How'd Cabaret and Sunset Lose So Much $?
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:16pm
Cabaret: Never stood a chance with a ridiculously high running cost, very large upfront capitalisation, a recent revival of the revival 10 years ago with major stars at the time. Questionable casting choices.
Sunset: The running costs also seem high (seems to be the story for all shows in NYC these days) but it could have recouped if it maintained being a sold out hype for most of the run. There were months of mediocre grosses that were close to (maybe even below for a few) the weekly operating expenses. I’m not sure what they could have done to achieve this. It might have helped if the show opened in the spring and could ride from the tony success more instead of close quickly after. But I don’t know if that was an option.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:17pm
Sunset started off strong, then had a very soft winter (lots of TDF, rush, and lottery seats available), which is when Gypsy had its front loaded buzz. Sunset picked up again in May when the Tony noms came out and exploded when it won, but those few months of slower sales in the winter probably is what prevented it from recouping.
Cabaret tried to capitalize on its buzz from London and brought Redmayne along. However, the massive undertaking of renovating the theatre, obscene prices, and the otherwise tepid reception of the production always kept it behind the 8 ball. When it flopped at the Tonys that year (in terms of wins), their only hope would’ve been subsequent casting (which was a boon for the Mendes productions), but lost their momentum when Redmayne left and they went into the winter with Adam Lambert, who while initially a hot ticket, fell into the winter doldrums.
Of course, they would have been smart to kill off Cabaret after Orville and Eva, but instead they are choosing to make a bigger bonfire of their remaining investiture by staying open with Billy and Marisha
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:22pm
Powell is right that things are expensive, but then he says things like, "It was the hit show and winner of the season, but still lost around 40 per cent of its total investment," which means... no, it was not the hit or the winner of the season. Sunset had a number of wobbly box office weeks, particularly in the winter and spring, and had an ultimate closing date that meant it couldn't further capitalize on its Tony wins.
And Cabaret... well, it was a massive investment and the producers clearly had assumed it would just clean up. Critical and audience response put a damper on that and effectively tied the production's fortunes to their casting replacements, but the poor response to the production meant they could no longer get big draw names.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:23pm
binau said: "It might have helped if the show opened in the spring and could ride from the tony success more instead of close quickly after. But I don’t know if that was an option."
I think that's right. It was a buzzy ticket when it started and a huge hit post-Tonys. But then, it only had a month left. Had that kicked off the run, possibly that could've helped.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:49pm
Considering the minimalist aesthetic, I'm surprised Sunset was so expensive. Do people think Lloyd's minimalist approach to just about everything is routed in the iffy economics of contemporary theater?
Posted: 8/14/25 at 1:52pm
The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievably expensive.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:01pm
TotallyEffed said: "The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievablyexpensive."
You're right, of course. I always think of cost in terms of the traditional stuff.
Updated On: 8/14/25 at 02:01 PM
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:04pm
joevitus said: "TotallyEffed said: "The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievablyexpensive."
You're right, of course. I always think of cost in terms of the traditional stuff."
Tom Francis was also paid by the step during each walk
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:51pm
Nicole was commanding a huge fee every week and it was never exactly a hard ticket being in a barn like the St James
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:53pm
What was her huge fee?
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:59pm
As has been said many times, the New York system is broken.
Stage crews are paid too much money. They all have boats and second homes.
Everyone in New York Theatre is paid too much money. It’s out of control. This extends to the shops building the sets and costumes. No wonder the ticket prices and the stakes are so high.
Also Cabaret is terrible and thank god New York saw through it. Sadly London hasn’t been so perceptive.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 2:59pm
Sunset only existed as a Vanity project for those involved, I don't believe the people putting in the money really expected much from it profit-wise and its loss is something they can write against their Taxes.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 3:12pm
binau said: "What was her huge fee?"
I'd guess it's a high weekly (more than Sutton and Chenoweth/Menzel -- but less than Jackman and Midler) plus a healthy percentage of the box office.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 3:18pm
“Also Cabaret is terrible and thank god New York saw through it. Sadly London hasn’t been so perceptive.”
I was the first one to say this two years and of course jkcohen had to have a go at me. It ain’t easy being right!
jkcohen626
Broadway LegendJoined: 12/13/21
#14CONFIRMED: CABARET at the August Wilson Theatre, Spring 2024
Posted: 7/11/23 at 9:44am
BorisTomashevsky said: "Didn’t like this in London. Felt very black box/end of semester showcase, especially the Kit Kat Klub numbers. Sat next to another American traveler (sometimes without speaking, you just know when you’re next to someone from your part of the world) and our energy in receiving the show was identically shrug-fest. The locals, meanwhile, went nuts, probably helped by all the champagne.
