‘Cats’ Closing: Is It Curtains for Broadway Musicals?
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:08pm
Omg these articles are inusfferable.
Broadway musicals have survived economic crashes, pandemics, 9/11, depressions, wars, Time Square becoming a hell hole, demolitions of theaters and much more. They will survive Cats the Jellicle Ball closing.
Not that things shouldn't be looked at or changed. But these fatalistic articles and headlines are so so stupid
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:10pm
I mean..here's an article from 1972 declaring the death of Broadway.
https://time.com/archive/6840579/show-business-broadways-big-down/
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:15pm
But these fatalistic articles and headlines are so so stupid
100%
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:17pm
mitchern said: "https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/cats-broadway-musicals-1236653875/"
It can be two things: while this show is about the worst example you could pick by which to determine the fate of Broaday (and I'm betting it was inspired by Webber's own post on the subject), the economics for Broadway are currently dreadful. Since there will always be tourists, and Broadway shows will always be a destination, I doubt it's "curtains" for Broadway, but I do expect fewer shows of a more generic nature, essentially the equivalent of Vegas shows, but fewer of them.
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 01:17 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:33pm
Oy! Some just love doom and gloom. Broadway has faced many, many challenges over the decades and is still going strong.
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 01:33 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:35pm
I do think something has to got to give here and there is certainly blame to go all around: the cartel of theater owners controlling the venues and taking their cut from everybody who walks into their buildings; marketing firms that feel homogeneous and like they chase trends rather than innovate; producers who seem more interested in raising their own profiles than developing successful projects; actors who don't seem to understand how their own industry operates but are nevertheless outspoken in their demands; a lack of development of new musical theater writers at the Broadway level; etc etc.
Broadway as an industry is incredibly consolidated and feeling increasingly ossified, which has materialized as an inability to adapt to a changing environment post-pandemic. Hell, it's only really in the last several years that the industry has seemed to realize that social media is important- and that has manifested as productions hiring firms to record actors doing TikTok trends or jump on whatever meme went viral yesterday.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:40pm
No, it's not, but until some sense can made of both the weekly operating costs and the capitalizations, we're going to continue having these problems. And placing blame on ONLY the theatre owners or ONLY the unions is a misread of the situation.
I think there's also the frank reality of CATS that this concept was more niche than its producers thought, and the level of interest at that price tag was not enough to sustain it. Needing an average sold-out price of $120 just to tread water (break even on the weeklies) is a really really tough business model. "Support queer Black art" isn't the issue --- it's that people sadly weren't willing to spend enough money.
The tax credit is nice way to try to lure investors, but it does nothing to help a show that costs about a million dollars a week to run. And the capitalism aspect of Broadway will never go away. It's called Commercial Theatre for a reason.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:52pm
I dont get why Cats has triggered so many people. There's obviously an issue with the current broadway business model, but there are so many better shows to use as a case study. A niche concept revival of a show that already divides people (compounded by a notorious flop movie) isn't really the one to lead with. It was always going to face an uphill battle.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 1:52pm
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "No, it's not, but until some sense can made of both the weekly operating costs and the capitalizations, we're going to continue having these problems. And placing blame on ONLY the theatre owners or ONLY the unions is a misread of the situation.."
That's kind of the strange thing here for me: for all the discussion of costs going up, I have never seen a comprehensive breakdown of costs in any reporting. Which costs, and by how much? Nobody seems willing to say except to point a finger elsewhere.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 2:34pm
Several good points are mentioned in these comments. First, Jellicle Ball may not be the best example to make a case for the end of Broadway since the concept might have been a limited niche market, certainly not for the family crowd the original Cats appealed to. Second, the show was hot over a year ago off-Broadway, so it should have transferred then, not waited for a full year. Third, the Cats movie proved the show itself is no longer a hot property -- in fact, the movie was a disaster at the box office, so perhaps Cats itself is not longer of interest to a large segment of the audience. Fourth, to make the case that expenses are killing Broadway, we need to see the actual financial data for the weekly expenses, the rental percentage, the union costs, the royalty schedules for authors, designers, directors, etc. It is hard to discuss without financial data. Fifth, how has tourism been affected by the Trump governmental policies? What are the hotels showing, the restaurants, the airlines?
