Cursed Child Cast Contract Drama?

[VotePeron]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 10:09am

Harry potter and the Broadway Cast Mutiny

For a show so shrouded in secrecy, I'm not sure what to make of this article reporting on the cast only being offered $200/week raises for their contract renewals. It seems like the show is capitalizing on the fact that the show is the main selling factor, not the actors. 

Last time we saw something like this (publicly) was the Hamilton original cast negotiating a fair share of profits as well. 

What are your thoughts? Should the actors leave a high-profile & steady Broadway gig because the money isn't there? 

 

 

 

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 10:43am

$200/week raise ($10K/year) doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since the play is so expensive and won't recoup for a while. I don't know how much of a raise Book of Mormon or Hamilton gave original actors who extended, but those shows recouped in about 8 months.

Each actor is making minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum) and the principals probably make a little more –– not a bad gig! For most of these 40 actors, Potter is the longest straight-play contract they'll ever have. And if other opportunities (TV guest spots, films, other plays) arise from being in Potter, that's a great thing. 

I don't think the UK actors can even extend past a year? And hasn't the West End company replaced most of the actors after the 1-year mark? The piece seems poorly written.

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 10:43 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 10:45am

UK actors can extend past a year, but most (all?) West End shows have a yearly cast change. It's not always everybody, though.

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 11:09am

SomethingPeculiar said: "$200/week raise($10K/year) doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since the play is so expensive and won't recoup for a while. I don't know how much of a raiseBook of MormonorHamiltongave original actors who extended, but those shows recouped in about 8 months.

Each actor is making minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum) andthe principals probably make a little more –– not a bad gig!For most of these 40actors, Potteris the longest straight-play contract they'll ever have. And if other opportunities (TV guest spots, films, other plays)arise from being inPotter,that's a great thing.

I don't think the UK actors can even extend past a year? And hasn't the West End company replaced most of the actors after the 1-year mark?The piece seems poorly written."

 

Apparently, some of the original UK cast members that came over with the show are on quite a lot more than that. I have a friend involved with it but I couldn’t say whether what they said is true or not. I’d certainly be interested if anyone can shed any light on that...

 

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 11:13am

Here is the thing, the producers don't have a reason to bend over backwards to appease requests in this situation. As much as people would like to see the original cast, it's not REALLY what is putting people in the seats. It's the show itself doing that so the producers are not likely to bend on this one. The show can survive well without the original cast for, as many that have seen the show multi times have reported, some of the understudies that have gone on are just as good in the roles. Even myself, I saw an understudy in the role of Albus and I didn't not even realize it until a few days later. He was that good in the role. No one in the cast is exactly in a spot where the show is make or break without them. Nor has their influence being there contributed to the shows success. It would have been just as profitable with any cast. The original cast from West End is just a bonus to those going to see the show. And I've seen alot of people (self included again) that have expressed the desire to return again only after there is a cast change to see it with a new interpretation of the roles. People are not jumping at the chance to drop the high price tag on this one time after time for their performances like people did with the original cast of Hamilton or Ben Platt in DEH. At the end of the day, this isn't the TV show "Friends" where the cast has the ball entirely in their court. I highly doubt the producers will play this game when they don't really have to.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 11:20am

$200 per week equates to $800 a month, which means an extra $9600 a year.  I don't know about anyone else, but I'd kill for a $9600 raise. 

I don't consider the offer unfair at all. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 11:59am

Yup....52 weeks @200 buck per?    My last raise was less then 50 bucks a paycheck (so $25/week)   I've never gotten a 10K dollar raise.  

 

But they are right:  the actors are replaceable.   Almost always are.  It might not be the same, but most people won't know (or care about any difference.)

 

Its also hard to be sympathetic to people that are already making  over 100K a year (assuming Loopin' is correct.)

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:09pm

Wait, are you telling me that an ensemble member of a Broadway show is making "minimum $105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum)"? 

If that is so, I am clearly in the wrong profession.

[raddersons]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:17pm

fashionguru_23 said: "Wait, are you telling me that an ensemble member of a Broadway show is making "minimum$105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum)"?

