Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:11pm
Look, I agree. But there’s a certain group on this board that both complains about ticket prices and greedy producers, but also wants sets, a packed orchestra, etc. The 25 million does go somewhere.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:30pm
Broadway Flash said: "Couldn’t they have gotten a show with a bigger orchestra to accommodate the union? Yeah Shubert put in Here Lies Love which was prepared to have 0 musicians obviously they don’t care but why go against The rules."
Producers and theatre owners want profit and to pay back their investors as quickly as possible. Fewer musicians, more profit and quicker recoupment. Each musician costs a Broadway production approximately $100,000 per year assuming a player makes around $2,000 per week in salary + benefits. So producers being 7 players under minimum saves them around $700,000 per year. It's significant savings. If a show doesn't artistically need an orchestral sound, then I'm fine with producers asking the union for special situations, which they're almost always granted if it's a legit request.
Some producers understand the balance of art and commerce and will spring for the appropriate amount, but it's rare these days. I've seen lots of interviews with composers lamenting the size of the average Broadway orchestra today.
I remember being horrified when Les Mis went out on tour with 16 players. Now, any show is lucky to have that amount. It's depressing.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:30pm
The whole "well theater owners should insist the show has this many musicians or they shouldn't do the show at all" mentality is hilarious. But, YES, let's just add more musicians and up the ticket price even more! Great idea! I'm sure midwesterners will love paying an extra $10 to hear a flugelhorn in the pit!
Producers aren't greedy for trying to get budgets to a place that can entice investors and keep a show running - that's just business. Like, business 101. Turn a profit. There are a million factors in play here (like theater owners setting and charging insane rents) that go into these budgets. You only have a finite amount of money to play with, and as we're seeing this season, I can't blame producers for doing everything to keep running costs down and the shows running. I'd much rather shows actually get mounted, run longer and keep everyone employed than add a few more instruments. Imagine if unions were also like, well you have to have at least 15 costume changes in a musical of this size and 25 in a musical this size. These union musician numbers have nothing to do with the artistry being presented. And while, OF COURSE, we all would love huge lush orchestras, and we want to make sure musicians get work over technology, lets remember it's 2024 and all these shows are fighting for their lives, or even to make it to first preview or opening night!
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:30pm
Jordan Catalano said: "....And while the acrobatics were great there was nothing "elevated" about them that made you OOH or AAH (well, besides some of the people who were literally SCREAMING throughout the entire show, something that Broadway needs to find a way to address because it's ridiculous).
It's pathetic that I now try to gauge what the audience behavior is going to be like at a given show when deciding whether to buy a ticket or not. It has certainly kept me from revisiting ST, which previously would have been a no-brainer because of the two leads.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:38pm
Does anyone make special requests to actors equity? If a producer said we don’t want to pay them that much cause we’re only doing six shows a week and need to bring the costs down. Would they grant the request.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:50pm
I’m just saying, if there’s another production out there with a larger orchestra, I would think the landlords would rather bring that in instead of going against the union. Like I said, Bad Cinderella went from 6 to 18 to accommodate this. I’m assuming ALW, the producer and composer, was happy to because he pointed them out in the announcement at the beginning. Why does this show get a pass?
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:52pm
SisterGeorge said: "Jordan Catalano said: "....And while the acrobatics were great there was nothing "elevated" about them that made you OOH or AAH (well, besides some of the people who were literally SCREAMING throughout the entire show, something that Broadway needs to find a way to address because it's ridiculous).
It's pathetic that I nowtry to gauge what the audience behavior is going to be like at a given show when deciding whether to buy a ticket or not. It has certainly kept me from revisitingST, which previously would have been a no-brainer because of the two leads."
There's no screaming at ST. No singalongs. No shouting. Enthusiastic, but respectful. If you want to see the current leads, you will not be disappointed
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:56pm
Tell that to the Aaron Tviet fans behind me.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 7:59pm
I’ve not really experienced screaming at the theatre. It seems like that’s a thing that happens on special nights like the first preview etc. i almost never see a show in the beginning of its run.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 8:27pm
I am apparently in the minority here as I absolutely loved this show. I plan to go back after they open to see what changed in previews. I am not familiar with the source material in any way so I truly had nothing to base from that.
