Will the Company Revival be a HIT with NO Star Actor? — Page 2

Margo, correct me if I'm wrong because it's been awhile since I looked into this, but the not-for-profit shows produced by the Roundabout and LCT have a limited amount of time to run on the LORT contracts. After that, don't they have to transfer to a Broadway Production contract?
I say that only to because, in the case of some shows like Cabaret and Piazza eventually did see their actor salaries increase.

I think this show has a universal theme that will appeal to people. I don't know if Doyle will be a pull and I really hope people don't hear about the actors playing the instruments and think "Oh, great, another Sweeney Todd." I loved Sweeney, but I can see why it didn't have a mass appeal. Dark show, dark characters and, while it worked well for Sweeney, I'm not crazy about the "actors as musicians" thing.

Whomever is handling the publicity really needs to push Raul and get him out there promoting this show.

The women/men will love him because he's so sexy, the guys will identify with him because his character struggles with the idea of committment. If they use anything to sell this show, it should be Raul.

That's what I thought. Funny thing is, when you look at it all on paper (with the exception, perhaps of a "name" heavy production like Follies), actors' salaries aren't always at the top of the budget list for cost, so it's not always the make or break deal.
And I know this information is rarely released (and it's a bit tangential now), but do we know whether or not Harry Connick, Jr. worked for scale on Pajama Game?

The Wedding Singer is a very popular movie, that's why it sold ticket's.

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 01:43 PM

True. But it also had months of viral promotion through Lynch's website and amongst his fans. Sandler didn't promote it, no one from the movie really even publicly got behind it. Yes, it was a successful movie.....but one that people would be willing to pay $60-$125 per ticket to see recreated on Broadway?? I'd have to say no.

Well, with or without Lynch, the movie's popularity or anything else, the showing is struggling at the box office, either losing money or barely breaking even most weeks.

And Bwaysinger, I've heard (but can't confirm) that Connick worked for scale for Pajama Game.

He has millions in the bank, so I guess he signed on because he always wanted to do Broadway, not because of the money.

---

I stand corrected. The Forum revival made back it's investment. Side By Side did not, nor did the OBC of Into the Woods (or the revival for that matter). The original production of Sweeney Todd only made back 50% of it's investment according to it's producer, Marty Richards. I was quoting someone whom I believe to be a reliable source when it comes to these things. Perhaps I misquoted him.

After a little research, Night Music was the last original musical by Stephen Sondheim to return it's investement. OBC of Company and Forum both did.

Also, not to mince words, but I did say commercial Broadway production, I was not including Non-profit productions.

---

At the time of closing the original production of Sweeney had not recouped, but according to Hal Prince in an interview a couple of years ago, it did finally recoup a few years ago due to cd/vhs/dvd sales and licensing fees. I have also heard from several sources that Side By Side and the original Into the Woods also recouped, if not at the time of closing, then subsequent to that due again to licensing, tours, and subsidiary sales.

---

From Prince:

"An unlikely candidate for commercial success would surely be SWEENEY TODD. It ran two years on Broadway, but it took eleven years to pay back its original investment. From now on, everything that comes in for that show is in the profit column. And I think it is indisputable that Sondheim and Wheeler wrote a work of art, with no mind on the box office."

http://www.tfellowship.com/tfellowshipInterview.php

Understand that in most instances, Riedel and others are referring to recouping "at the time of closing on Broadway." Many shows have a significant income streams after that from tours and subsidiary sales and dozens of shows through the years that were officially considered flops on Broadway ended up turning a profit within months or years afterwards. There are some "flops" that tour for years and end up making millions.

---

Just for the record, most people outside "Broadway fanatics" that I've met have no idea who Patti LuPone is, so already your argument is a bit shaky.

Who's the star actor in Avenue Q? Or Jersey Boys, Mammia Mia, Spamalot, Spelling Bee and The Color Purple? All of those were grossing over 90% last week, without big stars or Disney to back them up. There are others as well. ljay, I know being a Chicago fan, you don't understand the concept, but not all shows have to have a household name above the title just to be successful. Forget Company, it's a pathetic argument to claim that ANY show has to have a huge star in it just to be a hit.

Dare I mention Wicked? It's still at 100% and with the exception of Joey McIntyre and Taye Diggs's brief stint, none of the actors have been stars outside the Broadway community. No, not even Joel Grey, who has to have a lengthy explanation following his name to explain what he's been in when mentioning him among non-theatre fans.

I'm sorry, but considering Britney Spears came dangerously close to her Broadway debute in the past year, these Weissleresque views that a show CAN'T be successful without a big name star is really unfortunate. God help us if a show attracts audiences just because it's good.

---

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 03:10 PM

Then again, there might be an argument made for the fact that a Broadway production raises the visibility of the product therefore adding value to the title. In which case, subsidiary rights could be negotiated, though I doubt on the same scale as an original Broadway production.

---

It might be a critical success and there might be a buzz among the "in" circle.. it might even make a little money, if the break even is low... but, frankly, that is BEST you can hope for.

---

st for the record, most people outside "Broadway fanatics" that I've met have no idea who Patti LuPone is, so already your argument is a bit shaky.

- Maybe because those people you've met are your age. My parents knew nothing about Broadway really before I got into it. And they both knew Patti from EVITA. They said the names Patti Lupone and Evita were HUGE in 79/80 time, it got so much publicity. Growing up all I heard from my family is "you've got to hear Patti's DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA.." All I remember hearing, especially when the Madonna film came up.

Plus she had a hit TV show LIFE GOES ON. Plus she had roles in hit movies like WITNESS, and DRIVING MISS DAISY.

You need to get your facts right. And you can also take your snarky attitude, and well.. you know what to do with that.


Oh and listen miss-know-it-all, the reason WICKED is such a smash with no names, is because it's a theme that attracts a wide audience, come on it's the WIZARD OF OZ. Also CHICAGO can make it just fine without a star, it did when it opened. And it goes with a star several times a year, just fine.

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 08:12 PM