Who Has The Ultimate Say So?

[Timon3]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 3:24pm

So who does have the final say, what happens with a show?

Here is a example - Hamilton is rumoured to be going to Las Vegas to sit down. The casino owners, want the show to be cut to 90 minutes, it is non-negotiable contractual obligations. Jeffrey Seller the lead producers wants his show in Las Vegas, so reluctantly agrees. However Lin-Manuel Miranda wants non of it and does not consent to the show being cut.

Who does Thomas Kail the director get the final say?

So who gets the very final say? Updated On: 6/21/21 at 03:24 PM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 3:44pm

Is this a real example? Are there actual rumors of this? 

In any case: Of the names you mentioned, I think Thomas Kail would have the LEAST amount of say over it. I don't even think he would enter into the equation. 

After that, it sort of depends on how you interpret the question. The casino owners have every right to say "we're going to let you perform here if you don't shorten the show." But the Hamilton team can always just say "screw you, we're not going to perform here in that case." They have that power. The casino, in this case, is like a landlord, and the landlord can't force someone to rent from them if they don't want to/have to. And in the case you're describing, I definitely think the Hamilton team would walk away. The casino needs Hamilton more than Hamilton needs the casino. 

But let's say the Jeffrey Seller wanted to make the cuts. I'm actually not sure if he gets final say, or if LMM gets final say, given that LMM presumably still has creative control over the material? I actually don't know how that works. If we were talking about a licensed production (like though MTI, R&H, etc.) then I think the author would have final say. But I'm not sure if the rules are different with an original production getting re-mounted by the lead producer. 

But I will say this too: even if Jeffrey Seller technically has final say (and again, I don't know if he does), he still might not have the bulk of the power. LMM is a more visible public figure, with star power and public admiration. If he were dead-set against the cuts, I don't think Jeffrey Seller would dare to cross him in that way, even if it were TECHNICALLY Seller's call to make. In show-biz, the power balance doesn't always favor the highest on the corporate chain. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 3:48pm

Timon3 said: "So who does have the final say, what happens with a show?

Here is a example - Hamilton is rumoured to be going to Las Vegas to sit down. The casino owners, want the show to be cut to 90 minutes, it is non-negotiable contractual obligations. "

Yeah, is this even really a thing? I think they would've learned from Spamalot. Not every show can be cut as well as Phantom (or as little as Jersey Boys).

[Timon3]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 4:30pm

NOT a real scenario, just using it as a good poignant example. Hamilton is rumoured to be going to Las Vegas, as far as I know there is no talk of shortening the show, although the casino owners have got form by insisting on it. So I thought this be a good entry example to start a chat.

Jeffrey Seller does write the cheques though. Updated On: 6/21/21 at 04:30 PM

[raddersons]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 4:39pm

This is not a situation where one person has all of the power. There are many stakeholders who have a say and they all need to agree.  It's the job of the producer (and their team of lawyers) to create contracts that they all agree to. If Lin refuses to cut the show, then it won't happen. If the casino owner refuses to have full length Hamilton, then it won't happen.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 4:42pm

This is a weird hypothetical because of Seller's Avenue Q situation, but ––

The producer would have the rights to present the show in certain territories with or without a partner. Vegas would be included as part of North American rights, and the producer would not need the author's separate permission to do the show in Vegas. BUT, if any written material in the show had to be changed, that would need approval/involvement of the author and director, with the author ultimately having the final say.

As with any subsidiary company, the author/director may have the option (but not requirement) to be involved with casting, rehearsals, etc. But each person's level of involvement is going to vary show to show.

[jv92]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 4:49pm

The writer really has the final say. They own the copyright. The producers are leasing their property. 
 

Of course, there are collaborative ways to deal with these situations and I think most theatre writers would try to be willing to work things out in such a case, but if this were to be an actual situation, if LMM says no to an hour and a half, there will be no legal hour and a half production of HAMILTON. 

Sometimes it does boil down to artistic integrity and helping or hurting the piece. There’s a story about how Oscar Hammerstein and Josh Logan could not figure out how to make SOUTH PACIFIC less than one hour and fifty minutes without hurting the show and its flow for a proposed Vegas production. The casino-hotel owner would only accept ninety minute. R&H said thank you very much and they parted ways. 
 

 

 

[blaxx]

Posted: 6/21/21 at 11:03pm

I'm more curious as to why you thought the director would have any say.