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

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:16pm

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:16pm

Not sure where you got your information, but several Sondheim shows made a profit on Broadway:

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM (OBC)
COMPANY (OBC)
A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (OBC)
SIDE BY SIDE BY SONDHEIM (OBC)
INTO THE WOODS (OBC)
FORUM (1996 revival)
SWEENEY TODD (2005 revival)

Additionally, the original production of SWEENEY TODD did eventually recoup a few years ago (do to licensing fees and cd/video/dvd sales).

Also several other Sondheim shows were produced by not-for-profits (Roundabout and LCT) and thus don't take into account profit and loss (though the shows ran for their full limited engagements and some even extended).

[MOXIEINTHECITY]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:16pm

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:26pm

But outside of internet chat boards, Esparza is not a star, in any shape or form. He's unknown to 99% of the public and he's never had a hit show. Pushing Raul won't sell many tickets.

Bwaysinger, you're right. Roundabout, LCT and MTC can operate under LORT contracts for a limited engagement of, I believe, 12 weeks or so, but after that, if they want to extend, they have to transfer to the standard production contract (in which salaries are much higher). That wasn't an issue with a show like CABARET which was a full blown hit and obviously was going to run a few years, but it's the reason that ASSASSINS and the revival of FOLLIES, both closed a bit prematurely -- there just wasn't enough of an advance to take the financial risk an extension would have presented.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:37pm

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?

[MOXIEINTHECITY]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:41pm

"But outside of internet chat boards, Esparza is not a star, in any shape or form. He's unknown to 99% of the public and he's never had a hit show. Pushing Raul won't sell many tickets. "

Sure, he's a bit of a no name...but that doesn't mean he can't be a draw. You can sell anything if you know your audience. He is charismatic and the fact that he's drop dead sexy doesn't hurt. Put him on Regis and Kelly, get him on Letterman, get him a feature in People or Cosmo. There's a way to sell him that would really help the show: push him on the women and gay men.

Part of Wedding Singer's popularity has to do with Stephen Lynch. That guy had such a huge underground following but he wasn't a recognizeable name to most people over 25.
Raul may not have what Lynch had in terms of a following, but he has the potential to have it. You just gotta sell him. Let him charm the pants/panties off people. I love Cerveris, but he does not make for an interesting interview. He's too niche. Sweeney just wasn't an appealing show to people outside of Manhattan or the theatre community. Company has a theme that far more people can relate to, so just put Raul out there, get him doing interviews and let him sell the show.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:43pm

The Wedding Singer is a very popular movie, that's why it sold ticket's.
Updated On: 8/7/06 at 01:43 PM

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:55pm

I don't think it will be a financial hit because no one outside of the theatre community knows Doyle's work. But, hopefully it all works out, it's a great show.

[MOXIEINTHECITY]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:55pm

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.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 1:56pm

Moxie, they tried to do the same thing with Cheyenne Jackson in "All Shook Up" but it backfired. I hope if they do anything, they change the logo for this show, I hated the Sweeney logo and I hope they change this from the Cinni run. I just hope it gets recorded.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:01pm

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.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:13pm

I suppose that's somewhat refreshing, Margo.
I had heard NOTHING about his pay scale (although I was reasonably certain everyone else was working for scale).
Tangent off. Carry on with the suppositions.

[Bohoboy]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:13pm

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.

[kdberg2]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:15pm

I'm really excited to see this show, but I have to agree that I think it will have a very limited appeal. I think the people who are already theatre fans, Sondheim fans, Doyle fans, Raul fans, etc. will flock to it. I'm sure many others with a curiousity will also, especially if it's a critical success, but as for a long commercial run, I'm just not convinced. Unless it gets amazing word of mouth, I just can't see tourists choosing this over one of the long running huge commercial shows that are available. I know how my friends and family look at me when I make what they consider to be "off the beaten track" suggestions for shows, so it doesn't give me much hope. But I'm certainly hoping that we're all wrong!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:25pm

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.

[Bohoboy]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:27pm

http://www.sondheim.org/php/news.php?id=1808

Though the original source is Michael Reidel for what that's worth...

Updated On: 8/7/06 at 02:27 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:38pm

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.

[Danielm]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 2:41pm

I love this show--it was the first OBC album that I wore out, but, though I hope I'm wrong, I doubt it will be a hit. On the plus side I'm sure the running cost will be low (does anyone have actual figures?) and it may do well with the New York audience and the "Theatre People", but it is not an audience pleasing show. The style and form of the show are confusing to many audiences and what it has to say is disturbing to most people. Also, I think it may be compounded because Esparza is a rather intense actor who will most likely bring a lot of dark shadings to Bobby. I hope it does well because I think it's one of the best scores ever and one of the most challenging works ever to hit Broadway in terms of theme and style.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 3:10pm

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

[Bohoboy]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 3:16pm

Right, understood about subsidiary rights. Jekkyl and Hyde is a prime example of a show that initially lost it's entire investment, but eventually turned a profit on the road and through ppv and sales of the taped "No Day At The Beach" performance. However, when specifically talking about Company, I'm not entirely sure that there will be subsidiary rights to vest, as it might just be a simple licensing deal. Again, I'm not sure of the specifics of a revival, but assuming that's the case...

With regards to judging if a show recoups on that schedule, we're only talking about the monies received from the Broadway production and/or tour.

Again, I think it's far too early to make any sort of financial assessment on a revival that has yet to open.

[Bohoboy]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 3:21pm

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.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 7:48pm

I loved the revival of "Sweeney Todd." I hope the revival of "Company" is able to do as well.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 7:56pm

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.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 8:08pm

Raul may not have what Lynch had in terms of a following, but he has the potential to have it. You just gotta sell him. Let him charm the pants/panties off people.

I'm all for the Raul love, but he does not strike me as the type who would willingly mediawhore himself in order to promote the show. It doesn't seem like his way.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/06 at 8:12pm

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