Why does the CHORUS LINE revival cost 10 million dollars?- Page 3

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 12:01am

Very Warmly put BEST 12!
Phantom, U lost me on ACL having "no legs"
Do you know what that means?
ACL has "Legs" to spare.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 12:09am

Oh the topic:
10 million sounds high to me too.
No One in that cast can be making a lot.
And people wonder why DISNEY will not even discuss
How much a show costs or costs to run.
TARZAN?
Take a guess.
And DISNEY does major work on the Theatres they use or rebuild.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 12:55am

Here's a break down that was done several years ago...comparing Broadway..Off Broadway and Not for Profit budgets. This break down was done using four plays not musicals...but it will give everyone an idea about what a Broadway budget consist of.
Notice that the actor's salaries make up a very small percentage of the total budget, whereas the majority is taken up by marketing and advertising.
BUDGET

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 1:01am

I suppose if you factor in that every design element is built from scratch, the first 90% of the show and the finale, all with the best materials available, that the large cast and the equally large crew are making at least a bit over minimum, the royalties, the marketing, the playbill printings, the cast album in production, the out of town tryout running costs, maybe even hotel and travel accommodations for the out of town tryouts for everyone, it could add up.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 1:10am

Wicked cost 14 million dollars.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 1:34am

CurtainPullDowner, I said "I really dislike it. For me, a musical is all about the music. If the music is not good, the show really has no legs."

I think that is pretty straightforward in that I personally do not think a show is worthwhile if I do not like the music.

It's just my thought about it.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 2:01am

I agree, I wouldn't say it's the best score, it has a few good songs, but nothing groundbreaking in terms of music.

I don't think the actor's "room & board" is covered in the budget. I know they all pay for their hotels, at least that's what I got from the books I read.

It is suprising thinking Wicked too $14, and A Chorus Line too $10. I would say Sweeney Todd had a bigger set than A Chorus Line. I don't get it, for only $4 Million more dollars, someone can get Wicked? What?

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 7:44am

yeah, out-of-town, actors are given a few options on hotels (usually close to the theatre): one is a good deal, the other is a nicer hotel, and they get to pick, but they have to pay for it
it might come out of their salaries, im not sure
at least that's what I heard from Mylinda Hull...

and yeah, Wicked only being $14 million doesn't really make sense...hmmm

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 9:43am

Where the "point of organization" for the production is, will determine if the actors are given a weekly per diem for food and lodging. Chances are New York City is the point of organization for ACL...so the per diem cost would be a part of the budget.

[GClef2]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 9:48am

Wicked was 14...and its stars weren't exactly cheap either. Plus all of the lavish sets and costume. Im really confused...

[Phantom2]

Posted: 9/3/06 at 10:34am

It can't be the free pantyhose.

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 8:58am

Okay - gotta step in here now. Been there, done that.

In it's day, as far as gay men being portrayed on stage, it certainly was a Brokeback Mountain. For the first time we were seeing homosexuals played onstage - and several of them, without the remorse displayed in Boys in the Band or Find Your Way Home(both great plays of their time) and the like. These were happy, well-adjusted gay men for the most part and even Paul's father in some sense, finally, accepts him, "Take care of my son" is heartrending.

And the cost - I would think (hope) the cast is on a favored nations contract where they all get the same. They really all do equal amounts of work (except Zack, who has like, every other line though he gets away with missing most of the dancing).

Royalties for the revival must be a nightmare due to the extensive ownership of those whose stories are used from the original workshop - there may have been lump sums paid out against grosses to get the show up and running.

And why should the costumes cost so much? Because they are immaculately sewn and maintained by Union members and they get the #@%* worked out of them. No, there is no need for the extensive cost given for the Finale designs - I've seen fine interpretations many times, but that doesn't mean the realities of union broadway productions don't just run up the bill. And I am pro-union, so no bitchin, please.

Shoes and hats are another thing - they are expensive and break down very quickly with this type of show. Replacements are contstant.

I don't know how many musicians are being used for this production, but the original orchestration is a bear and they don't come cheaply, either.

10 Million? No surprise. I just hope it has the wang-bang of the original and a decent run.

Updated On: 9/4/06 at 08:58 AM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 2:22pm

AMEN!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 3:32pm

There are no royalty nightmares -- those who participated in the original recording sessions and workshops signed away the rights to their stories for $1 a piece before previews began at the Public. That's all. Long story, but there was no negotiation in the matter -- the dancers either signed the release or the implicit message was that they would be dropped from the show and none of them wanted to risk getting a chance to be in it. Bennett later gave them a small percentage of his writer's royalty which has added up to a few thousand a piece for each of them over the years.

The number I'd heard was $8 million, not $10 million. $8 million is completely standard for a show with that large of a cast, especially if it goes out of town beforehand (out of town engagements alone can cost $2-3 million). Marketing budgets for big musicals can easily be over $2 million (and yes -- for whoever wondered -- that figure is part of the initial capitalization cost). Just having one full page ad in the Times for one day costs over $250,000 (and having your show included in the listings daily costs thousands) so yes it's not hard to go through $2 million very quickly.

