Weekly Nut for Spiderman?

The estimates when it opened were $1.1M to 1.3M a week. If that was correct, they must have renegotiated after the initial contracts ended or it certainly would not still be running.

If it is around $1M, it may be within a year of recouping. I would also be interested in music and merchandise sales. It doesn't count towards recouping for hit/flop, but the investors could have recouped already if you include these figures.

Updated On: 6/24/13 at 04:07 PM

I'm not mathematician but didn't they say it would take 5 years of sell-outs at full price to recoup?

---

I thought it had to run an insane number of years before recouping...?

---

"If it is around $1M, it may be within a year of recouping."

If the show had cost even only as much as Shrek (which was around 35 million), it MIGHT have a chance at recouping within a year, but it was at least double that. Even during its best weeks it was still not pulling in a massive profit most of those weeks (assuming the weekly operating costs were indeed around the rumored 1.2 million). There is no way with the numbers they've been posting the last few months that it is within a year of recouping (unless they've been using Garth Drabinsky style accountants).

SPIDER-MAN will still be trying to recoup long after many of us have turned to dust.

To be clear, I didn't suggest that it would recoup in a year, but a year from now. It has been running (including previews) for 134 weeks and taken in $182.7M. Estimates for cost were $60-70M.

If they were able to get the nut down to under $1M. They could have taken in >$40M. I know merch doesn't count toward hit/flop. But, for the producers bottomline if they have made $15M in profit there. One more year of similar ticket sales could bring in another $15M in profit would make the producers whole and 2 yrs might make it a hit almost 2 yrs earlier than the 6 yrs many were predicting...

I am trying to understand. There are bad bets, but if the weekly nut were what the pessimists were saying they would not throwing more money in. Not to mention what does the nut consist of? Does one or more of the producers have a hand in the advertising, so actually making money back on an expense? Part ownership in the theater making money on the rent expense? Just let me say I am skeptical of numbers, the sports world accounting is rigged in the owners favor and I think the accounting is slanted more in the producers favor than would appear at first glance...

Updated On: 6/24/13 at 05:29 PM

You are crazy over simplifying Spider-Man's situation. It's only been almost 3 years and word FROM THE PRODUCERS that it'd take them at least 5 years of sold out performances to break even. That's not happening.

The suggestion that the nut is at 1 mil is a relatively recent one...so you would need to use the more commonly accepted nut of 1.2 million for most of the time you are talking about.

That would mean somewhere around 25 million might going towards the investment. Only approx 1/3 of their investment in 2.5 years. So even if their nut has dropped...so have their sales...they are still looking at between 7 and 8 years. (All just really configured in rough numbers.)

---

It's already making over a million dollars a week, but that's not good enough. Bringing in a name isn't going to do **** for grosses.

This thread is a lot of math. If it's not making its nut, and King Kong really is in fact eyeing the theatre, I could see this being gone at Christmas if not sooner. If they can't pull some huge numbers over the summer, I think they will definitely close up shop.

---

Updated On: 6/24/13 at 08:46 PM