The numbers concerning "A Tale of Two Cities " are scary

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 12:32am

The show is capitalized at $16,000,000, there is less than $3 million in ticket sales, the show's payroll is in excess of $500,000 a week, and within the next nine months "Billy Elliot" and "West Side Story" will be bearing down on Broadway.

As if that was not enough cpmpetition for an audience, "Wicked", "The Jersey Boys", "Mamma Mia" and "South Pacific" are all running over 100% and with the holidays
three months away, they will still be for the near term. Then, too, three or four long-running shows are still running in the high 90's, ostensibly because they are running enticing promos on tickets.

"A Tale of Two Cities" is going to have to take everyone completely by surprise and have audiences spilling out of the theater raving about it to have a chance of making it through the winter--unless investors keep tossing money into it. $16m doesn't take you very far when a show costs 500 grand a week to run. It just about gets you through May.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 12:44am

I think that this show will do fine. I don't know if I would add South Pacific to the list of shows you mentioned. Only because it is playing at a non profit and I am under the impression that numbers are done differently there.

I think that there are people who are skeptic who are waiting for reveiws to come out before they buy tickets.

And, since I know people on this forum LOVE to compare this show to Les Miserables. Here is another way that they can. When Les Miserables opened in London it didn't get good reviews. It was word of mouth that got it to be the success it is today. I think that that will be the case for Two Cities.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 1:00am

Since you mention SOUTH PACIFIC playing the not for profit Lincoln Center, its worth mentioning too that LES MISERABLE opened at the Royal Shakespeare Company in England which is the same kind of deal. Because it had a built in engagement, LES MIZ was able to run long enough to build an audience even if the reviews weren't great. Thats a luxury a show like TALE doesn't have.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 2:17am

Great word of mouth can kick a show into the stratosphere, no doubt about it. And a reversal of fortune can begin the next day when reviews cone out singing the praises
of a song.

But the numbers as of now and admittedly based on a very small sample, suggest to me that the backers didn't do enough due diligence and if that's the case these folks have a mountain to climb.

By way of comparison, "Spamalot" broke records for advances sales bringing in $20m and Billy Elliot is already at the $10m mark. Taking in $3m is the kind of money a retread drama takes in.

The bottom line is, ticket sales are reflecting the mixed reviews and that has got to change to give this show a fair shot at success.

It would be sad it the show fails because from concept to opening night, all the principles--the director, Miss Santoriello, and the producers were all first-timers who didn't have the necessary experience to find or create income streams that
would fatten their coffers enough to allow them to survive the imminent assaults of
Dreamworks (Shrek) and "West Side Story".

I heard Miss Santoriello originally had written an adaptation for Wuthering Heights but found it too nihilistic. "A Tale of Two Ciites" became her project by default.

There have been a lot of red flags (no pun intended) surrounding this show and now the numbers are indicating it is a show with major hurdles ahead of it.




Updated On: 8/26/08 at 02:17 AM

[evic]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 3:46am

With ticket prices so high, is a 10 million advance so good?..I would think at this point for BE it should be much higher since it opens in 3 months. That equals just about 8 weeks of sellout houses.....I had read that people don't buy way in advance as they used to. Usually just 3 weeks as opposed to months.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 8:02am

It's good, not great. But it's still the best advance sales going on.

[musicalmaster703]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 8:14am

Yup word of mouth makes a whole lot of difference. Wicked got Mixed to bad reviews but it's a spectacle and sold out every day because of word of mouth.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:13am

Don't forget that group sales don't have to pay upfront, I would imagine that by the time Billy Elliot opens it's advance will be closer to $15 million

[aspenwheezer]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:18am

I'm not at all worried about the numbers for this show. I saw it in Sarasota and was blown away by it then. I've heard they've made many improvements since then. It's a keeper and word of mouth will pull them in. I'm seeing it tomorrow...

[susanlynn]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:26am

I was at a preview Wed and was blown away! We Loved it! My 18 year old daughter and her boyfriend were so moved by the show they went out and bought the book! At intermission it seemed to me that most people were feeling the same!

[whatever2]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:34am

> The bottom line is, ticket sales are reflecting the mixed reviews

sorry, eagleman, but this comment makes no sense to me. the show had a limited run IN FLORIDA six months ago (where notices were largely positive) and has had like three of four previews here -- what mixed reviews could you be talking about? there really are no reviews to drive people to or from this box office yet.

at this early stage it's buzz, not reviews, that's needed to generate the kind of advance sales a $16m show hopes for ... and as your post suggests elsewhere, the producers have not yet been able to generate enough of that yet.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:35am

Are they doing 7 shows this week and next?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:45am

I just think the period pop-eretta is passe for many people. (Geez, alliterate much?) Legrand-Boubil-Schonberg's MARGUERITE recently biffed it in London.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:49am

I think they only did 6 previews this week...next week they are doing 7...then it starts 8 shows a week.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 9:52am

I think people may want a change from Grease, Legally Blonde, Mermaid, etc.

They need to get the show out there. People don't want to pay money for something they've never seen or heard.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 10:33am

Re: "Buzz":

Perhaps you should revisit those threads where posters speak of their "reviews" and remind them that they are not really "reviews". I believe the most recent was a guy named "Robert".

You know precisely what I'm talking about whether I use the words "review", "opinion" "report", or "buzz".

