Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 9/8/13- Page 2

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 8:43am

"It is as simple as looking at the amount of money lost, and if it exceeds the amount any other single show has lost then it is the biggest flop in history."

I'm curious qolbinau, what is the biggest flop to date? I didn't know those numbers were made public.

As for Spider-Man, yes it's going to lose money. The producers knew that in previews. They could have closed it before it even opened. But they rolled the dice, opened it, employed many people, entertained huge audiences, and did get a return back. The show has had a decent, respectable run.



Updated On: 9/10/13 at 08:43 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 9:10am

Didn't Aspects of Love hold the record for a long time?

I feel like frontrowcentre would be able to answer this question.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 12:38pm

I don't think SPIDER-MAN has 'returned' anything, nor will it for a quite a long time still.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 12:44pm

How much did Aspects cost? It didn't do very well but its a small scale show so I can't imagine it had huge losses unlike many flops.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:01pm

"and did get a return back. "

Seeing as it hasn't officially recouped, this is impossible. There is no return until they recoup. Based on the most recent numbers, the investors will be lucky to get anywhere near a "return" (more like breaking even...)

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:04pm

The original production of Aspects had a huge physical production, designed by Maria Bjornssen. It's only in more recent years that the designs of the show have reflected the smaller scale of the writing.

I also remember Carrie being listed for quite some time in the Guinness Book of World Records for biggest flop, though I'm sure it has been surpassed as the cost of productions has grown so wildly.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:10pm

Aspects of Love opened in 1990 and lost the entire 8 million dollar investment. At the time The Times wrote a piece declaring that it was perhaps the greatest flop in Broadway history.

Here's a link to the article. What's most interesting is the discussion of weekly running costs. Miss Saigon was set to open with a scandalously high weekly running cost of $450,000!! My have times changed!

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/07/theater/aspects-the-musical-that-had-everything-and-lost-everything.html

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:24pm

To be fair, Whizzer, $450,000 in 1990 would be the equivalent of something like $804,270 in 2013 (thanks to inflation).

That being said, it's true that the industry has definitely changed... Now we have multiple shows with $800k+ weekly running costs.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:32pm

Cameron Mackintosh was the early pioneer of premium seats as front row mezzanine for Miss Saigon cost I believe $100 but it enabled them to recoup within a year. Saigon cost $12m, not sure how much Phantom or Les Mis cost, Cats I believe was $5-6m which the Shuberts gave to Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh rather than them having to raise the money.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 1:34pm

Yeah, now $700,000-$800,000 seems to be the expectation for a musical today rather than the exception. If you heard about a musical running for $450,000 in 2013 dollars you'd think, "Damn! That's cheap! What wizardry are those producers working/how cheap must that show look, haha."

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 2:59pm

Any pics of the original design?

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 3:41pm

Apologies, I'm using the wrong terminology. I'm not trying to defend Spider-Man, and the arrogant foolishness that went on with it. Just saying, the musical could have closed before 2.0 at a complete loss. Instead it opened. Has had a decent run. Raking in, what, more than $1 million a week? Until recently.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 3:46pm

But if it doesn't recoup, it's a financial flop - no ifs ands or buts. So then it's just left up to the subjective "artistic hit or flop" which varies from person to person and is only an opinion. Though it was, more or less, a critical flop as well. Right? That consensus should be considered.

[suestorm]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 3:58pm

you cant say a show is a failure if its been running for 3 years. Sorry you just cant. Maybe it hasnt made money, but 3 years of audiences have enjoyed it in one of the largest if not largest theater on Broadway.

Money isnt the only barometer for success

Look at all the shows that have come and gone sinces

[leefowler]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 4:10pm

Technically, according to Variety, a flop is any show that doesn't earn back its investment. So yes, a show can run for years and still be a flop.

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 4:14pm

I suppose it all depends on how one views money, with respect to my previous comment (which seems to not be understood). A 50% return is a 50% return. Again, I'm not saying Spider-Man actually has returned 50%, that's just the basis for the comment. Money has to "be" somewhere. If it sits in a mattress, it either gains or loses value based on inflation. If it's in a bank, one hopes the bank won't fail. If it's in bonds, one hopes the bond issuer won't default. It's not as simple as you put in $70m, and only got $35m back when it comes to saying Spider-Man is the biggest flop ever. So many shows return nothing at all. 50% is actually pretty good given the average. A person who has 50k invested in Spider-Man (under this theoretical model) gets 25k back. That same investor could have invested 50k in Godspell, and lost every penny of it. As such, Godspell is a bigger flop, and Spider-Man is nowhere close to the biggest flop ever.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 4:19pm

Technically, according to Variety, a flop is any show that doesn't earn back its investment. So yes, a show can run for years and still be a flop.

The "business" portion of Show Business. That's all it is.

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 4:20pm

Yes, it it's going to be a flop, perhaps the biggest financial flop in Broadway history. That's why I was asking what the current largest flop was, knowing Spider-Man will likely exceed it financially.

When it closes will they release the numbers of how much money it ultimately lost? I'm curious.

The show had a substantial run. It won't go down as one of my all-time favorites, I thought the music was terrible except for Rise Above. But I'm glad I saw it. It was visually dazzling.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 4:46pm

Then you're really discussing the length/duration/"life" of the Broadway production, not the financial failure or success. All of these lines are becoming blurred; some are equating a show that runs for, say, five years with 'success' when, in technical terms, it's not actually a success unless it has recouped.

[DeeKDee]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 6:58pm

I'm more familiar with the TV business where a TV show is considered a hit if its ratings are decent enough to get renewed and it lasts long enough. For the people who make the shows (e.g. WB, Sony), they often don't recoup until a show goes into syndication. But, the general public isn't aware of that. It doesn't impact what's considered a hit or flop.

I guess the difference with Broadway is people are more aware of the dollars behind the shows. With TV, few people outside the production company's accounting offices know if "Lost", for instance, made a profit and how much. Few people care. They just know that lots of people watched it.

Updated On: 9/10/13 at 06:58 PM

[suestorm]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 7:30pm

If the show goes on tour or vegas or London that should add to the bottom line as well. I've heard rumours of all for Spider Man.


FTR. I saw both Spider-Man s before and after the retool. I liked the first version better believe it or not. I found the show dazzling as well and liked the music. Best though were the actors. You can say what you want but I don't think anyone can deny they were very talented.

Updated On: 9/10/13 at 07:30 PM

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 8:36pm

"Yup, summer's definitely over."

Indeed. Hello, difficult fall months.

[binau]

Posted: 9/11/13 at 4:59am

"So many shows return nothing at all. 50% is actually pretty good given the average. A person who has 50k invested in Spider-Man (under this theoretical model) gets 25k back. That same investor could have invested 50k in Godspell, and lost every penny of it. As such, Godspell is a bigger flop, and Spider-Man is nowhere close to the biggest flop ever."

I see your point but I think they are two different things. When people talk about flops of anything (even movies) they generally refer to the total investment, not pieces..

[SarahNYC]

Posted: 9/11/13 at 8:27am

But seriously... how has Soul Doctor not posted a Closing Notice?

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 9/11/13 at 9:40am

Spiderman: When considering payback, officially they only count ticket sales. But, from an investors point of view, they also receive a percentage of the OBCR and other merchandise. And with a more than 2 1/2 year run, they actually got back a much bigger percentage of their original investment because of those sales.

Unfortunately, I don't this is going be licensed by many community theaters or high schools, so the bucks stop here...