So, yes, while $10 million sounds a bit high for this show -- $8 million or a little more is more likely -- it's not outside the ballpark in this day and age.

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 4:35pm

In it's day, as far as gay men being portrayed on stage, it certainly was a Brokeback Mountain.

Must. Not. Say. Anything.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 5:23pm

God I'd like to quit you
I'd like to quit you
Or take a crowbar to the head

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 5:33pm

...(Or take a crowbar to the head)...

[Kent]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 5:34pm

When it comes to people that “like” or “don’t like” A Chorus Line, I have a few general observations I’ve noticed over the years: (these may or may not be the case with you, phantom8019, but since you brought up the topic…)

First of all, I think we have to ask ourselves what A Chorus Line is really about and what makes it so different. While there are certainly many interpretations and layers to the show, I’d like to suggest that A Chorus Line at it’s core is a big dose of HONESTY. Yes, it may deal with dancers and their “issues” on the surface, but what A Chorus Line really offers is a chance for real people to stand in front of a real audience and open up at a real, genuine and HONEST level. The question that the show continually asks is “what is True?” First, what is True on the surface (“Name, age, where you are from”) This is the level that most people know…the image they try to project and have others see (strong, confident, likable) But then, the show goes deeper and asks what the Truths are underneath that the characters maybe DON’T want others to see (childhood pain, insecurity, feelings of inadequacy) and takes us on a journey into the characters’ “shadow” sides and to see them for who they really are, both “positive” and “negative.” In this way we are allowed to see the true “heart” of the characters.

The thing is, going to this level of honesty can be very scary. It took a huge amount of courage for the original dancers to share their actual stories that the show is built on. Some never could really do it. (read the book “On the Line” sometime…fascinating). But for those who were able to truly open up, it was a completely transformational experience. A Chorus Line can also be a completely transformational experience for the audience, but it demands that we go to a place of equal honesty; to look inside ourselves and remember events that may not be particularly pleasant; that we probably don’t want others to see; and that we may even actively try to hide.

What I’ve noticed over the years is that there are many people who can and and people who can’t appreciate this level of honesty (again, phantom8019, I’m not directing this at you personally). Opening up to others seems to “embarrasses” and/or “bores” some people and they actively resist and resent this type of process, labeling it as “self-indulgent” or “whining.” One poster on another theatre site said something like “I just don’t want to hear about people’s personal stuff,” or as phantom8019 puts it…[I don’t like listening to these] “drama personalities" who I perceive to exaggerate everything and always be the center attention.” I’ve also heard the resistance to this level of honesty stated as: “why do we have to talk about ‘bad’ stuff?….or “Why do people have to be so serious.” They just can’t or won’t “go there” for whatever reason. I suspect it’s a protective mechanism to keep them from looking at the “dark, scary” places inside themselves. Personally I find the process liberating. In fact, my idea of Hell is standing around a cocktail party having chit chat without really saying anything.

When A Chorus Line is right it isn’t about acting…it’s about being…especially being open to others. And when people are unable or unwilling to “tune in” at that deeper level, they miss what this show is all about. At least, that’s been my experience of people’s reactions over the years. It’s similar to the way some people talk about “The Fantasticks” when they say “nothing happens,” or it’s “slow” or “boring.” And I suppose for them that is true. They’re not wrong. That’s just where they’re at. But when you’re tuned into “The Fantasticks” at an emotional level, it’s actually quite and extraordinary experience.

As far as the music goes, I’m not sure what to tell you. Perhaps it’s just a preference thing. I personally find it one of the most listenable cast albums ever recorded, from beginning to end. Not just because of the music, lyrics or orchestrations (which are masterful), but because every song serves the dramatic flow of the piece. There is not one superfluous or wasted note or word. The music does have a certain “bombastic” quality about it by design – it’s supposed to feel almost like a pulse (or military beat) running underneath. The music of A Chorus Line is definitely more pop sounding than Sondheim, but it’s certainly not Andrew Lloyd Webber. And I would argue that the music goes just as deep as Sondheim without being as cerebral. A Chorus Line isn’t music you think about and ponder, like Sondheim, as much as FEEL.

Are the culture references in A Chorus Line dated. Yes, absolutely. But when the actors really allows themselves to open up, be vulnerable and be real (and when the audience can allow this kind of experience in) it makes not one whit of difference. Truth and honesty are timeless. A Chorus Line will never be the breakthrough theatrical experience it was when it opened (it has been copied and emulated to death), but I believe if done properly it can and will carry forever the same emotional punch.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 6:23pm

Bravo, Kent. Nicely done, and well put!

I will only add this about the music...

Perhaps it sounds corny or dated, or like "commercial jingles" because it was imitated quite a bit, back in its day. I'm not implying that a brand new sound of pop music was created for this show, because it wasn't. But Hamlisch (and his music team of arrangers & orchestrators) did have their pulse on theatricalizing the current pop music trends of the day.

