not logged in
| re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags | |
Posted by:  |
Pudding 10:54 am UTC 04/29/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 09:28 am UTC 04/29/07 |
| It seems like you and Ryan are in agreement, which in itself more than proves my point that it's utter bollocks. Pud > > I see some expressions that I feel are sometimes a little > primitive when referring to Broadway productions. It is > not that I have a well of experience from which to draw, > but growing up in the vicinity and having the basic > education that I have had, casual and college alike to > some degree, I don't know why some people have the > impression that funds would come from one single source; > so it is plausible and probably a routine thing, for there > to be as many as two hundred investors for a large scale > production. Movie financing looks alot more like > construction financing when a bank might be the source of > funds, but that is because the movie industry and the > construction industry are "industries" where Broadway > keeps itself in the Community sphere of structure. It is > the Broadway community, which draws life to Broadway > productions, and one sees the satire of this in "The > Producers" but the structure when taken seriously is the > same, but with its own brand of debauchery where it may be > subject. > > Money comes to a Broadway production in some of the same > ways that money comes into an IPO on the stock market. The > closely known favored investors are rung up in > solicitations and the pool is grown from those who see > acceptable risks to the investment. Then they watch it, > like one watches a horse race. > > I may be very simplistic and in some ways ignorant in the > way I describe it, but at least it explains why funding > for a production is not so absolute as what someone's > opinion may be. > > > > > > > > > Yes cos writing a musical about singing and dancing cats > > > was a dead cert for success ;o) > > > > > > Pud > > > > Well, it took 200 investors to mount "Cats". But that's > > not the point. Despite his huge successes with "Jesus > > Christ Superstar", "Evita", "Cats" and "The Phantom Of The > > Opera", he hasn't had a major hit in 20 years. If "The > > Phantom Of Manhattan" goes down it could end his career. > > If it succeeds, it could be like BAT II > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 09:28 am UTC 04/29/07 |
| Next: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 11:02 am UTC 04/29/07 |
| Thread: |
|