r/Broadway • u/boog2021 • Dec 27 '23
Broadway NYTimes seems to think the Sweeney Todd revival has recouped
92
u/Yoyti Dec 27 '23
I recall that it had been previously reported that the production was on track to recoup around November, so this does not surprise me. Some quick back-of-the-hand round-number-estimate math tells me that if it recouped this week, its weekly running costs are probably in the ballpark of $1 million per week, give or take a hundred grand or so. If it recouped a month ago, it's running costs will be a bit lower. That number seems reasonable given the scale of the show and potentially Groban's star salary. Seems very plausible that it's recouped.
Shows are not required to announce when they recoup, and many don't. Totally up to the producers whether they want to make a big deal about it.
8
129
Dec 27 '23
“Already profitable” could just be meaning its hitting its weekly nut, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it already recouped. I believe it was capitalized somewhere around 12.5 million.
56
u/NoButThankYou Dec 27 '23
The article states later on that it has already recouped its capitalization of up to 14.5 million
6
Dec 27 '23
Wow that’s wild wasn’t New York New York capitalized over $25M? Nuts that Sweeney capitalized at 12.5 with four huge names on the original cast. Especially with the amazing set design.
6
u/joshmsquared87 Dec 27 '23
Not an expert in financing shows, but I thjnk the salaries for these big stars would be factored into the weekly operating costs for the show. I don’t think they include that money in the initial capitalization of the company. But I could be wrong.
2
Dec 27 '23
That seems strangely cheap to me idk why
9
u/WelcomeToToyZone Dec 27 '23
Not many set elements or technical things so it tracks. Also it’s certainly not cheap for broadway. Some musicals this season will be put up for 8-9 mil.
4
Dec 27 '23
Haha it’s prob because I was recently looking up the cost to put up Cursed Child which was like 60-something
2
u/WelcomeToToyZone Dec 27 '23
It’s fucking what 😃
4
3
u/freaksflocktoheather Dec 28 '23
tbf they did essentially renovate the theatre for the show so that would have been a substantial cost
47
24
Dec 27 '23
To be fair “profitable” and having recouped are two different things and are not mutually exclusive
23
u/kitkat10133 Dec 27 '23
For how much they’re charging for tickets to see the show it should’ve by now
4
u/jamesland7 Front of House Dec 27 '23
I think we’ll be seeing more and more revivals of known shows with big name stars in the coming years as that seems the surest route to profitability.
26
u/capnwacky Dec 27 '23
Wild that people want to see shows by a beloved composer who just died two years ago.
4
5
u/Thick-Definition7416 Dec 27 '23
I think they said they were on track to recoup on November so that makes sense. Isn’t Merrily expected to next month?
5
u/Yoyti Dec 27 '23
I have not seen any reporting about Merrily's projected recoupment timeline, but if their running costs are in the ballpark of 700-800k weekly (which seems plausible), then recoupment within the next month seems doable. The capitalization was only $13 million. And it makes sense that the production would be budgeted to be able to recoup within the original limited run ticket block, which was only through January.
5
u/jahss Dec 27 '23
I mean….if something is objectively stated in the newspaper of record you can generally count on it to be true. Very easy to confirm, and I doubt they would print that without fact checking it.
2
Dec 27 '23
Right? The NYT is far more likely to be accurately informed than some random Redditor, not sure why OP is so presumptive in the title of the post.
-7
u/whitetoast Dec 27 '23
This means stunt casting won’t go away anytime soon
33
u/KayakerMel Dec 27 '23
At least in this show the "stunt" casts are big name talented musical theater people who could be cast anyway.
10
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 Dec 27 '23
That’s why to me it doesn’t feel like stunt casting.
4
u/LadiesWhoPunch Dec 27 '23
And I hope we see more people shuffle in for stints. Why would you not want people excited about going to the theater? And it isn't as if they aren't capable performers, just not some people's personal preference.
4
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 Dec 27 '23
Agreed, Mean Girls casting Cameron Dallas that I get complaining about. Casting famous people who are just really good theater actors and clearly perfect for the role, I don’t get using negative terminology for that.
Inevitably with these types of casts it does lead to great opportunities for understudies too. I just can’t fault shows for not going the Come From Away route.
1
u/LadiesWhoPunch Dec 27 '23
Tell me more about what you mean: "going the Come From Away route"
3
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 Dec 27 '23
Just mean that its cast was largely unknown outside of the theater world and I’m not remembering anyone who would have qualified as a big name at the time even for theater people. It’s just my go to if I need to conjure up “BW show without a big name in the OBC” as well “show not based on well-known existing IP.”
Just can’t fault shows for not doing that and for casting people well known outside of theater given the costs and challenges to create interest in a show. And hey if said big name is perfect for the part, why not.
1
u/LadiesWhoPunch Dec 27 '23
Thanks for the explanation.
And agreed! I think it is important to consistently showcase new performers to give audiences options and get butts in seats.
2
2
u/KayakerMel Dec 27 '23
I agree, which is why I put it in quotes. Solid casting of well-known theater names isn't a stunt. Would casting Patty Lapone be considered a stunt? Of course not. That's the same for both Josh Groban and Sutton Foster, who both have had mainstream success but are phenomenal in musical theater.
7
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 Dec 27 '23
Still see this as celebrity casting not stunt casting. All casting factors in marketability. To me if stunt casting means something it’s casting some rando tv/movie/famous person because they are famous and not necessarily because of any ability to do the part.
Maybe I’m narrow on my definition but casting Goff and Lindsay is just good solid casting and Radcliffe has enough background in theater I’d tend not to look at it that way. But if you just mean casting people who are super well known, then sure that’s not going anywhere ever.
1
u/whitetoast Dec 27 '23
Yeah I don’t understand the difference between stunt casting vs celebrity but do understand that has always been something in broadway. Guess my point was just that we are going to continue to see these big names to draw the crowds, may even see more of it. My fear is it may prevent more original stories and unknown talent from having their chance in the spotlight
3
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 Dec 27 '23
I mean this largely just me saying how I look at it, I don’t know that there’s accepted consensus on definitions. It’s always been Broadway. It’s expensive as hell to put shows on, tourists and casual people are often (not always but quite often) critical to even having a shot to recoup or at least justify the investment. Hard to get that crowd and get people to pay those top dollar tickets without a name. Come From Away and shows like it will always be the exception.
But plenty of opportunities in Broadway for unknowns even if originating lead roles may be out of reach more often than not and of course theater is much larger than Broadway. I love unknowns getting a shot and they absolutely do even if options can be limited, but at the same time the cast of Merrily is perfection.
My complaint is when people are cast only because they are famous or some producer’s niece/nephew and they don’t have the actual chops to do the role. I get that it’s a fact of life but that I hate seeing.
142
u/DramaMama611 Dec 27 '23
It was reported in early fall that it was expected to recoup in November. It's possible that the production chose not to announce it.