Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: It's not really Broadway ... | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 09:07 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
| In reply to: Straight white men--how is this making it to broadway? Spoilers at end. - dramedy 01:51 pm EDT 06/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Three regional (LORT) theatres now have Broadway Theatres in their real estate empires. Second Stage, MTC, and Roundabout. They produce shows using LORT contracts, paying about 1/3 less than a BRoadway show would be required to pay, to pretty much all of their employees including actors and stage managers. The lower salaries apply through the first 16 weeks of a run at Studio 54, Friedman, Hayes, American Airlines, and Sondheim (except when they just rent it to a show like BEAUTIFUL). The LORT/Broadway hybrids get donations, and except in rare occasions where they have commercial partners (which is dubious IRS wise anyway), they have no investors to pay back. So productions like STRAIGHT WHITE MEN pay 1/3 less for everything, have no investors to pay back, and will run 16 or less weeks, losing money. But somehow we're not supposed to call these flops. But when LCT does SOUTH PACIFIC we have to call it a hit. By BRoadway standards, 95% of 'broadway' shows done by LCT, Roundabout, and LCT are flops. Like TIME AND THE CONWAYS, MARVINS ROOM, JUNK, THE CHILDREN, STORIES BY HEART, LOBBY HERO, TRAVESTIES, SAINT JOAN. All flops - they ran around 8 weeks - not enough time to ever recoup costs, even at their 66% of full price salaries. 'But they are limited runs' I hear a strangled scream. Well - no. Sorry. They are limited regional theatre productions. A limited Broadway run is 16-20 weeks - long enough to barely break even if you have a big star. So - STRAIGHT WHITE MEN is not a Broadway show, even though it will appear in a Tony Eligible House. |
|
| reply to this message |
| You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:09 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: It's not really Broadway ... - NewtonUK 09:07 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| 1. Four LORT theatres have Broadway venues. The Beaumont is missing from your list. 2. It is incorrect that they pay 1/3 less to all of their employees. It's about 1/4 less. The same does not apply to "all other employees." 3. Straight White Men does not "pay 1/3 less for everything" (a morph from the incorrect information you have in #1). 4. These shows are all Broadway shows for Tony purposes because the League decided to make them eligible. The Tonys are a contractual construct of the Tonys organization, ratified by the League, the Wing, and the unions. To make any extra-contractual argument about that construct makes no sense. When you spout false information like what you have in this thread, you do violence only to your own credibility. 5. To suggest that the ability to recoup is in any way related to qualification to be on Broadway would disqualify a fair proportion of the commercial productions. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 02:53 pm EDT 06/18/18 | |
| In reply to: You are wrong in almost everything you say - ryhog 10:09 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| Ah Mr Ryhog, I knew you would be on my case. I dont have the 2018 numbers in front of me at the moment. But in 2017, actors at the LORT Theatres on Broadway had a minimum salary of $1385. Stage managers had a minimum of $2278 for musicals. Shows produced on the Production (broadway) Contract had minimums of , respectively, $2,034 and $3,342. The reduction, to be accurate is 31.8%, for the first 16 weeks of a run - then salaries would increase the Production Contract minimums. I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, but I think not, that their IATSE, ATPAM, and other unions all have similar reductions, like the old Middle Contract Theatres. For directors, the difference is rather large. Basically, if you direct for one of the Broadway LORT theatres, you get $28-30,000 as a fee, but no royalties. Each of the Broadway Lort houses have different 'caps'm beyond which time royalties as per the Broadway contract have to be paid. But not for the first 12-18 weeks of performances. And there isnt a royalty 'advance'. If a director does a Broadway show, they get and advance of $26,000 for a play, and $41,000 for a musical, against their royalties. So for a play running 16 weeks at a Broadway Lort theatre, a director gets around $30,000. A show running on Broadway Broadway, the initial fee (all in) paid to a director would be $60,000 for a play, and $70,000 for a musical. Yes, the Beaumont was missed on my list. An when LCT produces a big musical, which they know will run a year or two, they get a sizeable reduction in costs for the first four months of their run. And my numbers are all based on my experience, daily, with most of the union contracts in NY theatre. My contention has always been, with costs so out of control on Broadway, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. There should be a level playing field. Let all shows opening on Broadway be allowed to take advantage of the same rates as the LORT Broadway Theatres, This obviously wouldny make much of a dent in the budget of Broadway musicals, but it might help plays urvive their opening months. And why should I be the only person ATC not allowed to repeat a point? