Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 6/15/26 — Page 2

I'm not disputing there is a real perceived difference, but it is interesting how perceptions about being a replacement can vary so much for different shows. Fourth lead in Just In Time? May be hard to sell someone on take the part. Yet it isn't hard to imagine people chomping at the bit to be the 13th replacement in Oh Mary!

SteveSanders said: "I'm not disputing there is a real perceived difference, but it is interesting how perceptions about being a replacement can vary so much for different shows. Fourth lead in Just In Time? May be hard to sell someone on take the part. Yet it isn't hard to imagine people chomping at the bit to be the 13th replacement in Oh Mary!"

You make a fair point but throughout history there are some star vehicles that people just do not want to touch as a replacement.

No one star is being associated with OH MARY right now, which benefits it, and actors can interpret the role in different ways. Aside from Maya, none of the Marys were shockingly big gets either - they were people who’d worked in theatre or weren’t A-tier stars. The role isn’t easy, but it’s a short, well-constructed play that gives her moments offstage and moments when featured players can take the spotlight.

JUST IN TIME is a not-great book and it requires the leading man to make it work. The role is a beast for vocals, dance and stamina. I think it is still being viewed as The Groff Show even tho he’s been gone several months and the consensus around the two replacements is they’re not better than Groff - but I’ve heard OM fans make a convincing case for why almost each replacement is the best they’ve seen in the part.

Updated On: 6/16/26 at 05:47 PM

& Juliet seems likely to be done soon. Fourth lowest grossing week of all time this week, which you never want to see in June. It may have run long enough to get more of an extended runway to closing but I think we'll hear something soon.

An all time low for Buena Vista. I think it'll be gone by the end of the summer or end of the year at the latest. Also the lowest since November 2024 for Maybe Happy Ending, back when it was struggling to survive.

Becky Shaw had a really nice run for the Hayes

Good bump for Schmigadoon as expected and a lesser but still solid bump for Ragtime. A nice little bump for Rocky Horror too and The Lost Boys/Two Strangers held steady. Cats dropped but is still OK. Really Titanique is the one I'm keeping my eye on. Proof that Tony performances matter at least to a small degree.

It's really interesting to see how Dog Day Afternoon fell apart. The reviews and lack of Tony noms seemed to really do a number on what was once a hot ticket.

I feel like The Outsiders has had a trajectory similar to Hadestown and Moulin Rouge. Gangbuster numbers for awhile after the Tony wins then a slip into softer numbers where it looked like it might not run for as long before finally settling into a pretty solid weekly number as it becomes a tourist favorite. I could see it easily getting a 5+ year run like Moulin.

The post-Criss collapse of Maybe Happy Ending is disheartening. Unlike The Outsiders, the show never became the star - even though I thought it could hold up better because it’s a well-crafted musical that could appeal to a wide audience.

But musicals, with fewer international tourists and pricey running costs, have such high margins for error, and even well-liked shows like MHE or Death Becomes Her or Buena Vista Social Club run out of steam.

I speculated last week about shows that might stick it out through Tony season and survive, in part they will be some of the few remaining musical options. But you can’t make people go to the theater to see shows they don’t really want to see, or already have seen.

The commercial failure of Maybe Happy Ending on Broadway, barring a comeback, is Exhibit A for why musicals, especially new ones, are a bad investment. Without international tourism, the audience is just smaller and fewer people want to see replacement casts.

Updated On: 6/16/26 at 06:53 PM

kdogg36 said: "ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Titanique initially cost closer to $1 million, but service providers, authors, producer have probably waived their royalties/weekly fees to get the cost down. So it could be closer to 850-900 now."

I know I've brought this up before, but... if the authors "waive their fees," are they literally not getting paid for their work being performed? That seems so bizarre to me. It should be just as unthinkable as Equity allowing actors work for free."

Authors may want to try and help save a show in trouble. They will get profits in any future life of the show, while the actors and other crew generally do not.

kdogg36 said: "broadfan327 said: "Authors may want to try and help save a show in trouble. They will get profits in any future life of the show, while the actors and other crew generally do not."

