Chicago Tribune: Broadway announced some stunning financial results over the holidays: “Wicked” pulled in $3.4 million in a single week; $2.6 million thawed the ice at “Frozen”; $3.7 million circled back to “The Lion King”; an eye-popping $4 million happened in a single New York week of “Hamilton.” These are profit margins of 300 to 400 percent or more.
You didn’t even need to be a musical: Aaron Sorkin’s new dramatization of “To Kill a Mockingbird” took in $1.7 million. In a week. Atticus Finch would have fallen off his porch.
1 comment:
This article was very informative. I’d never really thought about how small of a weekly wage you make on a developing production that may completely take off. I’m confused why this seems like it could be a bad thing. Like why don’t they just start somewhere. Like dividing up a very small percentage of profits among the cast but only after the investors make their preferred cut. The article makes it seem like an all or nothing deal. Ensure safety on investor profits and compensate lab actors. I wonder if the current actors will get upset at that. (“Why is that guy getting the money he’s not the one doing 8 shows a week”, Etc), it probably won't be a perfect system but that is what change is for. It’s also curious to note that other shows already have this system in place, for instance Book Of Mormon lab actors still get check correlation to the show’s success and their developmental contribution.
Post a Comment