Printer Friendly - Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!


Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by dramamama611 2013-01-28 17:48:41


for those interested, Evita did not recoup -- and would have need a run of approx 1/2 again as long to break even.

The salary paid to the five leads totalled MORE than what was needed to pay the salaries of the ENTIRE 27 person cast of Book of Mormon. (Yes, I realize there are no names in that.)


Someone didn't do some homework before investing here.

Yikes.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by FindingNamo 2013-01-28 17:52:20


Poor Helena Rogers will never be back on the Broadway now.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Broadway Joe 2013-01-28 18:03:27


I hope we are so lucky to never have to see Elena Rogers on Broadway again.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by latitudex1 2013-01-28 18:08:40


Yeah, that beyotch stank.

But I do think that Elena Roger would make a decent Velma.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by frontrowcentre2 2013-01-28 19:10:50


Just further proof that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a terrible producer.

He brought this revival to Broadway at the same time as a production of SUPERTAR was opening - a transfer from The Stratford Shakespeare Festival that he himself encouraged. Both closed with heavy losses.

Someone should sit this man down and explain to him that Broadway is NOT an Andrew Lloyd Webber museum.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by FindingNamo 2013-01-28 19:14:13


I nominate you!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by chrisampm2 2013-01-28 19:15:19


Thanks for the link. Fascinating and worrying.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by dramamama611 2013-01-28 19:31:27


I said it was more than the enitre cast of BOM -- I misspoke: it was more than THREE times the salary of the entire cast of BOM!


And -- was ALW a producer? The article goes on to say how much he and his Really Useful Company rec'd from the rights:



Composer Andrew Lloyd WebberÂ’s Really Useful Group, which owns the rights to the show, was paid a onetime fee of $100,000. In addition, Lord Lloyd Webber and Really Useful earned fees and royalties totaling about $70,000 a week. From that, lyricist Tim Rice received an undisclosed portion of the authorsÂ’ $6,300 weekly license fee.


I have a bridge in London, anyone, anyone?

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by blaxx 2013-01-28 19:37:42


But...but...I thought Evita was the biggest hit on Broadway!

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2013/01/broadway_hits_h.php

I would never call a show a hit until it closes.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by bwayphreak234 2013-01-28 19:48:33


Thank you for sharing! That was a very interesting article. Very eye opening and insightful!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Wynbish 2013-01-28 19:49:30


How was Elena's Fosca? That could be a possibility for the future.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by CATSNYrevival 2013-01-28 20:11:23


^God no. They should get the real Evita for that.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by notsovirginmary 2013-01-28 20:11:50


Her Fosca was brilliant. I actually liked her voice in Evita, but the vocal range in Passion sat in a really good place for her. She sounded lovely, and her characterization was fascinating. I don't think we will see her back here for a while, though. She is focused on her film career, and if she wants to return to the stage, I imagine she'll go where she is appreciated.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by matineeidol2013 2013-01-28 20:14:05


How insane to think that Follies, the last tenant at the Marquis, had a 40 member cast, well over 20 pieces in the orchestra, and if I remember correctly, their weekly running cost was reported at under 700,000!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Bettyboy72 2013-01-28 20:17:58


It's a cautionary tale to any producer that is hanging all hope on one big star. If the $$$ totally hinges on that star, you are setting yourself up for disaster.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by GlindatheGood22 2013-01-28 20:27:56


It's hardly fair to say "that beyotch stank" and not talk about how awful Ricky Martin was. I thought Elena did fine, and this revival was obviously not structured for her. It was always Che's show, at least on Broadway, and he was just so weak. Listening to his monologue during Buenos Aires is painful.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Scarywarhol 2013-01-28 21:21:35


Elena was miscast for a space and production of that size. She is, in fact, a wonderful performer. She is easily the best Fosca so far.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by blaxx 2013-01-28 21:25:52


Elena was miscast for a space and production of that size.

I'd say a performer can only be miscast once. If she made to Broadway is because the producers thought she was perfect.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by ljay889 2013-01-28 21:36:19


Elena was miscast in a lifeless and mediocre production. She wasn't the only problem, but didn't help.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by latitudex1 2013-01-28 22:20:09


"It's hardly fair to say "that beyotch stank" and not talk about how awful Ricky Martin was."