Your latter point does make sense. (As to your first point, I can count on approximately one finger the musicals in recent years thatwent from struggling to making a weekly profit.) What I'm really troubled by is that, from what I've heard, producers put a lot of pressure on the authors to waive their royalties. There should be safeguards in place to prevent that kind of thing. Most composers, lyricists, and librettists aren't independently wealthy like ALW or Stephen Schwartz."

There are all kinds of unnecessary pressures in this industry to cut costs and keep a show running, whether it be forcing creatives to waive royalties, not hiring enough swings and having performers go on sick or a show gets cancelled, and cutting back on marketing.

It’s a perpetual game of plugging holes in a boat.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "To date Macfarlane has turned everything down, even short runs and “you pick the project” projects. I’d be happy to see him on Broadway (or Encores or someplace) someday but I don’t expect to.

Buble has been compared to Darin and Sinatra so much over his career that I doubt he’d come into this of all things.

I can’t think of many guys who are incredible famous (to a different audience than the people who’ve already gone) AND would be willing to be the fourth actor to play this role on Broadway."

It wouldn't have much of an audience behind a Morrison-esque strictly limited engagement (four weeks or less) but I would give an arm and a leg to see Tony-winner John Lloyd Young play Bobby Darin. Sure, playing another 60's pop star could be extreme typecasting, but since JLY doesn't have a single Broadway credit to his name other than Jersey Boys, it's not like he currently has a flourishing Broadway career that such a typecasting could hurt. It would be fun to see him play a role other than Frankie Valli.

The Lost Boys outgrossed Wicked, so that's something.

CoffeeBreak said: "CATS will pick up and do well over the summer.

Mincemeat will be fine. Two Strangers can run, even on those numbers, over the summer. Titanique is cheaper to run - hopefully the rest of the summer's numbers are stronger for them.

& Juliet and Maybe Happy Ending looked to have run their course - with their weekly expenses being high. Lost Boys capacity seeming to decline even if seats become more expensive to counter. They are still barely breaking even, if they are. Good for Schmigadoon!, Death of A Salesman and Ragtime.

Could Just In Time have even a bigger star (outside of the theater) in its pocket? ...."

Just in Time played to 95% of capacity, with an average ticket price of $142. Last week or the week before, it sold 99%, with an average ticket price of $150. It is in a small theatre that grossed as much as it did because of Jonathan Groff'sability to command ridiculous premium prices. How many can do that in the first place; and of those, how many want to take over from the second replacement?

I think the producers of JIT should have no logical reason to expect to sell a lot of premium priced tickets for a musical in its second year, that got mixed reviews in the first place. (Note: I loved it with Groff, but don't see it as a repeater. If I want to see a few numbers, all I have to do is go to You Tube).

bear882 said: "The big winners from the Tony Awards wereGiant, which got a nice boost (based on John Lithgow’s Best Actor win?) andSchmigadoon!,I guess. Was last week the musical’s first profitable one? $1.1 million is a nice bounce but doesn’t seem like anything extraordinary unless my guess on running costs is too high.

I am not countingRagtimeandDeath of a Salesman, which won and had strong weeks. Butboth of those shows would probably have done well regardless."

Giant did 8 performances this week vs. 7 the previous.

TheGingerBreadMan said: "I wish that it could be more common for plays to perform at the Tonys rather than just musicals. The two most recent plays that I remember having an actual performance instead of brief clips being shown were Stereophonic and One Man, Two Guvnors, but those were plays with music anyway and the performances on the telecast were music-centered. Has an actual straight play performed since Fences with Denzel in 2010? I wonder if it would give plays a bump if they were given the opportunity.

Telecast runtime, audience expectations, willingness of producers to pay for a performance, etc - I know these all factor into it. Just wishful thinking."

CHOIR BOY performed in 2019.

Given the continually reduced viewership of the Tonys, I don't think live play performances would make much of a difference at all.

Dropping a 5-minute scene from the b-roll on YouTube, IG, and TikTok a week after opening would probably have greater value.

This season for new plays, two are already closed, one needs no help selling, and the other closes two weeks after the Tonys and is in a subscription house. For revivals, one was closed, one had a star who'd already left, two were a week away from closing, and one is getting a big bump from all its wins.