Money.

Sarasota not withstanding, opening a show of this magnitude in terms of cast requirements and staging is a high-wire act with so relatively little in the kitty.. My guess is that tickets in Sarasota didn't go for more than $100 and the competititon for an audience wasn't quite as keen.

The people behind Spamalot had the foresight to give the show a quick run in Chicago, where audiences are more similar to those in New York.

[whatever2]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 10:51am

let's not breath our own fumes here ... the cr*p we all post on these boards is important to us, but it's not the sort of buzz, review, whatever you want to call it that's going to drive a seven-figure box office.

i agree a "real" out of town try-out might have been helpful.

Posted: 8/22/08 at 11:14am

I hope the show is wonderful and that it makes it! It would be great to have one of the all-time classic stories in the mix for the new season... but you are right it's a tough "nut" to crack. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if the new season beats the recession!!!!!

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 11:37am

"People don't want to pay money for something they've never seen or heard."

Thats pathetic! True, but pathetic!

[JillS]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 4:02am

Dear Eagleman, i never used the word nihilistic to describe anything - no less "Wuthering Heights"! Depressing maybe, but not nihilistic! And I definitely never took on "Tale" by default (whatever that means) Surely nothing you remain passionate about and committed to for over 20 years can be your project "by default"!!!

[trinaaron]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 9:40am

"People don't want to pay money for something they've never seen or heard."

Thats pathetic! True, but pathetic!

I don't know if it's pathetic to be hesitant to pay 100+ dollars for something that they are completely unfamiliar with. It's more like an economic reality.

[BrianS]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:23am

This thread really smells of agenda to me. Eagleman, I've read your other posts (many of them bashing this show to no end) and in other posts, you've demonstrated a high degree of knowledge on the business, which means you would know that:

1. $500k is a very standard nut these days. Every show coming to Broadway is going to be close to that number so what's your point? This is not an extraordinary point for this show.

2. I don't know if the theater in Florida was for profit, but if it was, then you know that they put funding into the development as part of the deal. As such, the recoup wouldn't be for a full $16 million (assuming that is the right number to begin with). I don't know the answer to that because I don't care. Then again, I'm not starting threads about it and if you are, then you should know the answer to that question.

3. You argue that the producers didn't have the "street smarts" to wait for more investors. What does that have to do with your argument? Are they short on funding?

My point is that it seems suspicious to start a thread knocking a show using very simplified facts to help your argument when you've demonstrated in other threads that you do understand to some degree how complex the numbers can be when producing a Broadway show.

[dannilupone]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 12:52pm

i bought the concept album a couple years back. I listened to it once, it didn't thrill me. I feel like this show has its work cut out for it. good luck tale of two cites

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 2:37pm

Miss S:

There was nothing intended to be derogatory about the word "default". I should have used the word "serendipitous" instead.

I married my wife by "default"-as she admitted was the case with her marrying me.
My first fiancee broke off the engagement; I never would have. Now, I'm thrilled she did.

My wife's first "great love" similarly jilted her and after having two kids and 20 years later we still joke about being the "consolation prize" for each other.

Here's what I read in NY1:

“I had already written a really, really terrible ‘Wuthering Heights’ musical, and my brother convinced me, go somewhere else with that because everyone's dead at the end. It's just depressing, you need to have something positive,” said Santoriello. “So I looked around for another story that would be equally romantic and epic and have all those passions that I found so intriguing as a teenager. And I read ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ and I fell in love with it.”

I apologize for attributing the word "nihilistic" to you, although I think the depressiveness your brother felt was because there were elements of nihilism in the book, so much so, that you couldn't find something "positive" about it.

That's kind of how nihilism feels and there are many shades and colors of it.

Max Stirner's take on nihilism , for instance, employed the term to individuals who believed that anything that stood between that person and his or her freedom must be destroyed.

Heathcliffe, clearly, felt that many things stood between him and Catherine and he once stated that he would be willing to kill every human being on earth to possess her. Similarly, to exact his revenge upon Catherine and to achieve his aims he employed an arsenal of sociopathic weapons--forced marriage, bribery, violence... .

At any rate, you clearly found a story more redemptive and less brooding in nature, and, again, I presume, if you could have cracked the code of "Wuthering Heights", that might have been the musical opening in a few weeks rather than "A Tale of Two Cities".

That's what I meant by "default" and it is not a derogatory insinuation.

George Washington became president "by default". His dream was to attend Annapolis.

I believe the world is a better place because he "backed into" the Army.

So, my apologies. It may not seem so, but I'm quietly pulling for your show to be the
sleeper of this year. It would be a great story for everyone concerned.

I know everyone's expecting "Billy Elliot" to ride into town like "The Phantom of The Opera" did in 1988 on a wave of hysteria but that's the great thing about the street:
you never know.

While Sir Elton is pumping millions into "Lestat", "The Jersey Boys" comes in the back door.

Here's to your success.







Updated On: 8/24/08 at 02:37 PM

[johnsons]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 2:46pm

Plus ever since the Les Mis revival closed, there hasn't really been a huge sprawling historical epic on Broadway. TOTC is MUCH better than Pirate Queen- I think it will find an audience with mature theatre goers who want to see something other than Wicked and Mermaid. Plus the voices on that stage cannot be matched.