For Godot, or The Sound Of Music, or Proof, or Avenue Q, but it IS 1) Well-crafted 2) Theatrical 3) Entertainment with 4) Top-notch performers all around.

Ease UP.

Oh, and I think it's great for the industry, too, because SOMEBODY's going to have to replace all of those silver-haired rich people who won't be buying theater tickets as the years pass on...let's get some younger people into the theater who will, in the future, self-identify as "liking Broadway musicals."
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 03:15 PM

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:18pm

Shows like Wicked, Little Mermaid, etc can do that. I don't think a kid is going to want to run to see a musical about an era they don't even know.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:25pm

I didn't mean the Not-Old-Enough-To-Vote crowd!

I'm dead serious about this: Stand in the back of any theater on Friday and Saturday nights and look out over the sea of predominantly Silver Hair.

I have 18- & 20-year old daughters, and I think that MY age group is underrepresented in theater audiences -- "middle-aged" people who've worked for a living for 30 years and should be able to afford theater tickets once in a while. [Although lately...]

It's not Children I'm talking about, it's men and women in their twenties and thirties who wouldn't be caught dead at Phantom Of The Opera; whose only impression of Broadway Musicals is grandmothers who smell of lavender.

This show isn't your father's Oldsmobile. That's a GOOD thing.
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 03:25 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:26pm

I've read the word "nut" more in the last two pages than the last two weeks.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:29pm

I don't care if it is a hit. I just think that 9 to 5 deserves to be one too. I mean I'm glad that it has found an audience, it's keeping talented actors employed. I just don't think it is worth all the praise it is getting, and I think I am entitled to an opinion.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:41pm

I'm curious as to why there has to be a "war" between 9 to 5 and RoA? They're two different shows with different audiences and, well, different everything. The only real similiarity between the two is that they're both on Broadway and both have "found" material.

Why does one have to fail and one succeed? Where is the "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" mentality coming from?

As theatre fans we should want as many shows to succeed as possible. When shows succeed they bring in money for their producers/investers thus allowing them to produce more shows in the future. Talented people are being employed by BOTH shows.

Is everything going to appeal to everybody? Nope but that's what makes Broadway so magical. To steal a line from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves "Allah loves wondrous varieties". It's good that there's a variety of entertainment for a variety of people.

While, RoA has no appeal for me I don't wish ill will upon it. I hope people do enjoy it.

Posted: 5/6/09 at 3:45pm

"I don't think a kid is going to want to run to see a musical about an era they don't even know. "

Huh??!
So by your brand of logic "kids" shouldn't love Les Miz, Oklahoma, The King and I, Rent, etc., etc., etc.
Stop while you're already behind. You make no sense at all. Your rage at 9 to 5 not being nominated has made you an emotional mess. Are you an investor of that show?

FYI: Rock of Ages is pulling in a significant young demographic. Guitar Hero and Rock Band have educated lots of "kids" about classic rock and they're loving it.

And ROA is a Pulizter compared to 9 to 5. The show is bad. Just like the movie was. It has a great cast. Just like the movie. Hope that helps keep it afloat. Wonder how long Janney will last if she doesn't win.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 4:17pm

NUT.

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 4:18pm

Does anyone else find it funny that the OP is supporting his point with a Michael Riedel article?

Michael Riedel is notoriously hyperbolic. His definition of financial trouble is one week in the red- if it'll make headlines, he'll write it.

The show will be fine. If it markets itself correctly, it can succeed. If anything else, its so new that its tough to even predict how it will do because word of mouth hasn't even come in to play yet.

And his "industry sources?"

I would doubt they have an internal relationship to the show.

Posted: 5/6/09 at 4:49pm

IT is not enough that the show I like succeed. The shows I hate must also fail.