Spidey's Recoupment — Page 2

JacksonMaine: "Actually, I think what's ridiculous is to assume that a show can postpone for six weeks to continue doing work and only lose the box office money. If you've worked on Broadway shows (or even Off Broadway shows) you know that costs go up tremendously when you postpone an opening; from marketing to advertising to personnel to copying costs for the new music. To say that it was $65 million but no way can it be $70 million with a six week postponement of opening night seems naive."

What ARE you talking about? The budget is going up because of copying costs? What a ridiculous statement. What advertising costs increase when an opening is delayed? Are you saying that shows lose money in previews and only make money when they open?

Sure, there may be increased costs from tinkering with the show. But again, those are either coming out of a reserve or are covered by the weekly revenue. They're not losing money or increasing the budget when $1.2 million is coming in the door each week. And the cost of photocopying music? Maybe $100.

Last week the show made $1.5 million. This week, $1.2 million. It had the highest capacity on Broadway. This show doesn't have to open.

Updated On: 1/18/11 at 02:37 PM

JRTO: "What ARE you talking about? The budget is going up because of copying costs? What a ridiculous statement. What advertising costs increase when an opening is delayed? Are you saying that shows loose money in previews and only make money when they open?

Sure, there may be increased costs from tinkering with the show. But again, those are either coming out of a reserve or are covered by the weekly revenue. They're not loosing money or increasing the budget when $1.2 million is coming in the door each week. And the cost of photocopying music? Maybe $100. "

If you don't know the difference between "loose ("loosing") and "lose" ("losing") then I'm afraid we have to say "What are YOU talking about?" And please don't say we're the grammar police or that your finger slipped (twice) - But we had to stop at the music copying thing - if you think Broadway musical copyists get $100 for their work you are in serious need of some education. And if you think this budget has not gone up, think again.

Loose/lose is a pet peeve and a rather simple mistake to correct, which I hope you will.

And no, I've already pointed out to you at least one other part of your post that makes no sense - the $100 copyist figure you so blithely toss out. Having had to pay Broadway copyists many times, all I can tell you is you have no idea how much they make. NO idea, and it would probably shock you.

You want to get smarmy, have discourse with someone else. Why don't you tell us all about your theatre expertise so we know why you position yourself as a person of knowledge. I have no idea how much the budget has gone up, but you are living in a fool's paradise if you think it hasn't gone up at all.

If you meant the $100 as a "joke" I'd also recommend attending a class in humor.

Maybe, but it will be considered a flop if it doesn't re-coup on B'way. That's the way it goes.

No, it's not. The history of Broadway is filled with stories of shows that did not recoup in their initial productions but went on to return huge profits to the initial producer and investors through the ancillary rights and subsidiary rights like touring productions, London productions and movie rights.

SWEENEY TODD ran two years on Broadway and took eleven years to pay back its original investment. Periodically during those eleven years, the original investors received partial distribution checks. And everyone who invested in Sweeney Todd knew they were taking a risk with an unconventional show.

Does that make it a "flop" or a "success"? More to the point, is that question really worth asking in that manner?

It doesn't matter whether you consider those shows successes or flops. Initial investors participate in tours and movie deals, and if those investors make a ROI (return on investment), the show is a success.

THAT'S the way it goes.

That

---

"Phantom of London, the show would tour in many more places besides London, Chicago and Los Angeles. Wicked currently has productions on several continents besides regional and international tours."

Touring Wicked or Phantom is NOTHING like touring Spiderman. Apples and Oranges. They've struggled mightily just to properly set up their high wire act in ONE location. Yes, it's possible to do an arena act, but setting that up would cost countless additional millions. It's not like these touring shows spring up out of nowhere for no extra cost and immediately fall to the bottom line for the Bway show.

"Since Spider-Man's business model is based off doing subsequent performances, I'm sure they took some time to figure it out."

Really? Figured it out? Cause they haven't figured out an ending, a decent score, an firm opening date, or how to stop injuring actors yet.

And they've taken plenty of time working on all those things. It's pretty obvious they are flying by the seat of their pants, and aren't really planning ahead at all.