If that is so, I am clearly in the wrong profession."

Good luck getting the part.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:21pm

I'm curious as to why people are seemingly questioning the $105K/year figure. That's the Equity minimum. There should be no question that the cast is making at least that much. The Equity contract is publicly available.

[msmp]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:22pm

fashionguru_23 said: "Wait, are you telling me that an ensemble member of a Broadway show is making "minimum$105K+ a year ($2,034/week Equity minimum)"?

If that is so, I am clearly in the wrong profession."

IIRC it's lower during previews/rehearsals, and there's always the very real risk a show will flop after just a few weeks, leaving one with zero income/insurance/etc.

[Rainah]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:24pm

Hamilton was a very different situation, their argument was that they had contributed to the show in significant ways and were partly responsible for the show's design (so to speak). Lines added that the actors had ad-libbed, the harmonies for The Schuyler Sisters coming from the girls as well, stuff that will live on long after they left. Their argument was we helped make this show what it is, we deserve to share in the success.

 

This argument seems to be "Pay us more because you can afford it". Now it's entirely fair to say "I could be making X dollars if I took this other job offered to me, you need to offer me comparable money if you want me to stay". But it's also fair for producers to say "Cool, happy trails"

[BobPopa]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:29pm

Yes that's the minimum salary but lets look at it fairly (for those thinking actors are raking in cash) FIRST you have to get in a Broadway show...THEN the Broadway show has to last a year for you to make 100k. Then even if you are in a Broadway show for a year then you leave or the show closes, you are now unemployed, odds you go right into another Broadway show...very rare. So sure you make $100k+ for one year and the next year you make $32k off some regional work. Not an uncommon scenario.

Also factor in this is NYC cost of living, Triple Taxed, plus 10% to your Agent (Another 10% to a Manager if you have one) Plus the Union gets 2.375%. Broadway Minimum looks much better on paper then it does in the bank account.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:43pm

In my opinion, Hamilton caved quickly, as those contributions' by actors leading to the show's success is questionable at best (unlike say, A Chorus Line).  But Hamilton has 8 different audiences per week, and only requires 1 performance for the show. Harry Potter is in a more tenuous position. With only 4 unique audiences weekly, and a two-show time commitment, it's probably making less money than if it wasn't two parts. It's cheaper to see both parts in London, so it isn't quite clear how long audiences are willing to pay the current high prices. Especially once productions become more ubiquitous.

I know New York is expensive, and actors have union dues, agent, and management fees, but $200/week is a 9.8% raise for anyone paid Equity minimum. I am luck when I get a 3% raise at work. And most people don't even get that, if they get one at all. And the kids' parent should be happy with that raise. The two boys are being paid 105K/year and only perform four performances a week each, while the two girls are paid 105K/year and only perform twice a week each.

[TravisOKC]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:46pm

Also, it is important to remember that a portion of actors pay goes to their agent.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:49pm

AEA minimum production contract salary is now $2,348.89 (including the term and media fees), so that's actually $122,142 a year.  PLUS health and pension benefits, PLUS if the actor is not an American citizen (as is the case for much of the Potter cast), they are also getting at least $74 per day for food and possibly some form of housing stipend.  Not bad.  Sure there are dues and agent commissions --- but just like most any other profession, those are just part of the cost of doing business.  

For those who think they should still be getting a higher raise just because the show is doing well, would you also support the producers of an under performing show, say, HEAD OVER HEELS reducing the AEA salary by $200/week?

[BobPopa]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 12:59pm

Head over Heels is a bogus question because the show won't last a year so they are all going to be unemployed anyway so there's' your pay cut, 

Again comparing an actor at a yearly salary again is bad because what an actor makes year to year varies wildly unlike most people in full time jobs (I say most because i know there are jobs that are different..but most still applies)

 

[Rainah]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 1:01pm

JSquared2 said: "For those who think they should still be getting a higher raise just because the show is doing well, would you also support the producers of an under performing show, say, HEAD OVER HEELS reducing the AEA salary by $200/week?"

