Posted: 6/1/16 at 9:27am
But why does this show cost $600,000 a week to run?!
This is a great question.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 9:30am
Because whining about a business decision publicly does no good for anyone.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 9:30am
With millions of dollars on the line, I don't think the potential for hurting an actor's feelings should really be a consideration. Sure, it would be disappointing to be replaced, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to seek return on their investment.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 9:45am
"I don't think the potential for hurting an actor's feelings should really be a consideration."
Perhaps so, but (personally) I try to care more about people than money.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:12am
What could make the running costs so high? Is there a big backstage crew? Does the band get paid as actors and musicians because their on stage too? It's a small show. I don't really get how it costs that much? Isn't that on par with something like Something Rotten?
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:23am
I don't see an issue with bumping Mulheren to standby/alternate if He still makes the same salary (which may not be financially feasible).
Isnt that how it went down at The Last Ship (no puns intended) with Jimmy Nail and Sting?
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:24am
We already discussed that upthread.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:45am
I say again, the entire marketing team on this show is a disgrace. The fact that the general public has no idea STEVE MARTIN wrote a Broadway musical speaks volumes. Jesus, I hope it can last through the summer. So disappointing that it's struggling so much, but how beautiful to see the creators stand behind the art they believe in.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:47am
When will the show be on Spotify?!
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:19am
Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do when Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's got to.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:28am
Clumsy, amateurish writing? I don't know about that, but it certainly seems that this show is far outside Martin's MENSA-friendly, often absurdist, slightly cold intellectual wheelhouse. I wonder if he wasn't really used to writing something more populist than his usual fare.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:32am
Perhaps I'm remembering things incorrectly, but didnt Riedel previously state the weekly operating costs to be around $500,000 a week? Maybe it wasnt a Riedel article I read. But I dont know how the costs suddenly jumped another 100,000.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:35am
Didn't the producers take out a priority loan? Maybe that is the cause for the 100,000 jump.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:44am
Advertising also costs money,
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:48am
I don't believe that other article was a Riedel article (but I could easily be wrong). It was the article discussing the new loans and I think it did say around $500K. I think it also mentioned they were cutting on some costs like royalties (which I didn't understand to be honest).
Anyway I admire Steve Martin's passion and attempts to keep this open. He is probably super rich and it could be that he has no expectation of getting his money back and doesn't need to. I know people who operate business endeavors at a loss where it serves another purpose important to them and they don't need it to be profitable. If having his show reach more people is important to him than making money and the other investors are supportive (as it sounds like they are), great for him. I hope they are able to find a way to make it profitable and keep it running, but even if not, it seems like the creative team and everyone at the Cort is really having a wonderful time being involved with the show, and I'm glad they've brought us this show. (And very glad that they keep it around so that hopefully I can see it again June 12!)
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:52am
Anyway I admire Steve Martin's passion and attempts to keep this open. He is probably super rich and it could be that he has no expectation of getting his money back and doesn't need to.
Bingo. I'm sure Steve Martin has more money than he could spend in several lifetimes. He's choosing to infuse it into his Broadway show rather than buying a villa in France. There are worse ways to lose a few hundred grand.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:54am
I think it also mentioned they were cutting on some costs like royalties (which I didn't understand to be honest).
What part don't you understand? Not being snotty, genuinely asking. Writers usually get paid royalties, so Steve Martin is surely foregoing his right now, for the sake of the show's finances.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:59am
I didn't understand how they could cut back on royalties they were legally obligated to pay. But your explanation makes sense. I hadn't thought of the fact that some of those royalties are going to Martin and Brickell, which they could choose to forego.
I was imagining more of the Hamilton situation where they pay royalties to using certain lyrics from other songs. They couldn't just decide to stop paying those unless they changed the show. But I guess that's a totally different scenario since Bright Star doesn't (to my knowledge) use lyrics or music from elsewhere and Martin and Brickell are also investing and can opt not to receive their share.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 12:17pm
NJ_BroadwayGirl said: "Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's gotta do when Steve Martin's gotta do what Steve Martin's got to.
"
Bravo, NJ BroadwayGirl....Well done:)
Posted: 6/1/16 at 12:26pm
I thought royalties only get payed out if the show earns a profit.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 12:44pm
Why is this any different than any other business? People put their own personal money to keep businesses afloat all the time. Not a good practice in terms of business, but when a project has sentimental value, who cares, it's his money.
Look at all the personal money being spent on the awful presidential campaign. ugh...
Updated On: 6/1/16 at 12:44 PM
Posted: 6/1/16 at 1:05pm
ChiTheaterFan, gotcha. For Broadway, it usually applies to authors only.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 1:12pm
@jorge, standard royalties are on the gross.
@Chi, royalties are contractual. It is very common (indeed more than common) for royalty reductions pre-recoupment. These can be burned into the original contract but they can also be negotiated separately later when shows are in trouble. Absolutely nothing untoward about this. Everyone has an interest in keeping a show running because, e.g., 1% of $500k > 5% of $0.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 1:14pm
Thanks! I understand better now. Makes sense.
Posted: 6/1/16 at 1:16pm
10086sunset said: "Bravo, NJ BroadwayGirl....Well done:)"
Thanks. I mean as the writer, he really should be forced to sing that lyric.
