|re: NY Times: Landmark Broadway Deal Gives Actors a Piece of the Profits|
|Posted by: ryhog 06:14 pm EST 02/09/19|
|In reply to: re: NY Times: Landmark Broadway Deal Gives Actors a Piece of the Profits - FrauPeter 04:37 pm EST 02/09/19|
|I am all for skepticism but I don't read this the way you do. A few comments:
1. The 110% is pretty common in other shares.
2. AEA is not really focused on marginally successful shows. This never would have happened if that was what this is about.
3. The 109% notion doesn't really make sense. Let's look at it. Assume the cap is $10mil, so the 110% is $11mil. Let's assume the ungamed potential is $12mil. At that point the actors get $10k, and the production gets $990k of the excess over $11mil. Why would a producer forsake $1090k (990k+100k from the 109% closing that didn't happen) of profit to screw actors out of $10k?
4. Viewing off-B and regional as an alternative is apples and oranges. You cannot do the developmental work that productions depend on in lab settings when you have a show to put on. (Even assuming you have that much control, which you don't.)
5. Will the producers try to find ways to game the contract? Yes. Has there ever been a contract that someone did not try to find a way around? No. But this deal is good and, I think, workable, at least for now.
6. Following up on #2-3, one might wonder why a producer would hestitate to pay out $10k, or why actors why fight for a new benefit that might pay for 2-2 massages. It's not the $1mil profit that's a stake, it's the $1bil profit. That's $10mil to the actors. With that, your share of that you can do quite a bit.
|Previous:||re: NY Times: Landmark Broadway Deal Gives Actors a Piece of the Profits - FrauPeter 04:37 pm EST 02/09/19|
|Next:||re: NY Times: Landmark Broadway Deal Gives Actors a Piece of the Profits:L spoeaking of off Broadway - NewtonUK 06:47 pm EST 02/10/19|
Time to render: 0.015274 seconds.