Posted: 11/28/16 at 6:18pm
Was wondering if anyone knew when/how close School of Rock is to recouping their investment. It's been about a year with pretty healthy grosses. Just curious
Posted: 4/10/17 at 2:13am
I would bet money that it has recouped by now, or is at least incredibly close. It's been running for a while now.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 2:25am
I feel like they'd publicize it proudly if it had happened.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 2:29am
At what point in the theater did this become a "thing" this need to know about recoupment? Or is this just more of the Hollywoodization of Broadway, this emphasis on grosses and recoupment? I am honestly and endlessly baffled, but that's just me.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 5:08am
bk said: "At what point in the theater did this become a "thing" this need to know about recoupment? Or is this just more of the Hollywoodization of Broadway, this emphasis on grosses and recoupment? I am honestly and endlessly baffled, but that's just me."
When people want to discuss art without having to actually talk about the substance of what they experience, the topic instead becomes about the grosses, or the chances for a Tony, stuff that all exists outside of the experience of living inside a show and what it makes you feel, what it's trying to say, etc.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 5:20am
As art is an incredibly subjective experience for its audience, one can't qualify what makes a good show except in those terms haterobics aptly expressed, which would of course only apply to those individuals and their respective opinions. One can never (or rarely, allowing for those who are somehow able to pull it off) be truly objective about art.
If one wishes to quantify a hit, however, grosses, recoupment, chances for a Tony (although this particular datum is also dependent on several subjective factors), etc., are all verifiable data that can be used to make a case for success or failure, purely in terms of numbers. Unless one is Garth Drabinsky, Adela Holzer, or Ken Davenport (and if one looks at the history of the first two, then one sees the third's eventual foregone conclusion), numbers can't be altered to suit a desired reality or preconceived notions/bias. If no one's buying, that's a definitive objective statement on a project's hit status. (Granted, the reason no one's buying is most assuredly subjective, but the fact that no one's buying is not.)
It became a "thing" the minute producers decided to start acting like producers, and that was a long time ago. This is not indicative of anything new; these practices have always been in place. The general public is just more aware of them now, and more interested in knowing about them. Since it's the only objective data one has on the subject, I'm glad people are taking an interest -- maybe increased knowledge will help us shape the Broadway of the future.
Updated On: 4/10/17 at 05:20 AM
Posted: 4/10/17 at 7:31am
It's also the only OBJECTIVE way to determine a hit or flop. Did it recoup? Yes. It's a hit! No. It's a flop.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 7:44am
haterobics said: "bk said: "At what point in the theater did this become a "thing" this need to know about recoupment? Or is this just more of the Hollywoodization of Broadway, this emphasis on grosses and recoupment? I am honestly and endlessly baffled, but that's just me."
When people want to discuss art without having to actually talk about the substance of what they experience, the topic instead becomes about the grosses, or the chances for a Tony, stuff that all exists outside of the experience of living inside a show and what it makes you feel, what it's trying to say, etc.
"
Slow cap
Posted: 4/10/17 at 8:13am
dramamama611 said: "It's also the only OBJECTIVE way to determine a hit or flop. Did it recoup? Yes. It's a hit! No. It's a flop."
But one that would only matter if box office and quality always lined up perfectly, which no one would argue is the case, I wouldn't imagine. If I had money in a show, sure, I would track such things. But now, I only use it to figure out what to see in a crowded season... "OK, that one will be around this summer, this one may not be," etc., even then a show not making a lot of money doesn't factor in. No system where In Transit and Significant Other are just equally labeled as flops makes sense, heh.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 9:32am
bk and haterobics, is it really wrong for a theater fan to have an interest in the financial side of things? To be "just curious" as to whether a favorite show was a success in the eyes of the decision-makers in the business? I was thrilled to learn that Fun Home made money for its investors because that makes it more likely for this kind of show to be produced in the future. It's precisely because of my appreciation for the substance of the show that I was (mildly) interested in its financial success.
In short, I'm confused as to why you're giving the OP a hard time for asking this incredibly innocuous question. :)
Posted: 4/10/17 at 9:38am
kdogg36 said: "bk and haterobics, is it really wrong for a theater fan to have an interest in the financial side of things? To be "just curious" as to whether a favorite show was a success in the eyes of the decision-makers in the business? I was thrilled to learn that Fun Home made money for its investors because that makes it more likely for this kind of show to be produced in the future. It's precisely because of my appreciation for the substance of the show that I was (mildly) interested in its financial success.
In short, I'm confused as to why you're giving the OP a hard time for asking this incredibly innocuous question. :)"
I'm 100% with you, kdogg36. I don't understand why people can't simply skip over topics that are of no interest to them.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 9:40am
Not sure we're giving anyone a hard time. bk asked a question that intrigued me, so I answered. I didn't direct anything at the OP.
I don't think it is wrong to be interested in the financials, but they often get sort of mixed up in the artistic and creative achievement of a show, which is where there is no always a direct correlation. When it came to movies, I remember a critic saying people had to talk about box office when it came to Hollywood movies anymore, once they stopped leaving anything ambiguous or up to interpretation. Since everyone was meant to have the same opinion, and couldn't say anything beyond "that was good," the conversation shifted to, did you see that made $45M at the box office?!
