| re: Why do you think Sweeney was unable to run without stars? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:24 pm EDT 04/12/24 | |
| In reply to: Why do you think Sweeney was unable to run without stars? - bobby2 01:44 pm EDT 04/12/24 | |
|
|
|
| As noted below, the grosses have been good with the replacement leads, if not generally as good as with the original leads. There hasn't been the drastic falling off that happened with the original production when Lansbury and Cariou were replaced by Loudon and Hearn. If the reason is that the new leads are not willing to extend beyond their initial 12 weeks, I'm a bit surprised. But it may simply be that the producers are looking into the future and anticipating a falling off, and they want to go while the going is still good, rather than run for a while at a loss, using up undistributed profits, presuming that they are in profit at this point, which I think I've read but I'm not sure. Even if they haven't yet recouped, they would be using up undistributed funds from profitable weeks if it started falling under the weekly nut. The original production would not have taken as long to pay off if they had closed it quickly after the new leads took over. But they used up undistributed funds to keep it running a respectable four months with the replacements. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Why do you think Sweeney was unable to run without stars? - bobby2 01:44 pm EDT 04/12/24 |
| Next: | re: Why do you think Sweeney was unable to run without stars? - ryhog 11:15 pm EDT 04/12/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.440489 seconds.