Finally, has anyone surveyed audiences to find out if they like the kinds of shows that are being made into musicals? Was there ever a big demand for a musical about Betty Boop? Was there going to be a big audience for 2 Strangers Carrying a Cake? Was there going to be a major audience for musical versions of movie like Back to the Future, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Mrs. Doubtfire, another Some Like It Hot, Mean Girls, etc, etc, etc. Not every 30-year old movie needs to be a musical.
In that survey, ask why shows with strong stories -- Ragtime, Hamilton, Death of a Salesman, Dear Evan Hansen, To Kill a Mockingbird, -- shows with major character development, major character arcs, dramatic conflicts and themes about economic injustice, disillusionment with the American Dream, imperialism - why are these the shows that have resonated most strongly since Covid?
I fail to understand why the closing of pellicle Ball Cats is such a tragedy -- did anyone really expect this to run at capacity for over a year and half in order to cover its production costs? Similarly, did anyone really expect a concert-style staging of Sunset Blvd or Chess to run at capacity for close to a year in order to pay back its production costs? I don't think it is accurate to say Sunset, Cats, Chess are in the same "classical class" of a Death of a Salesman, Ragtime, Mockingbird or Othello -- some shows are 'OF THEIR TIME". but other shows are TIIMELESS -- Cats just does not qualify.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 2:34pm
I agree with pretty much everything expressed - it's a slow news cycle, so clickbait headlines like this happen which just exacerbates the problem - and Kad, your question about the lack of any sort of specifics being called out is a good one. (Presuming it's confidentiality related...?)
Broadway desperately needs *positive* press, amongst the countless other things, and yet when headlines like this come out, the response is just a blank void. And since there's no response from anyone from the industry, it just affirms the perspective in possible ticket buyers that now isn't a good time to buy tickets.
I'd ask where The Broadway League is, but I unfortunately can't afford to check The Hamptons. :: exhausted sigh :: The artists who work like Olympians onstage and backstage to put on shows deserve much better.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 2:47pm
Theatrefan2 said: "I dont get why Cats has triggered so many people. There's obviously an issue with the current broadway business model, but there are so many better shows to use as a case study. A niche concept revival of a show that already divides people (compounded by a notorious flop movie) isn't really the one to lead with. It was always going to face an uphill battle."
Listen - the reason a lot of people are rankled by the closing is because it feels like a major loss for creative ingenuity in the theatre, as well as a chance to have widespread queer, trans, and BIPOC representation on stage en masse.
This took that dusty, divisive property and turned it into an expression of queer joy in a world actively trying to hurt us. It showed us that queer stories can take even the most unconventional material and make something magical that doesn’t traffic in trauma-as-art tropes.
It also managed to become the best musical reviewed this season AND managed to pick up 3 Tony Awards, each of them historically important.
It may seem like the reheated nachos of a 1980s novelty musical for some, but for others, this show was a true game changer and the impact it has has cannot be understated.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 3:11pm
A niche concept revival of a show that already divides people (compounded by a notorious flop movie) isn't really the one to lead with. It was always going to face an uphill battle.
The lack of that simple fact is truly lost on the people obsessed with that show.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 3:23pm
Theatrefan2 said: "I dont get why Cats has triggered so many people. There's obviously an issue with the current broadway business model, but there are so many better shows to use as a case study. A niche concept revival of a show that already divides people (compounded by a notorious flop movie) isn't really the one to lead with. It was always going to face an uphill battle."
Cats closing is triggering people because a lot of actors in this production will never see a Broadway stage again. What the show encompasses exceeds typical Broadway expectations and casting. It's not just about a business model, it's representation for Trans and Queer POC folks that aren't able to jump from show to show. Sure the business model is broken, but folks are mourning what made this show unique. The ensemble of Chess can fan kick their way into another ensemble next season. Not the same for this group of artists and Black Trans women. That hurts to see go so quickly even if its not commercially "popular."
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 03:23 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 3:38pm
The thing about the "it's niche" argument with Jellicle Ball is that it implies people haven't been going, which is objectively not the case. Its attendance has actually been pretty darn good with an average of 93.04% capacity for the 18 weeks it has run thus far. So people have very much been attending and in pretty strong numbers. The issue is that, despite those strong attendance numbers, it has still been unable to break even, which suggests either a ceiling on how much people have been willing to spend on tickets or unsustainable costs (and, in all likelihood, both).
