An investor said that Network is the most expensive play ever, with a budget of $7.5 million. Is this because of the dining area, which added an exciting dimension to the production? And is it only playing seven performances a week. Ticket prices are probably going to be very high since it's in a smallish theatre with a second balcony. If it's the National, is it a non-profit production?
Saw it in London. Cranston's excellent but the play itself is considerably less than the "dazzle" of the production. Ivo is a master of creating stage magic at the expense of content and here that's mostly a good thing. The William Holden-Faye Dunaway relationship is shortchanged here and the drama lacks the power of the film.
Whoops, forget about that. But, even though it won the Tony Award, I consider that more an entertainment event than a play...the spectacle is truly overwhelming.
fitzdavid2 said: "Whoops, forget about that. But, even though it won the Tony Award, I consider that more an entertainment event than a play...the spectacle is truly overwhelming."
What you consider is not relevant. It is a play, get over your wrong statement.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Angels in America was supposedly 7.5 million last year. If Angels couldn't make its money back in 20 weeks in a 1450-seat theater (plus Tony Awards), how's Network going to make its money back in 18 weeks in a 1100-seat theatre?
If it were a non-profit production, your friend wouldn't be solicited as an investor... The NYTimes article listed 5 commercial theatre producers who are bringing the National production to Broadway (similar to the Angels situation).
Production will be scaled-down. Understand there will be no dining-area...maybe there will be no videography on Broadway; that was certainly a distraction at the National. Of all the imports they've done recently, this was the least interesting. Hope they bring over The Lehman Trilogy...
SomethingPeculiar said: "Angels in America was supposedly7.5 million last year. IfAngelscouldn't make its money back in 20weeks in a 1450-seat theater (plusTony Awards), how'sNetworkgoing to make its money back in 18 weeks in a 1100-seat theatre?
I have no idea if the 7.5 is accurate. I will say that the lower capacity isn't necessary a bad thing at all, as it will increase demand and allow for the sale of more premium seats. I also think Angels' ticket sales were hurt by it being a two part commitment. I believe Cranston's last play recouped, so even if the 7.5 figure is accurate, it seems like a solid investment, as far as plays go(obviously a risky bet).
I'm not an investor or producer, so I don't have access to actual numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my house that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child cost more to mount than Network.
zainmax said: "CT2NYC said: "According to The New York Times, $35.5 million to capitalizeHarry Potter, plus $33 million to clear out and redo the Lyric."
Wasn't the payout to Paramour like 17 or 20 mil?"
$23 million was paid to Paramour, with $10 million for the renovations.
Hard to guess for Potter since there was so much going on with renovations, paying people off... etc... Will be interesting to see how much the sit-down productions cost.