I remember thinking that when I first heard the score to the movie Rocky (which was released the following year after ACL opened), that "Gonna Fly Now," particularly toward the end of the song and theme, sounded a hell of a lot like Cassie's final dance break (when her tempo speeds up again), in ACL. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Of course, the song "ONE" isn't meant to sound current, and WAS meant to be derivative. It's supposed to be instantly recognized by all as the big "salute-the-star" number, specifically like Jerry Herman's title songs for "Hello, Dolly!" and "Mame." That was most definitely intentional on Hamlisch and Kleban's part. SHE'S the one... not them. Not the chorus members. It's all about being unique and individual... but it's all for HER, the big star who's not there in the number yet.

Where Hamlish and the original ACL music team really succeed in being fresh is in their structure. It's VERY unusual for a Broadway score to be structured the way ACL is. You have numbers within numbers ("Nothing" is INSIDE of "Hello, Twelve"), and particularly the Hello, Twelve montage, in all its various sections, is incredible in the way it weaves in and out of spoken dialogue, song fragments, a full song, monologues and dance sections. That was pretty unique for its day. Other songs too, like Music and the Mirror, going back and forth between dialogue and song fragments, before launching into the main portion of the song, and ultimately the extended dance. And the opening, "God I Hope I Get It," same thing. A wonderful "organic" structure, spinning free-form in a stream-of-conscious way, and not relying on expected musical formats.

If you know the music only from the cast recording, then you are in for a big surprise when you first see it live, and realize how fragmented, progressive, and yet ultimately flowing the score is.

Updated On: 9/4/06 at 06:23 PM

[sabrelady]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 7:40pm

$eem$ pretty obviou$ to me. They are going to CGI all the dancer$ $o the finale can go on ad infinitum$$$

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 10:57pm

Like a very few of you here, I saw the original production (not at the Public, but on B'way). It was a good evening of theatre with a not-terribly memorable score (except it seemed every drag queen in town did "One Singular Sensation" at some point or another), but it took the Tony because it was about the theatre, pure and simple. There were better shows and better scores that season (Remember, this is the show that beat out Pacific Overtures for best score), but ACL took the sympathy vote because of its subject matter. That's not unusual: if Katherine Hepburn were to somehow return to Broadway, you know she's score a Tony nomination, no matter how awful the play or dreadful her performance.

But 10 mil for this? If anything, that should be telling everyone that prices on the GWW are getting out of control. If I'm forking over over a hundred bucks on a ticket to something, I really want more than just some brainless eye candy and a score of recycled 80s songs (Hello, WEDDING SINGER) and certainly more than a revival that shares a similar sense of scenic design with OUR TOWN. It's gotten to the point where it's cheaper to go to the Metropolitan Opera than a Broadway show, and that's a pretty scary concept when you think about it. The prices and the budgets have already drastically cut the number of new productions from one season to the next; pretty soon, we'll be down to maybe one original musical and zero straight plays because the only thing producers will want to try are those proverbial "sure things".

Just my 0.02, and no doubt worth every penny.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/5/06 at 1:05am

I def. need to see this show. I'm starting to see how the movie doesn't do it justice. I didn't notice the whole weaving of songs and whatnot. I can't wait to see it how it was meant to be seen.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 9/5/06 at 9:53am

Re. Margo's writing about the royalties, I quote from Ken Mandelbaum's book "A Chorus Line and the Musicals of Michael Bennett" c.1989:
"Those at the tape sessions had sold their stories to Bennett for one dollar...but before the show had even opened on Broadway, Bennett decided that those who had contributed their lives to the show deserved a bonus, and ...he drew up a precedent setting contract with 37 of those involved. The contract allowed the 37 to receive a portion of Bennett's author's royalties: an aggregate amount equal to 1/2 of 1% of the gross weekly box office receipts...He divided the 37 into 3 groups...based on the size of the individual's contribution to the show's material...Those in Groups A & B would receive their shares for as long as they lived, while those in Group C received payment only as long as they stayed in the show...Bennett's generosity in this case led to a new agreement between Actors Equity and producers, whereby performers in a workshop can be paid as little as $150 a week but must share in a percentage of the receipts when the show goes to a full production, that percentage depending on the extent of their participation in the workshop. Within 5 years, The CHORUS LINE dancers split a pool of $750,000."
So royalties to the former performers are a factor in the overall budget, though not to an enormous degree. Enough said!

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/5/06 at 10:14am

Yeah, I had always heard the same thing (even from one OBC member himself), that they were getting royalties... albeit small ones.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/5/06 at 10:45am

"I'm quite certain that there has yet to be a musical with a 75 million capitalization. With the case of Wicked, I've heard 14 million as well. I happen to know from a higher up Wicked crew member that a Wicked set, lights, costumes, sound, basically the physical stuff costs about 12 million bucks. So, add a couple of million more to that for development and 14 million sounds about right."

In all the press information related to the Chicago production, it was almost ALWAYS mentioned that it cost $14 million to produce Wicked on Broadway, and in comparison would only cost around $10 million for the Chicago production.