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

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 5:48pm

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.
Report from Bloomberg

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 5:52pm

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

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 6:03pm

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

[latitudex1]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 6:08pm

Yeah, that beyotch stank.

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

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:10pm

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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:14pm

I nominate you!

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:15pm

Thanks for the link. Fascinating and worrying.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:31pm

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 Webber’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 authors’ $6,300 weekly license fee.


I have a bridge in London, anyone, anyone?

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:37pm

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.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:48pm

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

[Wynbish]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 7:49pm

How was Elena's Fosca? That could be a possibility for the future. Updated On: 1/28/13 at 07:49 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:11pm

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

[notsovirginmary]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:11pm

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.

[matineeidol2013]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:14pm

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!

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:17pm

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.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 8:27pm

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.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:21pm

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:25pm

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 9:36pm

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

[latitudex1]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:20pm

"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.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:21pm

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

[Visceral_Fella]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:26pm

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

[notsovirginmary]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:30pm

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

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 10:59pm

"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.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 12:14am

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.