Variety: "Don't shed any tears for DreamWorks and its first Broadway venture, 'Shrek the Musical,' which looks to lose an ogre-size portion of its $26 million capitalization when it closes in January.
The show can expect to recoup some of that money from its national and international tours. And when that money peters out, there's another significant source of income: stock and amateur."
8 comments:
Although I knew community theatres and schools had to pay a relatively small royalty fee for production, I did not realize how much these fees would add up to over a year. Even though Shrek has not done well on Broadway, I can easily see it having the same mass appeal that Seussical has in local schools since it will be more in line with it's demographic there. As soon as the rights are available I'm sure there will be a massive influx of requests.
Like Brian, I am amazed that royalties from community and stock theaters bring in so much revenue for the producers. As someone who dealt with royalties for my high school theater, I know that they are not that expensive. The author has a good point that the royalties will provide a living for the authors and producers, having a show on Broadway does not guarantee long term success. As to Shrek, I think that it will be hugely successful in the community theater and high school world. The show is family friendly and appeals to a large number of people. As unimpressive as the show is on Broadway, it exactly what many high schools and middle schools love to do.
It's good for us to take note of how plays still can be successful once closing on broadway. Chris is right--this show would be great for community theatres and schools, and maybe even regional theatres. While the demand on Broadway may not be great, I'm sure a large amount of productions across the country would be more beneficial and reach more people. Littler kids will love seeing Shrek, and their parents will probably be able to afford the cheaper ticket prices.
While Broadway is seen as the final destination and the ultimate goal. I am a firm believer that Broadway should be a jumping off point not only for the revenue for the producers, but also for the artistic interpretations of the work.
While Broadway often produces a version of the work that is most acceptable to the largest variety of people. When that work is transferred to a regional setting, the interpretations are often more daring and thus have the potential to create truly amazing work. Without the main drive being the generation of profit, art truly has the room to grow and strive.
Wow...interesting. This is a legitimate industry where royalties are important to the continued growth of the business. This reveals an interesting aspect of theater, especially as other entertainment mediums are having such a huge issue with piracy; live theater is live for a reason. It's difficult to produce or even reproduce; every time it's different. In that case, royalties actually make sense for us because our artistry is traceable and each instance of a play fundamentally different from each other instance. The line becomes blurred when one is providing the same experience over and over again, on demand, the way movies or television do somewhat.
This makes me wonder if our copyright system was original devised to protect live performances to begin with, with little thought to ease of reproduction or other differences in medium. It's wonderful that the laws actually work for us, and not the other way around.
Just like syndication has turned into the new cash cow for TV, the amateur performances have long been where the money comes in on a popular show. With a few exceptions that live on Broadway nearly forever almost every show comes to a close on it's initial run. If it's popular then others will pay the royalties to put it on, this is income without having to mount the show yourself, there's no worry about making back an investment, nothing at all to do except cash the checks as they come in. It might not be a huge amount for each show, but even a smaller individual amount gets pretty big when repeated often enough.
It seems that shows that were not immensely popular on Broadway do the best in stock and amateur. These are shows that people will remember to some level after they leave Broadway, but do not have high royalty rates. This is because popular show rights are very expensive. Most stock and amateur theatres can't afford these rates. So instead of losing money on rights they put a less popular show.
I had never given this much thought until I came to CMU and I would be lying if I said it didn't make me feel a little sick to think about. A show like Seussical was not meant to succeed on Broadway. It was fated for a long life in amateur theater. It's almost unfortunate that it had to waste time on Broadway before being able to reach its target audience.
Post a Comment