It's an interesting question. Salary floors are there for a reason, but say if a show brought it a bigger name actress at 10k/week and the show was doing poorly so they asked her to take a pay cut down to 5k/week, would that provoke outrage?

I think it's always the right of a performer to decide what they are worth, and what they are willing to pay for. However, it's also the production's right to decide how much they're willing to pay for a performer. If they can't agree on what someone is worth, that person will have to find another gig. (Keeping in mind equity requirements that ensure no one is being exploited)

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 1:09pm

+/- $100K per year is a very healthy living that will allow someone to have a decent NYC apartment while putting some money away for times when there is less work. Equity hasn't pulled that number out of thin air: it's a salary that will allow someone to get by even if they've only worked for 5-6 months of the year on Bway, since a long run is rare.

As someone noted above, this is entirely different than the HAMILTON situation, in which those actors were asking for profit participation for the work they did in shaping the show.

AND... when contract disagreements like this happen, it can create bad blood backstage. Now the production carpenters and Company Managers and wardrobe staff could be saying "hmmm, I've been here a year, I also want a few more bucks each week!"

 

Edit:  also keep in mind, the principals may be favored nations -- so if you raise one, you have to raise the rest.

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 01:09 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 1:32pm

Regardless of the Equity minimum, a near $10,000 a year raise is more than reasonable.  I am all about supporting actors, but they seem like they need to get a grip.  As others have pointed out, no one in the real world gets raises like that.  My last raise equated to $19 a paycheck, so around $38 a month.  And I was thrilled to get that, and it took arbitration to get to that number. 

I saw the original cast of this show and thought they were wonderful.  However, they are not irreplaceable, and if they think attendance is going to drop just because they left then they're deluding themselves.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 1:39pm

I doubt many folks in this production are even making minimum to begin with. The principals- particularly the award winners and nominees- especially; I'd bet they're making between 5 and 10k weekly.

But the ensemble does a lot of work in this and probably have contractually mandated salary bumps for stage combat, extraordinary risk, etc etc . Plus media. Plus who knows what else.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 1:49pm

I am just shocked to learn and compare the minimum wage set by Equity. Because, if a member works for a full year, they would be making as must as some senior principals in my school board, and professors at universities...which we consider high paying jobs in my area. I'm in a 120,000 person town. 

It's just mind blowing. Good for the performers! They deserve it.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 2:09pm

But professors and principals have far more job security. A monster hit like Harry Potter is rare. There are many actors who may work for 5-6 months on Broadway and then never work there again.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 2:18pm

fashionguru_23, it can certainly be very lucrative if an ensemble member sticks with a show for a few years (thinking of someone like Thayne Jasperson at Hamilton, or some of the folks at Phantom). But unlike a school principal, they're not guaranteed years of employment. They could get hurt, or replaced, or the show could close. They could work for a year and not book another Broadway show for 3 years. Or make $500 a week Off-Bway/regionally for 6 weeks at a time. 

Any kind of screen work is coveted because it will usually pay more per week than Broadway. Ed Sherrin and Warren Leight have talked about how they tried to cast as many theatre actors as they could on LAW & ORDER, and it's great that there are more TV shows/films filming in NYC nowadays. But theatre is a tough gig.

Dianne Weist (a 2-time Oscar winner) had trouble paying her rent a few years ago. Lainie Kazan got caught shoplifting last year. Total speculation, but I have a feeling that one of the reasons Elaine Stritch continued concertizing until the very end was that she needed the money –– an apartment at the Carlyle ain't cheap! (She also loved performing and it kept her active)

Updated On: 10/31/18 at 02:18 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/31/18 at 2:27pm

So much misinformation in this thread, starting with the source. There is no "mutiny." People look at their opportunities and move on. Happens all the time. Broadway pay is ok but nothing spectacular. New York cannot be compared with a town of 120k, and with all due respect, a Broadway performer cannot be compared to a high school principal. If someone comes to New York short term, rent is going to eat up most of that salary.