I just don't like Elena Rogers, and I don't think I ever will. Was she even in Evita?

But Elena Roger was alright, even if the score may have been a bit beyond her at times. The score sat decently in Ricky Martin's voice, but the role was beyond him. Eh, can't do much about it now.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Patti LuPone FANatic 2013-01-28 22:21:45


Uh...heck no. Elena Rogers as Velma...HA! While celebrity Roxies have to go thru "Chicago" boot camp to play the role, usually the Velmas are long time veterans of the show. from RC in Austin, Texas

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Visceral_Fella 2013-01-28 22:26:39


Wow, I knew it would be bad, but this is a big hit.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by notsovirginmary 2013-01-28 22:30:40


Elena is more than capable of playing Velma, but she would like ridiculously small next to the rest of that cast.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Joviedamian 2013-01-28 22:59:40


"It's a cautionary tale to any producer that is hanging all hope on one big star. If the $$$ totally hinges on that star, you are setting yourself up for disaster."

Totally agree. We have to remember that the bigger the star most likely the bigger the cost of him or her. Which means if that person is going to cost more than the show can produce, it is set up for disaster.

The reason why FOLLIES did so well is that most of the names in the show were not BIG stars that attract much more money. You had well known people like Peters, Paige, etc..but I highly doubt they were making anywhere near what RICKY was contracted for.

I produced a show once in Los Angeles. We had stars and great talent. But, we wanted to see the show just be produced. So I was able to work out a contract that started their salaries at the lowest wage possible and as business got stronger, and even stronger, raises were then in order. The show made a profit and was able to get the stars and non-stars a great salary by the time the show closed.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by RippedMan 2013-01-29 00:14:04


That's how it should be. Stars should be willing to do Broadway for the "art" of it rather than because it's paying this much, blah blah. But I understand it. We all have bills and if producers are willing to pay it then why not ask for it?

But who are the 5 leads? I can't imagine Rachel Potter was getting paid that much. Was she even a "name" before this show? I hadn't heard of her. I'm sure Ceveris wasn't getting paid too much? Who is the fifth? The Evita alternate? She can't be making a ton.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Horton 2013-01-29 00:21:37


That's what I wanted to know, RippedMan. Who are the "five leads." I think Cerveris might have made a decent amount (especially after Tony and Drama Desk Nominations). But who are numbers four and five. However, you'll notice the article says "The five principals shared about $170,000 a week in pay and perquisites at the outset of the run." If we think that when Lane and Broderick returned to "The Producers" they each made 100k-ish, each, then it wouldn't surprise me if Martin alone made 60k+ a week, leaving 110k for the rest of the company.

But what do I know?

I think the moral is that good theater is good theater- this poorly conceived, cast, and directed revival was not good enough, even with huge pop stars and a cult following from the late '70s, early '80s.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by misto625 2013-01-29 00:47:38


I would expect the five leads to be: Eva, Peron, Che, Magaldi, and Mistress. I would estimate Cerveris would have pulled in 20-30k a week. Probably the same for Elena Roger

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by RippedMan 2013-01-29 01:10:32


But the other two couldn't have been more than 5,000 a week, yeah? I mean even that seems pretty large considering each of those "leads" has one song each.

It was a gorgeously designed revival with mediocre talent in my opinion.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by rosscoe(au) 2013-01-29 01:15:52


Would the Hal Prince production have faired any better, and also hopes this does not change plans for a tour, I have waited since 1982 to see a production of Evita.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by dtzumbrunnen 2013-01-29 07:03:10


That's how it should be. Stars should be willing to do Broadway for the "art" of it rather than because it's paying this much, blah blah. But I understand it. We all have bills and if producers are willing to pay it then why not ask for it?

It would be interesting to be able to really see a comparison here. It's very common for an actor to be highly compensated on a broadcast TV show, but if the same/similar type of show was on cable, to be paid significantly less. I wonder how a Broadway engagement like this would fall on that spectrum - I imagine they actually are getting a pretty slim check in comparison. It just seems huge compared to the bulk of the company happily working for the equity minimum.