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:50 pm EDT 06/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are wrong in almost everything you say - NewtonUK 02:53 pm EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| I am not on your case; the only thing I care about is accuracy. Even though the AEA differential I calculated was off, for which I apologize, everything else you've said remains wrong as per my earlier post. But let's take a step back: you seem to be suggesting that there is a correlation between costs and worthiness of a show to be labelled as Broadway. That's bullshit; would you deny a Tony to a musical that only spent $7milion but give it to the show costing 10 times that much? I thought not... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 02:28 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are wrong in almost everything you say - ryhog 05:50 pm EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not at all. What I'm saying is its not a level playing field. Some dont find that a problem. I do. If I were to produce a show that closed in 8 weeks on Broadway, its a flop. If a Broadway LORT theatre does the same, its just 'a limited run'. The LORT/Broadway companies can produce 3 or 4 of these short runs in each of their Broadway houses. And they can (and do) win Tonys for them in various categories. And this is fine as far as it goes. Bit for commercial producers its a bit harder, because if one runs a show 8 weeks and closes, one loses $3-20 million. One's investors might abandon one, For the LORT/Broadway companies, its show after show, with donated funds. The business model is totally different. And it gives quite an advantage when you know you can produce 2-3-4 shows on Broadway every year, for a subscriber audience. The corollary is that if I am a commercial producer I pay a big star $25-50-100,000 a week - if I can get one. For the Broadway/LORT theatres, they have stars a plenty working for what my Dad would have called 'bupkus'. Why? It's easy - and I've had these conversations with agents SO many times it makes my head hurt. If a big star does a limited run at a LORT/Broadway theatre, it will run its 10-12-14 weeks scheduled. The success or failure of the project does not rest on their shoulders. If they do a Broadway commercial show that flops - OMG - so and so isnt a star after alL! We all know TIME AND THE CONWAYS wasnt very good. But folk don't deride it as they do PARISIAN WOMAN. The latter was a commercial disaster. The former didnt sell to well either, beyond Roundabout subscribers who saw it. But no one will chalk it up as a 'flop' - because 'flop' means the show closed and the investors lost their money. The LORT/Broadway theatres have more or less the worst flop vs hit ratio of any major producers on Broadway - but there they are year after year, doing new Broadway shows, sans investors. If a commercial producer's last 9 shows were CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD, TRAVESTIES, STORIES BY HEART, TIME AND THE CONWAYS, MARVINS ROOM. THE PRICE, SIGNIFICANT OTHER, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, and HOLIDAY INN , they would be (rightly) shunned by investors. Even though TRAVESTIES was at least a good production, no one much wanted to see it. Its not bullshit that this is true. It is true, Its a condition of how things are. I just don;t much care for it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:11 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are wrong in almost everything you say - NewtonUK 02:28 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| You have every right not to care for it, and you would not be alone. But that is not a license for mis-statements. You assume that a level playing field is relevant, and it is not. The League could have imposed your regime, but it did not. The Tonys are not a financial olympics. If they were, we could just have Grant Thornton do all of the work. The Tonys are about a different kind of success. We may question if it is always about "art" but it is unquestionable that it is not about how much a show costs or makes. And in that context, as I said before, it does not matter if you spent 7 or 17 or 70 million getting your show up. In fact, a decent argument could be made that spending more reduces your chances of getting a Tony. We could have the same discussion at the other end of the spectrum: that Disney is not on a level playing field with other commercial producers. Likewise, about shows developed at non-profits. Or with small casts. Or minimal sets. Or whatever. But we don't. To paraphrase a show that no one questions the bona fides of: Broadway is wide enough for all of these. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's not really Broadway ... | |
| Posted by: writerkev 09:30 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: It's not really Broadway ... - NewtonUK 09:07 am EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| You've shared your pet peeve numerous times, but your saying so doesn't make it so. Everything you say can be true about those productions, and they are still on Broadway. Which they are. Sorry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.018165 seconds.