Spider man closing.... enough said - Page 4

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 5:09pm

"In my case at least Take Back The Dark made me a big fan of Broadway and theater."

You loved it so much that you don't know the correct title?

[devonian.t]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 5:45pm

I suspect Spiderman will open around the same time Craig Bierko rejoins 'Matilda'...

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 6:24pm

The NY Times is now reporting that the show lost $60 million. Investors are quoted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/theater/spider-man-investors-shaken-by-projected-60-million-loss.html?hpw&rref=arts

[bk]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 6:44pm

"The detail of those additional expenses must belong either in the category initial investment or running/on-going costs. It is easy.

They don't, and I explained why.

The only issue here is that we don't know the detail

Those details are the difference between 67% paid back and 0% paid back. If you don't understand everywhere the money goes before the investors see a dime, then no, you don't "get it."

On a very basic level, I'm sure we all understand how the stock market works, too. You invest some money, when the market does well, you get more money. But I am not going to post on a message board full of stockbrokers, pretending I know all about it and say, "What? It's basic math, lol.""

No one wants to hear it, Yero, especially the Internet experts. Thank you for you good posts and perhaps people can learn from them when they're not too busy being "offended" by me :)

[bk]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 6:46pm

"The NY Times is now reporting that the show lost $60 million. Investors are quoted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/theater/spider-man-investors-shaken-by-projected-60-million-loss.html?hpw&rref=arts"

And there you have it. Perhaps Quol and the other fellow can now apologize? Because they were wrong. Or perhaps they know more about simple mathematics than the investors who are now saying they have been paid back what I said many posts ago and which no one but Yero thought was correct - 0.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 6:48pm

Saw it and found it to be visually stunning. Only 2 good songs and a not so great book. But I am glad I saw it. Carney singing "Boy Falls From Sky" was one of my favorites that year. JMO

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 7:21pm

Wow, that Times article is something. My favorite quote sums it all up:
"“We will see nothing back, not a cent,” said Terry Allen Kramer, a veteran Broadway producer who put about $1 million into “Spider-Man.” “A lot of us feel that it’s an extraordinary show with lousy music, but the main problem is that the budget numbers were a disaster — just a disaster.” "
The music was certainly lousy.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 7:53pm

Long story short from what I got told by a reliable source. Kong wanted the Broadway but didn't want to bump out Cindy and figured they'd wait out the Foxwoods (since we all knew Spiderman's days were numbered). Now that Kong doesn't seem to be making and progress towards Broadway, The Bodyguard wants the Foxwoods. Updated On: 11/19/13 at 07:53 PM

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 11/19/13 at 8:09pm

A little late, but: It's about time it closed

[JackBentard2]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 1:12am

Lord of The Rings anyone not the greatest musical but I do love the score. but Jerry Springer Please I want to see it.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 1:28am

Thought The Bodyguard is aiming for the Marquis after its renovated, the Foxwoods is far too big for the show.

[binau]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 4:18am

Yero. That's exactly right. The detail is extremely important. The main point of my argument is the following:

Although the detail is important to precisely estimate the net profit of a show, at a high level the process that Bwayto was using to estimate the show's profit was correct. The reason his estimate was incorrect was because he didn't have knowledge of this low-level detail, not because he didn't have knowledge at a high level. Thus, I think BK's slagging that Bwayto "knows nothing" was a complete overreaction. Bwayto understood at a high level that the net profit is a result of a simple calculation - revenue minus expenses. There is no need to pretend that calculating the net profit of a show is anything more complicated than this. It's really just about the detail of what is included in the calculation.


-----

Now, if we are to go down into an extra level of detail there are two categories of expenses, the costs associated to mount a show on a stage and the costs associated with keeping the show playing night after night. I don't believe there is any need to overcomplicate this and suggest there are other categories of expenses at this level. You listed two examples of expenses, which was a great contribution thank you - but this level of detail was at a lower level than how bwayto was looking at the grosses. For example:


1. Royalty expenses as an percentage of weekly profit. This expense can be categorised as an expense associated with keeping the show running night after night.

2. Loans associated with unforeseen legal issues, rewriting, delayed previews etc. These expenses can be categorised as expenses associated with mounting a show on a stage.


The only issue here is that bwayto did not know what the specific expenses were associated with mounting and running Spider-Man. He understood at a high-level what was involved in determining whether a show makes a profit or not. BK's pretentious, arrogant post in relation to Bwayto's calculation is everything I hate about some older people. A thoughtless dismissal of a person's argument because they are young rather than actually carefully thinking about the process to which the argument was made and the specific detail of where the argument was wrong.

