6792 replies to this topic

[isabel]

Suprised Wicked didn't win it's category. Waa looking forward to seeing Rachel Tucker onstage !

Don't get why War Horse was in the category, it's not a long running west-end show ?

[DanielWhit]

Actually - it has run now for longer than Wicked did when it won the equivalent award in 2010.

War Horse opened at the National in October 2007 - Feb '08, then closed for seven months before starting back up at the National and transfer to the New London in March 2009. It's now played for 3 years 8 months.

Wicked opened September 2006, and won this in Feb '10. At the time it was 3 years 5 months.

[Moley]

Saw Wicked again on Saturday.  My first time with this cast, and I've mixed opinions.  Loved Gina, she's a lovely Glinda.  Funny but sincere and she has a lovely voice.  Matt as Fiyero was unconvincing.  I liked what he was trying to do with the character - bad boy/rock star Fiyero - but his vocals and acting both let him down.  Maybe he will improve as the run goes on or maybe I'll try see an understudy show next time.  My other disappointment was Desmond as the Wizard.  I'd seen him when he was in the show before and he left no impression on me, after seeing him again the same is true.  Everything seemed very effortful for him and I missed the extra oomph Clive always gave the character.  Adam as Boq was ok, really liked Lillie's Nessa and Christopher Howell as Dr Dillamond was good as well.  Rachel and Julie were excellent as usual:)

[seanmcdona]

just wondering, does anyone know what kinda money a performer in Wicked makes? Because its a bigger show to other West End shows would that mean higher pay or just more job security?

[poster J]

seanmcdona, on 22 February 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Because its a bigger show to other West End shows

In what way?  In revenue maybe, but different shows have different running costs...


I highly doubt that they base performers' salaries on how much money a show's making since that's not a static thing, and they kind of need the cast before the show can make any money at all...



So i'm sorry, but I don't really understand the logic in your question at all!

[DanielWhit]

seanmcdona, on 22 February 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

just wondering, does anyone know what kinda money a performer in Wicked makes? Because its a bigger show to other West End shows would that mean higher pay or just more job security?

Just higher security I'd have thought - we (rightly) know very little about how much performers get paid, but we can be fairly sure Wicked isn't going to disappear within this cast.

[Jon]

IIRC Wicked's capitalisation was £7m for the West End production which is on par with what the Broadway production's capitalisation which was $14m and it took 15 months to recoup it which is amazing considering ticket prices are not as expensive as Broadway and premium tickets hadn't been introduced yet. The Broadway production took 14 months to recoup.

Unlike Broadway, we don't know the weekly grosses of West End shows and rarely do they give statements of whether they've recouped or not.

[Titan]

It isn't as big a here in a in new york though a tickets are often readily available. In America its a mega success

[poster J]

Titan, on 23 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

It isn't as big a here in a in new york though a tickets are often readily available. In America its a mega success

It is in a bigger theatre here though, and New York is a bigger city than London!

[DanielWhit]

Jon, on 22 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

IIRC Wicked's  capitalisation was £7m for the West End production which is on par with  what the Broadway production's capitalisation which was $14m and it  took 15 months to recoup it which is amazing considering ticket prices  are not as expensive as Broadway and premium tickets hadn't been  introduced yet. The Broadway production took 14 months to recoup.

Unlike  Broadway, we don't know the weekly grosses of West End shows and rarely  do they give statements of whether they've recouped or not.

That doesn't sound right to me, remember the Broadway production's initial capital would have involved all the creative fees attached to the original mounting of the production - plus productions generally are cheaper to produce/run in the West End than on Broadway. I thought the initial capitalisation for London was quoted as around the £4.5m mark.

poster J, on 23 February 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

It is in a bigger theatre here though, and New York is a bigger city than London!

True it's in a bigger theatre - but I do not buy the "bigger city" line as being important. Broadway theatre has different qualities than the West End does - to compare the two in terms of city-size is pointless.