Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 10/5/25- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 10/7/25 at 3:22pm

Lumiere2 said: "This may be an unpopular take, but I can't help notice that Chicago had the lowest house capacity this week (66.4%) and the third lowest total gross ($598K) this week. And last week was even worse, barely getting $500K.

I've never been a fan of this production myself - I've seen it twice, but my last visit was almost a decade ago. And they can't be turning much of a profit, if any, on a $500-600Kgross each week.

I know it's the current longest running show on Broadway, and the producers have (almost) nothing to lose at this point.

The only milestone they have left would be to overtake Phantom as the longest running show of all time, but that title would meanthey still have to run another six years.

So I'm curious: what would it seriously take for Chicago to close at the Ambassador?"

I think we would need to see a very extended period of time with these numbers- like a year or more- before the Weisslers even consider throwing in the towel. Remember, it was only last year the production broke its box office records. If they feel they can secure replacements who can get those highs again, it'll be kept running. 

Looking at the full line graph of Chicago's grosses going back to the start, the average has been remarkably steady over time, though. 30 years at this point and it's not trending downward much at all. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/7/25 at 3:23pm

witchoftheeast2 said: "Lumiere2 said: "This may be an unpopular take, but I can't help notice that Chicago had the lowest house capacity this week (66.4%) and the third lowest total gross ($598K) this week. And last week was even worse, barely getting $500K.

I've never been a fan of this production myself - I've seen it twice, but my last visit was almost a decade ago. And they can't be turning much of a profit, if any, on a $500-600Kgross each week.

I know it's the current longest running show on Broadway, and the producers have (almost) nothing to lose at this point.

The only milestone they have left would be to overtake Phantom as the longest running show of all time, but that title would meanthey still have to run another six years.

So I'm curious: what would it seriously take for Chicago to close at the Ambassador?"

Another show wanting the theater and being okay with how awful the backstage area is?"

Not to mention the godawful seating layout and the complete lack of leg room. The theatre needs a gut job and remodel which, like Phantom, won’t happy until Chicago packs up its bandstand. 

I do think that this theatre could at least get a renaming (though whether it should be named after Kander & Ebb, Fosse, Chita Rivera, or Gwen Verdon could be a debate) and a facelift, perhaps with a digital marquee that is more pronounced with special cast changes 

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 10/7/25 at 3:28pm

For Chicago, I think you'd need to see these ultra low grosses sustained over a significant period of time and across more than one star casting. Absolutely NO ONE is knocking down the door of the Ambassador, praying they get to put their show in there. It is without a doubt the least desirable house on Broadway. The Shuberts are probably fearing the day that Chicago closes shop because the theater will need an incredibly costly renovation once its vacant. So I think the Weisslers have plenty of leeway here to keep it open, and they have the money to do so during short stints of bad grosses. 

[carlisle14]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:22am

witchoftheeast2 said: "SteveSanders said: "Should we be concerned about Just In Time

dropping from 103.37% sold to 102.81%?

{sarcasm}"

I'd expect a closing notice within two weeks

[also sarcasm :)]

Should Six be looking into off-Broadway houses? That number is awful"

Six is in trouble.  Even up 9.5% over last week, still a number that means they are hemorrhaging money.  I thought it would have had the tourist appeal to stick around for a longer haul?  This crash and burn sort of surprised me.  

 

Also shocked to see Harry Potter in the danger zone.  Thought that would have the long-term fandom appeal to last for another decade with that franchise.  They will need to keep bringing in actors like Tom Felton to keep that rolling.  

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:38am

carlisle14 said: "Also shocked to see Harry Potter in the danger zone. Thought that would have the long-term fandom appeal to last for another decade with that franchise. They will need to keep bringing in actors like Tom Felton to keep that rolling."

I guarantee that, had the show remained its original six-hour two-part production, it would have folded long ago. They’ve been trimming the show to cut production costs for years now. Considering most have seen it already, or are avoiding because of how toxic Rowling has become (the latter is likely negligible), I think packing it up after Felton’s run would be a smooth way to go out on a high.
 

No play in this current century has even come close to running as long as HPCC anyway. Why drive it into the ground?

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:42am

I think sadly to most the JK Rowling conservatives are not something they care about ( they should, but they don’t ) as long as they make money during holidays, summer etc. I can’t see this going anywhere soon.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:42am

Harry Potter is the third longest-running play in Broadway history and it still has to run about 800 more performances to overtake Tobacco Road to become the second (and about 900 to surpass the reigning champ, Life with Father). 

[witchoftheeast2]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:46am

Kad said: "Harry Potter is the third longest-running play in Broadway history and it still has to run about 800 more performances to overtake Tobacco Road to become the second (and about 900 to surpass the reigning champ, Life with Father)."

Will they achieve that with Tom Feltons run?

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:48am

...only if Felton stays in the show for about 2 years. So, no. 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 9:49am

800 performances is something like two full years of a regular show schedule. Felton may provide a boost while he’s in, but his run is only about five months. 

[witchoftheeast2]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 3:12pm

Is it possible Stranger Things could try to ride on the TV show releasing season 5 and then close by January if sales don't pick up?

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 4:58pm

witchoftheeast2 said: "Is it possible Stranger Things could try to ride on the TV show releasing season 5 and then close by January if sales don't pick up?"

I think it’s been abundantly clear that’s what they’ve been trying to do since they’ve only had enough profitable weeks to count on one hand. Other factors may be that nobody is exactly clamoring for the barn that is the Marquis (so maybe a break on rent), and/or the Duffer Brothers and creatives taking a royalty cut.

Any other show would’ve capitulated long ago, so someone is ponying up a buttload of money. My question would be - if they knew the new season was coming in November, combined with the fact that it’s a suspense/horror show and also that this season is remarkably light, why not have waited to open until then. I feel like if it opened now, it would be a consistent smash amongst dwindling options 

[trpguyy]

Posted: 10/8/25 at 5:07pm

MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "For Chicago, I think you'd need to see these ultra low grosses sustained over a significant period of time and across more than one star casting. Absolutely NO ONE is knocking down the door of the Ambassador, praying they get to put their show in there. It is without a doubt the least desirable house on Broadway. The Shuberts are probably fearing the day that Chicago closes shop because the theater will need an incredibly costly renovation once its vacant.So I think the Weisslershave plenty of leeway here to keep it open, and they have the money to do so during short stints of bad grosses."

Chicago is the last Broadway show to not have a Stop Clause, and Barry has said numerous times over the years that “Chicago will never close,” so, do with that what you will.