Now, it would have been useful if BK could have provided some of the detail associated with the Spider-Man expenses. While his estimate was closer than Bwayto's he was still off by 15 million. So it seems, BK, your only contribution to this thread was to demonstrate what a bitter old man you are. Pretty useless if you ask me.

Updated On: 11/20/13 at 04:18 AM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 6:14am

Surely it demonstrates that it is never advisable to estimate without sufficient data. It was naive to try to reach a figure like 67% without a huge caveat that this was based on very limited information.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 8:36am

It might not have been the worst show in the world but it had the worst score. Something they never tried to fix. I hope this keeps Bono away from Broadway for awhile.

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 12:56pm

Surely the NYT headline "Spider-Man' Investors Shaken by Projected $60 Million Loss" has to be a joke.

Shaken?! It seems unlikely them not seeing money back shouldn't have been a major shock...

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 12:58pm

"I hope this keeps Bono away from Broadway for awhile."

Bono has always been "away from Broadway," that was a huge part of the problem.

I love U2, but if you're the draw for a show like this, you can't be on tour when it is in previews.

[suestorm]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 1:12pm

i enjoyed the score, at least with the originals. Do we really want to chase people like Bono away? havent we had enough of ALW, SS and soundtracks from the Cold War?

I would love to see more rockers and even rappers give it a shot. but with the scorn they received most of it unwarranted i bet theyll be scared away.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 1:39pm

why on earth would they(or anyone else) want to mount this show anywhere else(Vegas, Germany, Japan, etc.)?? It's a money pit.

[bk]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 2:14pm

Oh, Quol, yes I'm a bitter old man. And you're a twit - ooh, we're on the schoolyard again. What fun. And in my original post I said the investors would get back 0. Please tell me where my calculations were off. That was, of course, the entire point of that original post. I always find it amusing when a young person posts as if they know the business inside out, which they clearly don't. I also find it amusing when old people do it and I'll call them out, too. And it's ever so amusing that on so many occasions you and your ilk always do the "old man" stuff - and, BTW, you do it frequently without anyone having made a "young person" comment. Funny how that works. But, you know what - I'm of an age and I don't give a crap what you call me - bitter is amusing, too, at least for those who know me and know what I do. I have about as much bitterness in me as you have sense in you - i.e. none. :)

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 3:07pm

The "enough said" in the title seems to have not been heeded on this thread.

[boggess]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 3:38pm

I couldn't believe when that U2 song played in the club scene. That was the nail in the coffin for me for that score. It felt incredibly lazy.

Updated On: 11/20/13 at 03:38 PM

[RW3]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 3:43pm

Just thought of this. Where in Vegas will the show be at? If they make it to Vegas....

[binau]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 4:59pm

"In my original post I said the investors would get back 0. Please tell me where my calculations were off"

So in this case my reasoning was that, according to the NYtimes article they are going to lose 60/75 million, leaving 15 million left over that presumably would make it back to investors. However, I am willing to accept that this might be wrong because it is an assumption. I also don't care if I am wrong for this particular point because it's not the main point of my argument. I will revisit my main point in a second, which will hopefully make more 'sense' this time.

"Surely it demonstrates that it is never advisable to estimate without sufficient data. It was naive to try to reach a figure like 67% without a huge caveat that this was based on very limited information."

Yes I think this is right.

I'm not actually claiming that the outcome of Bwayto's calculations were correct - they weren't because he didn't have the detailed information. So on a side note it puzzles me BK that you said earlier "Quol and the other fellow was wrong" as if I was actually making a claim about the financial state of Spider-man.

This is the main point I am trying to make:

At a high-level, the process Bwayto used to calculate the loss of Spider-man was correct for the reasons I explained in my previous post. He does "get it" - it's not difficult to see that profit is simply revenue minus expenses.Thus, I think BK's arrogant, rude response completely dismissing Bwayto was unreasonable. In other words, I think he was being a bit of a douchebag. A better way to respond would have been something more on the lines of Yero, who actually provided some information of why Bwayto's understanding of Spider-man's expenses were incorrect. I don't want to sit here and watch you treat someone like ****, BK.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 5:35pm

Why take it to Vegas? Have you ever been there and seen how successful spectacle is? Cirque pulls in over a million a day in profit from the Strip alone... Let's not let artistic sentiment get in the way of simply entertaining an audience, something Vegas does in spades. People don't want culture. They want special effects and 90 minutes of show.

As for location, Venetian is currently quietly negotiating the old Phantom showroom for this production. It's a perfect room. And with some changes, this show could be perfect for Vegas.

[bk]

Posted: 11/20/13 at 7:18pm

I guess your idea of treating someone like poo and my idea of treating someone like poo is different. I don't think there's much secret when I feel like treating someone like poo - this wasn't one of those times, though, I'm afraid.