Posted: 4/10/17 at 10:37am
Lot666 said: "kdogg36 said: "bk and haterobics, is it really wrong for a theater fan to have an interest in the financial side of things? To be "just curious" as to whether a favorite show was a success in the eyes of the decision-makers in the business? I was thrilled to learn that Fun Home made money for its investors because that makes it more likely for this kind of show to be produced in the future. It's precisely because of my appreciation for the substance of the show that I was (mildly) interested in its financial success.
In short, I'm confused as to why you're giving the OP a hard time for asking this incredibly innocuous question. :)"
I'm 100% with you, kdogg36. I don't understand why people can't simply skip over topics that are of no interest to them.
"
Huh, it seemed like an actual conversation was happening here, with well thought out answers to a question. I didn't notice anything rude or innocuous here.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 10:43am
Considering that School of Rock would be ALW's first hit since Phantom, I don't know why he would't announce recoupment.
I think that there is little doubt though that the SOR hasn't/won't recoup considering its averaged over a million a week for over 16 months now. Its not like the show has Spiderman running costs. Even if the show is on the higher end of running cost $800k-$900k its made from a purely mathematical standpoint $9.8 million-$16.8 million. The only real question of cost though, is how much the production spends on finding and casting children, since that can really add up (Billy Elliot).
Unless the bottom falls out their sales over the summer, I would expect SOR to be profitable, even if they don't announce it, much in the same way we know Aladdin is profitable despite Disney never announcing it.
Updated On: 4/10/17 at 10:43 AM
Posted: 4/10/17 at 10:57am
haterobics said: "dramamama611 said: "It's also the only OBJECTIVE way to determine a hit or flop. Did it recoup? Yes. It's a hit! No. It's a flop."
But one that would only matter if box office and quality always lined up perfectly, which no one would argue is the case, I wouldn't imagine. If I had money in a show, sure, I would track such things. But now, I only use it to figure out what to see in a crowded season... "OK, that one will be around this summer, this one may not be," etc., even then a show not making a lot of money doesn't factor in. No system where In Transit and Significant Other are just equally labeled as flops makes sense, heh.
"
Oh, personally, I agree with you. I've got not skin in the game, I don't really "care" about the figures, either. Won't change my opinion of what I think of a show.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 4:20pm
My boyfriend and I were just talking about this topic. He's just getting into theatre and wanted to know what it meant to be a flop or hit. I defined it as having both a "technical" meaning (financial recoupment) and an "artistic" meaning (self-explanatory, and subjective). You could classify shows with two criteria...
Hamilton: Hit/Hit
Waitress: Hit/Hit
The Color Purple: Flop/Hit
Doctor Zhivago: Flop/Flop
And so on!
Posted: 4/10/17 at 4:32pm
Ado, that's how I look at it as well. I think you have to look at a show and think of the impact around it and of the show. I know that's not really "correct", but with a show like The Color Purple, for example, I find it difficult to flat out say it was a flop. It was very well received, had a fairly decent run, and brought in great new talent. To me, those are characteristics of a successful show. No, it didn't recoup money for the investors, but you can't say all is lost on it.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 4:36pm
And Charlie and the chocolate factory, as of right now, is looking to be a Hit/Flop
Posted: 4/10/17 at 5:17pm
I'm surprised we haven't heard from our resident SOR fan.
PThespian, I hope you are okay.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 5:29pm
bdn223 said: "Considering that School of Rock would be ALW's first hit since Phantom, I don't know why he would't announce recoupment.
I think that there is little doubt though that the SOR hasn't/won't recoup considering its averaged over a million a week for over 16 months now. Its not like the show has Spiderman running costs. Even if the show is on the higher end of running cost $800k-$900k its made from a purely mathematical standpoint $9.8 million-$16.8 million. The only real question of cost though, is how much the production spends on finding and casting children, since that can really add up (Billy Elliot).
Unless the bottom falls out their sales over the summer, I would expect SOR to be profitable, even if they don't announce it, much in the same way we know Aladdin is profitable despite Disney never announcing it.
"
I would be very surprised if this doesn't recoup. It has consistently brought in over a million a week. And the days of ALW spending lavishly on a show and not caring if it returns its investment kind of died brutally in the 90's - as well as with Woman in White, Love Never Dies and Stephen Ward. The fact that this wasn't solely produced by RUG and that they opened a second production in London and are preparing for the US Tour, all are good signs, at least to me as a casual theatre goer/observer.
Posted: 4/10/17 at 11:32pm
Butter Broadway said: "what is the weekly nut?
"
PT said that only a few people are in the know - so it's not been reported or shared.
Always curious about that myself though - have wondered how much Sunset costs for example. you can estimate a certain amount but really cant figure out all the hidden costs
Posted: 4/11/17 at 10:02am
Sunset has a very high running cost, in the $800k+ range as it was reported the only way it could transfer to Broadway was if it got a house the size of the Palace.
Based on the info though it sounds like School of Rock has a nut in the $650k-700k range, and if thats accurate we can pretty much assume that the show has already recouped and there will be no announcement.
Posted: 4/11/17 at 10:10am
bdn223 said: "Sunset has a very high running cost, in the $800k+ range as it was reported the only way it could transfer to Broadway was if it got a house the size of the Palace."
This being a pared-down, "minimalist" production of Sunset with nowhere near the technological complexity of the original, why is it so expensive to run? Is it because Ms. Close gets a hefty salary, or because the orchestra is so large?
Updated On: 4/11/17 at 10:10 AM