On paper, this is a production that seems like it could be floated for longer, even if it will never be a long-running hit; it would hardly be the first production like that, and it's in a stronger position than other shows that have been run longer despite a lack of realistic way to profitability (look at Titanique, which is doing worse in every way yet seems on track to finish its run in late September). But I strongly suspect that the issue of coverage has been a deciding factor: the producers do not want to add more costs by adding additional swings, so they are pulling the plug and cutting losses instead. So the sense that a production that, while perhaps not totally viable but still able to draw in audiences, is being cut short early is driving this defensive feeling.
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 03:38 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 4:47pm
I think the heartbreak on this one was particularly tough for some people because they like the show so much, it was different/unique, and they wanted it to do well. And there were 18 months of anticipation between PAC and Bway.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 5:40pm
Kad said: "The thing about the "it's niche" argument with Jellicle Ball is that it implies people haven't been going, which is objectively not the case. Its attendance has actually beenpretty darn good with an average of 93.04% capacity for the 18 weeks it has run thus far. So people have very much been attending and in pretty strong numbers. The issue is that, despite those strong attendance numbers, it has still been unable to break even, which suggests either a ceiling on how much people have been willing to spend on tickets or unsustainable costs (and, in all likelihood, both).
On paper, this is a production that seems like it could be floated for longer, even if it will never be a long-running hit; it would hardly be the first production like that, and it's in a stronger position than other shows that have been run longer despite a lack of realistic way to profitability (look at Titanique, which is doing worse in every way yet seems on track to finish its run in late September). But I strongly suspect that the issue of coverage has been a deciding factor: the producers do not want to add more costs by adding additional swings, so they are pulling the plug and cutting losses instead. So the sense that a production that, while perhaps not totally viable but still able to draw in audiences, is being cut short early is driving this defensive feeling."
I feel like you somewhat contradict yourself here, and demonstrate that it was, indeed, a niche product. Niche products aren't necessarily something with only five people sitting in the audience. This show clearly meant a great deal to, especially, BIPOC LGBT persons, and I in no way have ever meant to mock that or to say they don't deserve that spotlight. And there were a certain number of, I suppose we should say "sophisticated "people outside that category who appreciated it, as well. Allies, and those who have gotten some sense of ballroom culture through things like Drag Race. But it's still a geared for a fairly limited demographic and tied to a property a lot of people are just sick of (even if they don't realize that what they'd see here wasn't the show they are sure they can't stand). One might compare it on one level to Pacific Overtures.
You are probably right that coverage was a issue here--that certanly tracks. But I also suspect they closed because they realized this wasn't a show that was going to be kept alive for the long run by the tourists, and that the number of dedicated theatregoes in Manhattan was not going to sustain it for much longer. Probably all of this was part of the conversation.
For the record, this comment isn't meant as an attack on your posts. I've thought all your comments on this thread (and lots of them in others) have been very insightful.
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 05:40 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 5:42pm
Serious question from an absolute outsider from another country, one which, like the UK, has often seen both state and federal governments ( although usually Labor governments) getting involved to help theatre stay afloat, eg with what is going on at the moment in Australian theatre there are discussions about what can be done to help re subsidies, tax incentives etc.
Is there any way that government at any level can get involved with the issues that are plaguing Broadway re the high cost of rents on Broadway etc or is the US attitude to government intervention/help just so different that those sort of things would never be considered?
I mean i obviously don't mean the current federal government, but at the local and state level.
As for tourism, as I've mentioned in another thread, tourism would be doing well right now if you had just elected Kamala instead of the fascist in office now. Not only are people just not inclined to visit the US right now ( i read an article the other day about how travel to the US from Australia has plummeted in the last year) but due to the war the Orange One started that should never have happened our cost of living has gone through the roof so people just can't afford to travel in the way they did even a year ago.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 5:45pm
In our current polical climate, those questions can be read as nothing but gallows humor. Wish it weren't so, but it is. The whole issue of government subsidy for the arts has been a Republican scaremongering tactic since the early '90's.