I am a sucker for a circus theme and I thought the circus elements were very strong. I was entertained and want to go back and see what I missed as there was a lot going on just like there would be at a circus.
i actually really liked much of the score. I thought it serviced the material well and am very hoping we get a cast album from this as I want to hear and dissect what was there.
the puppet I argue was well done for what it was. I wasn’t expecting to see any but I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
The book is the weakest part and I hope they tighten and change some things of it but I honestly didn’t mind much of it. There is a speakeasy scene in act 1 that felt very jarring as it kind of comes out of nowhere but also I knew why it was there.
the cast was phenomenal. Top to bottom for me. I was only familiar with Grant from the Flash so didn’t know he could sing that surprised me. I am a big fan of Izzy McCalla and thought she was terrific. Paul Alexander Nolan really impressed he’s doing fantastic work here.
Overall I can understand why people feel the way they do (and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion) but I just wanted to put in mine because I loved it and truly can’t wait to return.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 9:20pm
Broadway Flash said: "Does anyone make special requests to actors equity? If a producer said we don’t want to pay them that much cause we’re only doing six shows a week and need to bring the costs down. Would they grant the request."
This is a conversation about minimums, not the amount that each individual employee is paid.
There is no minimum to the number of actors in a show. Nobody NEEDS to make special requests to AEA to determine the number of performers in a specific show because they have no jurisdiction over that. It is completely at the will of the producer (in consultation with the author/director/choreographer/GM/etc).
Equity WILL make a special agreement for brief walk-on roles in something like THE INHERITANCE, where the ensemble of young men appeared in only the finale of Part 1 in what was essentially a walk-on role. If I recall correctly, they were each paid 50% of Equity minimum for that (more than $1,000 a week + payments towards benefits & pension for less than 5 minutes of stage time, at just 4-5 performances a week...best gig in town).
To your original point: Broadway might actually benefit from a sliding scale salary system with AEA and the other unions based on number of performances per week. (and/or lower salary options in exchange for revenue-sharing.) There are some plays that would sell exactly the same number of tickets with 6 shows a week as they would with the current 8, and thus might be able to run a little longer. But the unions do not want to entertain that and generally believe in a "one size fits all" model for Broadway, where a show like HAMILTON must play by largely the same rules as a show like MY SON'S A QUEER.
Updated On: 2/25/24 at 09:20 PM
Posted: 2/25/24 at 10:03pm
Yeah the actors need to get paid less. Then maybe they can afford scenery and bigger orchestras.
Posted: 2/25/24 at 11:49pm
I saw the show in Atlanta and seriously question why people think W4E needs a 18 person orchestra. The score isn't particularly complex
Posted: 2/26/24 at 4:41am
The set looks pretty … regional … from the photos
Posted: 2/26/24 at 2:43pm
Just wanted to share my rush experience from Sat: I arrived around 9am and was roughly 20th in line. Not only did I get tickets, but I recognized a handful of people at the show who were behind me in line. A lot of us were in "partial view" seats located in the side front mezz. It looks like those seats (as well as side orch) are blocked off in the near future for this. It wasn't terribly limited, just the upstage corner.
As for the show, count me in the disappointed bunch. I thought the direction was creative, the cast was giving it their all (including that overzealous ensemble member at the end lol- honestly the most alive I felt all night) and the circus elements are exciting. However, the score and design were incredibly underwhelming. Hopefully they use the preview period to turn things around.
Posted: 2/26/24 at 5:14pm
It looks like they’ve spent zero dollars on the set.
where exactly has the huge capitalisation all gone?
Posted: 2/26/24 at 8:24pm
It costs big bucks to supply all that water for elephants.
Posted: 2/26/24 at 9:43pm
Saw this on Sunday, via TDF, rear mezz, 3rd row, L center, full view. It’s been a while since I’ve been in the Imperial, abysmal legroom up there, thankfully I had an aisle seat. Having not read the book or seen the movie, I would also say I’m in the minority of those who enjoyed this. As for the set, it is as gritty and minimal as I would expect from this rag tag circus group. Let’s face it, they were not Ringling Bros. As for the animals, they clearly were not well cared for and I would not have expected them to look as polished as the animals in Life of Pi or Lion King. I loved how they brought Rosie to life. I would like to give the music another listen & I enjoyed the parts of the circus acts throughout. The theme of “choosing the ride” resonated with me. I do think this needs a bit of a trim, especially the parts of the older story teller, that was the weakest part for me. I do hope this production finds its way.
