| re: I think we all agree.... well | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:49 am EDT 07/02/24 | |
| In reply to: re: I think we all agree.... well - NewtonUK 06:43 am EDT 07/02/24 | |
|
|
|
| I would call the economics more complicated (and less linear) and I would not think there are any "secrets" at play here. Likewise, demonstrably there is certainly no "bar" set such as you describe. Were there, Broadway actors would be billionaires by now and producing their own shows. :-) I am not sure why you shifted from 5k to 10k; the latter seems like a straw dog and we already have a real world scenario to analyze. A few considerations I see: First, factually, some actors are "worth" more: a bankable star will increase demand and thus prices, but there are other demand influences that can be greater. For instance, a bankable author(s) can sell tickets in a way that makes that the valuable input, and a non-bankable property can render even the biggest stars of much less "value." Second, you seem to be suggesting that the current "bar" is set at the contractual minimum, but that is simply not true. I would love to know what non-ensemble actors you are aware of who are making the minimum on Broadway. (And as a practical matter, since a good chunk of ensemble actors are covering one or more roles, even they are not at your imaginary "bar.") Third, when we analyze Stereophonic as a play, we lose sight of the fact that we are attempting to analyze it on the non-substantive basis of a Tony classification rather than its reality. All of that said, I am inclined to say that the $5k here is a reasonable resolution. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: I think we all agree.... well - KingSpeed 01:59 pm EDT 07/02/24 |
| Next: | re: I think we all agree.... well - KingSpeed 02:01 pm EDT 07/02/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.161422 seconds.