well, Philly, with your contract experience I'll forgive your big booboo as an oversight. Yes the optics have been bad from the start, but hopefully you'll concede that they are not quite as bad now as they were out of the gate. And I guess it's worth mentioning that optics depend on your perspective: if you were someone to whom Rudin owes a fiduciary duty, perhaps you'd see it differently.
Phillytheatreguy10 said: "^ Exactly- he got called on his cruelty- notice it says nothing about if they have to pay for the rights again, when they have access to materials (as in some cases the cancelled productions were already in rehearsals), and how soon they could perform Sorkin's version- for some within the traveling distance of NYC this will do no good as 2 productions can't run at the same time as per the agreement. So it sounds nice, but it solves nothing but the ba
dramamama611 said: "Actually, revivals don't usually take away all rights....usually just those withing a certain radius of Manhattan."
First of all, this is not a revival. Secondly, the key word in what you say is "usually."
"I BELIEVE the wording is that no one within 25 miles of a major city could keep these rights. We had a local group here that was getting closed down over this but simply found another physical theater tha
I don't want to wade too deeply into this, but one atypical feature here is the connection of the rights holder and the licensing agency. I don't know exactly who did something wrong here, but the fact that DPC may not have been an arms length party may be a part of the story. As an aside, these licensing agreements do a pretty good job of insulating the agency from exposure.
re the variation by the week: it can actually be very un-slight. As a for instance, a show that splashes a huge color spread in the sunday Times for spring preview week can easily have a six figure variation.
This is a perfect place to invoke my standing maxim: there are no rules.
The shows that succeed are the ones that people want to see, the ones that fail are the ones they don't. The only external influence on one show's success that I would acknowledge would be that there is a limit on how many new good shows can succeed.
I'm not sure it is an "industry" but I don't know how anyone would go about knowing that. I am also not sure in what dimension you are asking about the size (number of entities? number of shows per year? or what?) I think the path to coming up with some metric would start with the licensing agencies but perhaps if you asked your actual question instead of an abstraction, someone might be able to put a little meat on the bones for you.
I cannot think of a single example, and I don't know how it would come about. If a show recoups and returns its capitalization to the investors, then that money is gone. If the show subsequently starts losing money but continues to run, it would normally finance the losses through priority loans. It is possible for a show to succeed on Broadway and fail on the road, but generally that's a separate entity.
My post, which was quite a ways up this thread, was in immediate reaction to some nonsense about NY law, but overall we have a lot of people saying unequivocally that someone will not have a problem using a ticket that was a comp not intended for them. No one can say that. Then there are people making up stuff about publicists and ad agencies that no one in this business will recognize as true, and others who are
OMG another post with incorrect information. It really is reaching epidemic proportions in this thread.
Let's try this on for size: if you want to post about a FACT, and you don't know the fact and are too lazy to look it up, don't post it. If it's just your opinion, have at it, but if it is an opinion masquerading as a fact, kindly say so.
zainmax said: "would it really work for other shows?"
even assuming that it "works" here (taking mama's point on this), no. You really love to pick up this embarrassing articles in Forbes, don't you? lol
First of all, you cannot draw an inference from kid's shows and apply it to anything else. Secondly, it's a two headed monster, not just drawing audience away because they've been there/done that, but turning off audiences because