Updated On: 7/22/26 at 05:45 PM
Posted: 7/22/26 at 7:53pm
FWIW, Oskar Eustis spoke on this in his exit interview in the Times:
And how are you feeling about the state of Broadway musicals?
When “Cabaret” lost its money, that felt to me like a turning point. A whole lot of investors went, “If a show that ran for that long with that much star power and that much buzz could lose all that money, what am I doing investing in musicals?” Going from four out of five shows losing their money to nine out of 10 shows losing their money was a qualitative shift. Now it’s Russian roulette.
I get that many keep saying Jellicle Ball was niche and ALW's comments are crying wolf, but how many alarm bells from the people who've actually been raising the money for decades does it take before folks believe them that things are bad?
Is Bway going to die forever? No. But it's in crisis. And the 2nd Golden Age we had from the early 2000s can now be considered to have ended at the pandemic. We're in a new period of transition into whatever comes next.
Posted: 7/22/26 at 8:03pm
I appreciate Eustis' insight here, but what is he talking about when he says "Going from four out of five shows losing their money to nine out of 10 shows losing their money was a qualitative shift. Now it’s Russian roulette"-- hes saying 80% of shows used to lose money, but now 90% of them do? Thats the huge shift?
Broadway has a problem (the cost of employing everyone fairly is significant, and the landlords who have all the money they could ever want, still have the right if not obligation to charge $$ for their spaces, and the productions get squeezed in between), BUT
i do not for the life of me understand how the CATS revival is emblematic of that crisis. Yes to a very unique niche subset its a true original spin on a classic, but to MOST people its a revival of something old but in a style they cant access/appreciate. It should surprise NO ONE that this show struggled to last more than six months, even if it disappoints them. Other revivals (Ragtime, Merrily, the list goes on) have done quite well, and the issue remains the dearth of NEW bankable original musicals.
Posted: 7/23/26 at 12:03am
Meh, it hasn't been "struggling" to last more than six months. As Kad, points out, the house has been largely filled throughout its run. I think they probably realized they couldn't keep that up, but that's a different evaluation of the show's success.
I wish there would be a cast recording, both for the fans this has meant so much to and because I like to see as many shows as possible get that documentation. But, geez, if the current production of The Rocky Horror Show--doing great business and with ties to a rabid, international cult following that would make a cast recording an easy bet to turn a profit--didn't get one, hoping for Cats: the Jellicle Ball to recieve one after posting its closing notice seems the height of pie in the sky thinking.
Updated On: 7/23/26 at 12:03 AM
Posted: 7/23/26 at 2:15am
Here’s the line from the Eustis interview that struck me, in response to Paulson’s question about what has changed financially.
Eustis: It’s unfortunately pretty simple. Costs have gone up between 50 to 75 percent and income has, for us, stayed flat or decreased.
The Public Theater might have some unique problems, but I doubt they are that unique. I don’t know all the causes of the cost increases, but it’s obvious enough that a business - commercial or nonprofit - with soaring costs and flat revenues has a problem.
It helps explain what we have seen - a miserable environment for new musicals, even ones that win Tony Awards or seem popular and are filling seats.
I don’t pretend to have a solution. I just know there’s a problem.
Updated On: 7/23/26 at 02:15 AM
Posted: 7/23/26 at 2:58am
bear882 said: "Here’s the line from the Eustis interview that struck me, in response to Paulson’s question about what has changed financially.
Eustis: It’s unfortunately pretty simple. Costs have gone up between 50 to 75 percent and income has, for us, stayed flat or decreased.
The Public Theater might have some unique problems, but I doubt they are that unique. I don’t know all the causes of the cost increases, but it’s obvious enough that a business - commercial or nonprofit - with soaring costs and flat revenues has a problem.
It helps explain what we have seen - a miserable environment for new musicals, even ones that win Tony Awards or seem popular and are filling seats.
I don’t pretend to have a solution. I just know there’s a problem."
Exactly. And those costs aren’t coming down. So how does revenue explode to those levels?
and sure, CATS isn’t the poster child for it but won’t be a perfect one. ALW has been saying this about Bway for a couple years now. Having rave reviews, awards, and full houses isn’t enough. And as Eustis is saying, it’s in the non profit world too.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