Posted: 2/27/24 at 2:34pm
MezzA101 said: "SisterGeorge said: "Jordan Catalano said: "....And while the acrobatics were great there was nothing "elevated" about them that made you OOH or AAH (well, besides some of the people who were literally SCREAMING throughout the entire show, something that Broadway needs to find a way to address because it's ridiculous).
It's pathetic that I nowtry to gauge what the audience behavior is going to be like at a given show when deciding whether to buy a ticket or not. It has certainly kept me from revisitingST, which previously would have been a no-brainer because of the two leads."
There's no screaming at ST. No singalongs. No shouting. Enthusiastic, but respectful. If you want to see the current leads, you will not be disappointed
Thanks for the encouragement, and perhaps you were lucky, but that certainly contradicts what many others have reported.
"
Posted: 2/27/24 at 6:17pm
I will be attending later in the week. I have to say that I have found their window card / logo to be the best of the new musicals this season. A WFE T-shirt is already on my shopping list.
Posted: 2/27/24 at 8:19pm
whats listed as "partial view" seems kinda arbitrary... Row A of the Rear Mezz is entirely partial view, but the seats right behind them are not? Id like to take advantage of a cheap ticket here because i highly doubt I will enjoy this thing so will likely just go for it but curious if anyone bought those seats.
Posted: 2/28/24 at 10:42am
I caught this on Sunday and throughout the afternoon overheard different people say two things that made me smile and laugh which are two things I didn't do during the actual show,
"Who greenlit this sh*t?"
Now, we all know the literal answer to this question. But it got me thinking if there was some huge want by the public to bring this story to Broadway, why the score was so bad I wanted them to stop singing at a musical, and who the audience would be for this show a year from now. I got....nothing?
"Why do straight boys on the CW think they can sing live?"
I laughed at this comment because same. Bucket list perhaps? Because I know I thought it was a typo when Casey Cott was cast in Moulin Rouge! and not his brother Corey. I adored Grant singing a song from Pasek & Paul during his time on The Flash, but his voice is not special or exciting in any way. I don't know anyone who was thrilled with this casting and I seriously doubt he will sell a lot of tickets.
However, I loved the lighting, the sound was crisp, and I really enjoyed the circus performers. I wanted to see more of them because I didn't care about the main characters, honestly. The circus design by Shana Carroll looked gorgeous and the puppets were....well they were there! ;)
I was in the mid center orchestra and noticed the stage was pretty high. The ringside seating is just code for "seats way too close that cause neck pain!". Don't fall for the gimmick, guys.
In my view, the 525,600 shows debuting in the next two months is such a terrible move. Many of them will cancel each other out, especially if your show is beige as hell like this one.
Posted: 3/1/24 at 2:47am
Wow. Sad to report this one was a complete strike out for me. The sets are very disappointing and so are the puppets. There’s supposed to be a dog that gets passed around that reminded me of my bathroom rug. It didn’t have a face.
The score is forgettable but they have an Act 2 ensemble number called Zostan (stay in Polish) that reminded me an awful lot like Hygge. So there’s that.
I found the narrative device lame and tiresome. I guess if you like acrobats this could be for you.
Updated On: 3/1/24 at 02:47 AM
Posted: 3/1/24 at 9:53am
Ok, I admit it... I missed your posts.
Sutton Ross said: "
Posted: 3/1/24 at 11:39am
Melissa25 said: " There’s supposed to be a dog that gets passed around that reminded me of my bathroom rug. It didn’t have a face."
Hmm. Were you sitting far back? I was in front mezz and saw it's face very easily. I also thought it was a neat looking puppet and liked how it was animated to look alive.
I really enjoyed this show! I thought the circus acts and acrobatics were outstanding and there were several death-defying moments where I gasped. (The pole.) Yeah I guess if you're not into Cirque-type shows this isn't for you, but I love that stuff and really had a great time with this one.
The show certainly isn't perfect. I didn't like the framing device, it's the same problem I had with Harmony. I don't care at all about the old person looking back on their life. Every time it cuts to them, the action stops dead and I want to return to the 1930s story. Just tell the main story and stop including the same tired framing device!
Unlike many shows, IMO the first act is better because it's more about the circus and spectacle. The second act has too many slow songs about the couple that started to bore me.
The music was fine. It seemed to fit the style of show well, aside from those slow dirges in Act 2. The bed scene in particular, ugh, get rid of it.
Despite those complaints, overall I did really enjoy it, and I am a bit surprised by all the negative comments here.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
