"We're also working on gasoline for putting out fires".
I'm somehow getting the impression that some members of the show's cast
are not entirely behind this "daring" "new" "marketing" "concept".
Stephen
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
> On Conan O'Brien, 2 minutes ago, regarding the theory that selling
> tickets at $480 a pop will reduce the problem of scalpers:
>
> "We're also working on gasoline for putting out fires".
>
> I'm somehow getting the impression that some members of the show's cast
> are not entirely behind this "daring" "new" "marketing" "concept".
>
> Stephen
The actors and musicians are working on contracts negotiated before the
show opened. They see no increase in their salaries with the increase
of a ticket price.
but the leads get a percentage of the box office intake, right? that would
mean they'd see some of that..
Carole
"Forget regrets, or life is yours to miss"
THAT depends on how good an agent they have. Leads don't automatically
get a percentage just because their name is above the title.
I don't know the financial structure of their deal, but I think I recall
hearing that they were getting a piece of the BO. However, that said...both of
them have made it known that they don't like it (in a very subtle and funny
way, which isn't coming right out and insulting the producers, but making it
clear, nonetheless). It's one thing to financially benefit, it's another to
feel embarrassed by the greed and mercenary nature of the hike (especially in
light of the recent events on 9/11 and the fact that NY is struggling to get
people to come to the city)
No, when I said "they", I meant Lane and Broderick, not just anyone whose name
is above the title.
they do get a percentage of the intake.
Perhaps they got advice from Patrick Stewart on how to criticize your
producers...
-Tim
:) Except Lane and Broderick were considerably more subtle. Patrick was just
'out in front'
Right. I didn't see/read Lane's comments, but Broderick, on Kilborn, was
basically making a joke of it, even if the joke was a rather pointed one.
Stephen
Lane apparently made his 'comment' if you can call it that, during a fund
raiser plea for the donations the show is contributing toward 9/11. While
onstage, he said something to the effect that they were 'wiping out scalpers'
and very obviously rolled his eyes. According to those in the audience that
night it was very clear that he didn't approve
...and Lane also mentioned it on the View on 11/8 when they were touting the
show as wonderful. He said quite loudly over the applause 'and the tickets are
only $480'
But, with NBA ringside seats at more than this, NFL club seats at this
price, ringside fight tix above $1000, Barbra S. charging what she did,
what is so wrong with charging $480 for SOME tickets if someone is
willing to pay? Should they charge LESS than te market will bear?
The difference is that most performers in an NBA or NBA game or a ringside
fight get paid a hell of a lot more than most of the actors on stage on a
Broadway musical.
Doc Bender
So, what you are suggesting is that the actors show get a proportionate
share of the $480 (like 5 times what they'd get from a $96 ticket). Clearly
if they are being paid a percentage of the gross, they should. But if not,
why does it matter (unless it causes the show to close early)? Maybe what
you are arguing is that actors should get a bigger reward in a success. Will
they take the risk in a failure? If they are working for a percentage of the
revenue, everyone wins (ignoring the very good issue you raised about
the "fee" added to the $480). It seems though that if you share the
$480 the same as the $96 you don't have a reason to object. So, are
the performers getting a percentage of the revenue in any direct or
indirect way? Are they not getting the same percentage of the
$480?
And if the actors are not taking the risk of the show's revenue, how is
what they make relevant? It seems that either they are getting a percentage,
in which case it is a win-win or they are not getting a percentage and
therefore are not bearing the risk of LOW ticket sales so their pay is
irrelevant to the cost of tickets.
But let's move forward a few years. If Equity is any good and at all
effective as a union, won't it negotiate as a standard some portion
of premium ticket sales? Is that a potential pot of gold for actors?
If X% of premium tickets go to Equity or its members, do you still
object to premium tickets? What about building theatres with
luxury boxes like sports stadia?
get the fucking torches ready, I'm THERE. Catherine, pull out
the guillotine from act 97 scene 5 of SBFP, it will come in handy.
Bastards ruined sporting events for the middle & working class, and they're
ruining the theatre too.
Karen
[It used to be the players were stupid, now the fans are stupid....now
where did I put that old gasoline can.....]
;}
Drumm
Good questions. But given their recent track record, they'll probably
screw this up, too.
***********************
"Who is Fat Lefty?"