The other consideration with both Ricky and Elena, likely counted in their salary + perks number is housing and car service - I'm sure neither of them are staying in a 450 sq ft studio walking distance from the Marquis! That adds up quickly!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by ErinDillyFan 2013-01-29 09:56:53


Obviously, Evita was not the draw here Ricky Martin was. Obviously it was making good money with him in the show. What I find amazing is not the $170K cast salaries, but that salaries only represent a small portion of the $880/wk expenses. The total royalities someone posted at over $100K. That leaves over $600K/wk in theater rental, advertising, and crew/staff wages. Maybe what they needed was a smaller theater.

We saw the production in Stratford and liked it.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Whileshesleeps 2013-01-29 10:18:11


If the production was staged as it was in London then the production was doomed from the start.
The London staging left me completely feeling cold. The only thing I thought what was positive was the re-orchestration of some songs giving a more Argentinian feel.
Elena Rogers was just wrong for the show - you couldn't hear a word she was singing, and her voice often didn't sustain the notes (maybe an off performance?) Having said this she blew me away in Piaf with a simply brilliant performance both with her singing and acting.
Having seen Evita a few times (mostly on UK tours)they were generally staged far more proficiently with directors enabling the leads to connect far more with the audience.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by bdn223 2013-01-29 10:20:50


I am almost positive during both A Steady Rain and Back on Broadway Hugh Jackman's salary was 10,000 plus 10% of grosses if they were over x amount. Add to that fact for two weeks of the runs of both shows he did not take a salary and instead had all the money donated to charity. Hugh Jackman is one of those A Listers who do Broadway for the art rather than the paycheck. But one also has to realize that he is still an A Lister who is constantly working so he doesn't need the money.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by labwyfan 2013-01-29 11:22:53


Did anyone ever say how much they did recoup? I had heard EVITA was at 50% AT LEAST. ADDMS FAMILY (for example) ran for almost two years and did not recoup. By comparison, that's not a total loss or as bad as Addams (for example).

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by castlestreet 2013-01-29 11:24:32


Even for fans of Elena, the producers had to know that her performance on Broadway was going to be VERY divisive. The mediocre at best reviews, extremely high running costs and never ending comparisons to the original, which in so many peoples minds was near flawless- this was the perfect storm! Couple it with the fact that this year saw a small show like Once win the public over big time as did a big show like Newsies, and as previously mentioned the Superstar revival- I think all signs were pointing to this not having a happy ending from day one!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by bdn223 2013-01-29 11:46:26


The difference with The Addams Family is that was a new musical which meant the producers had to pay for the development period. Revivals should have a lower initial investment, which this revival most certainly did not. Also Addams Family was able to play to sold out crouds for nearly 6 months of its run, with universal pans whih was impressive. No one expected Addams Family to recoup once its grosses dropped come its first winter. You have to remember The Addams Family's producers did not decide to close it because it was not making its weekly nut, in truth they were prepping to close the show for 1-3 weeks in January to install the changes made to the tour production, which apparently worked better, when they got an eviction notice from the Neaderlanders, so that they could bring Ghost in from London. The producers decided it would not be cost effective to move the show/could not find another theater. Finally the tour of The Addams Family recouped both its inital costs and the losses from Broadway very quickly.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by labwyfan 2013-01-29 13:33:35


Thanks, BDN. Evita is touring so hopefully that will happen for them too.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Jonwo 2013-01-29 21:28:51


The economics of Evita are interesting, The last big name revival How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying managed to recoup, wonder what Daniel Radcliffe and John Larroquete were getting, I imagine it must have similar to what other big name actors have gotten.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by chernjam 2013-01-30 01:20:39


frontrowcenter -

just an FYI - ALW was not the producer of EVITA. I think since Sunset he's realized he's not the best at that role.

Have to admit - reading that article was pretty shocking. Even if you want to make the case for Ricky Martin as a star (which I saw Max Von Essen and thought he was phenomenal - was going to see Evita not Ricky) that they spent THAT much for Elena and Cervis was ridiculous. Heck, couldn't they find some new unknowns to star and make them breakthrough stars?

And considering the criticism that Elena recieved, in hindsight that would've made sense.

cervis was good, but the ammount of time on stage, you didn't need him in that role.

