Ouch...Evita didn't even come close to breaking even!- Page 2

[Horton]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 12:21am

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.

[misto625]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 12:47am

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

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 1:10am

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.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 1:15am

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.

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 7:03am

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!

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 9:56am

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.

[Whileshesleeps]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 10:18am

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.

[bdn223]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 10:20am

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.

[labwyfan]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 11:22am

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).

[castlestreet]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 11:24am

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!

[bdn223]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 11:46am

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.

[labwyfan]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 1:33pm

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

[Jonwo]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 9:28pm

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.

Updated On: 1/29/13 at 09:28 PM

[chernjam]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 1:20am

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.

[AnythingGoes23]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 3:15am

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!

[AnythingGoes23]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 3:15am

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!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 5:30am

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.

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 5:38am

$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.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 6:28am

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...

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 6:41am

All the employees made money.

The only ones that lost were the people investing.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 8:02am

That's EXACTLY my point!

[Buscee]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 8:25am

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.

[Rainbowhigh23]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 10:23am

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

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 10:56am

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.

Updated On: 1/30/13 at 10:56 AM

[Buscee]

Posted: 1/30/13 at 4:51pm

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