What a shame. Had they not overblown their expenses on "star' salaries it could have recouped and possible still been running.

Such a thrilling score and awesome cast.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by AnythingGoes23 2013-01-30 03:15:13


Really Useful didn't produce Evita. They did the London revival that Webber promised to bring in but never materialised...

Evita could have been a huge hit. It was a mistake casting Elema, she is unknown and couldn't really handle the role in London. It was all to do with this show being more Latin inspired. They should have gone for a name or Broadway girl for the role. I believe however Really Useful would only grant rights to stage the show if she was Evita to start with as ALW still believes she is the star for the version, she knew this and more than likely demanded a wage more than her worth for pulling power.

Ricky Martin was the money expense, he got close to 100,000 a week, a penthouse apartment and a percentage of the weekly gross. He raked it in,

I wouldn't say Evita was massively off the mark from recouping. I thnk the show should have continued to see if the show could profit more without "star" names and all the expense that goes with them!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by AnythingGoes23 2013-01-30 03:15:20


Really Useful didn't produce Evita. They did the London revival that Webber promised to bring in but never materialised...

Evita could have been a huge hit. It was a mistake casting Elema, she is unknown and couldn't really handle the role in London. It was all to do with this show being more Latin inspired. They should have gone for a name or Broadway girl for the role. I believe however Really Useful would only grant rights to stage the show if she was Evita to start with as ALW still believes she is the star for the version, she knew this and more than likely demanded a wage more than her worth for pulling power.

Ricky Martin was the money expense, he got close to 100,000 a week, a penthouse apartment and a percentage of the weekly gross. He raked it in,

I wouldn't say Evita was massively off the mark from recouping. I thnk the show should have continued to see if the show could profit more without "star" names and all the expense that goes with them!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by dramamama611 2013-01-30 05:30:13


But remember how low sales dipped when Ricky wasn't there. I'm sure they crunched numbers and decided that even with that change (no name meaning less expense) they wouldn't be able to continue.

The know more than we do. It's easy to say they "should" have tried, but we don't know most of what goes on behind the scenes.


Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by broadwayfever 2013-01-30 05:38:35


$170,000 a week paid to 5 people...how dumb could they be? All they needed was 1 Big name (Ricky Martin)...the other 4 could've been anybody.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by CarlosAlberto 2013-01-30 06:28:31


So let's see...$170,000 combined total paid out to 5 people. Ricky was paid $100,000 a week (not including his percentage of the weekly gross) so that leaves $70,000 to split between the remaining 4.

Hmmm, someone made some money...

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by dramamama611 2013-01-30 06:41:04


All the employees made money.

The only ones that lost were the people investing.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by CarlosAlberto 2013-01-30 08:02:46


That's EXACTLY my point!

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Buscee 2013-01-30 08:25:34


I don't think that Ricky racked it in. He got exactly what he is worth. As far as Stars getting Limos, thats nothing. A producer would be stupid not to give such a service to guarantee that the star get to the theatre on time. As far as a Penthouse apartment. I am pretty sure Ricky owns his own apartment in Manhattan. As much as I love Michael Ceveris I can't believe he made that much of a salary, and the same goes for Elena. Who the other stars are that are making high salaries I cannot guess. I can only assume that Magaldi, and the Mistress got a min. Contract for their positions. If they didn't that is the producer's mistake. Ricky Martin was the draw. I had spoken to a banker 2 years ago who works in the industry,and she said that the Producers wanted Elena, but had to have someone like Ricky Martin to bring in the audience or this revival would have never happened.
I am sad that it closed at a loss. I really thought it would have turned a profit. It probably would have if Ricky continued doing 8 shows a week.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Rainbowhigh23 2013-01-30 10:23:19


Why did this revival happen so long after London - were they really that stuck on Ricky alone and waited for him?

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Phantom of London 2013-01-30 10:56:15


We also have to keep in mind that Evita closed with its head held high, the only reason the show closed early is because the producers couldn't recast it, so therefore closed on a high.

Thw show did go some of the way to recouping and I am sure the show will recoup its full investment on the US tour.

Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!
Posted by Buscee 2013-01-30 16:51:47


They waited about 3 years for Ricky. He had to clear up concert schedules, etc. They wouldnt have brought the show in without him.