Wouldn’t be surprised if memories of the vastly superior Mendes production strongly overshadow it here for discerning theatregoers. But I’m sure the masses will speak loudly of its supposed brilliance."
You didn't like it, good for you. It's ok for others to like and appreciate it. The contempt for people who like something you didn't here and across the internet is just plain annoying at this point.
Updated On: 8/14/25 at 03:18 PM
Posted: 8/14/25 at 3:19pm
JSquared2 said: "binau said: "What was her huge fee?"
I'dguess it's a high weekly (more than Sutton and Chenoweth/Menzel -- but less than Jackman and Midler) plus a healthy percentage of the box office.
"
Which is insane considering it was her Broadway debut and her middling career before it. The production did more for her status than anyone else involved.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 3:49pm
joevitus said: "TotallyEffed said: "The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievablyexpensive."
You're right, of course. I always think of cost in terms of the traditional stuff."
Yeah, it costs money to make stuff like that look good. But it also cost $15mil, which is still $5 mil less than GYPSY and also less than shows like DBH, MHE, etc. I bet its weekly running cost was less than GYPSY as well.
These types of numbers are the new norm.
Updated On: 8/14/25 at 03:49 PM
Posted: 8/14/25 at 4:27pm
I saw Cabaret with Lambert and Cravalho and really enjoyed it...but I remember walking around the theater thinking holy **** what is the daily cash burn rate of this show. So much staff, so many pre show dancers and musicians...just tremendously expensive.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:23pm
JSquared2 said: "binau said: "What was her huge fee?"
I'dguess it's a high weekly (more than Sutton and Chenoweth/Menzel -- but less than Jackman and Midler) plus a healthy percentage of the box office.
"
Around the time of the 'hat controversy,' her old theatrical manager stated that she was making $100,000 a week including box office cuts. Which obviously went down for most of the winter.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:28pm
TheatreFan4 said: "JSquared2 said: "binau said: "What was her huge fee?"
I'dguess it's a high weekly (more than Sutton and Chenoweth/Menzel -- but less than Jackman and Midler) plus a healthy percentage of the box office.
"
Which is insane considering it was her Broadway debut and her middling career before it. The production did more for her status than anyone else involved.
"
But she kind of was the show and I would suggest she likely has more box office value than Sutton, Chenoweth or Idina right now (could they carry a show for as long as Nicole did with those grosses?) and less than Hugh Jackman or Bette Midler so doesn’t it all kind of make sense?
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:38pm
~$100K including box office (as opposed to 100+BO) is a little bit high for someone of her name value, but she also won the Olivier Award and was viewed as intrinsic to that show’s success. She could kinda name her price. No other star was going to touch it after the response she got in London.
I wouldn't be surprised if Zegler’s Broadway contract was negotiated at the time of her London negotiation for this very reason.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:38pm
binau said: "TheatreFan4 said: "JSquared2 said: "binau said: "What was her huge fee?"
I'dguess it's a high weekly (more than Sutton and Chenoweth/Menzel -- but less than Jackman and Midler) plus a healthy percentage of the box office.
"
Which is insane considering it was her Broadway debut and her middling career before it. The production did more for her status than anyone else involved.
"
But she kind of was the show and I would suggest she likely hasmore box office value than Sutton, Chenoweth or Idina right now (could they carry a show for as long as Nicole did with those grosses?) and less than Hugh Jackman or Bette Midler so doesn’t it all kind of make sense?"
I'll be real honest, I feel like the star of the production is just the production and direction. She just happened to be the one they plopped in the role so she gets the praise and reviews. It's not like any of the Alternates or Standbys were inferior to her.
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:42pm
I’m happy you think that way but I could not disagree more strongly. The entire concept of the show mirrors her own as you put it middling career in a strange abstract way and her vocal aesthetic, the quality of the dynamics and unique timbre is exceptional. Do you really think any of the alternates or understudies could beat Audra in Gypsy?
And regardless of talent, the job is to sell tickets which Nicole did. None of her understudies or alternates could do that.
Updated On: 8/14/25 at 05:42 PM
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:47pm
Dolly80 said: "As has been said many times, the New York system is broken.
Stage crews are paid too much money. They all have boats and second homes.
Everyone in New York Theatre is paid too much money. It’s out of control. This extends to the shops building the sets and costumes. No wonder the ticket prices and the stakes are so high.
Also Cabaret is terrible and thank god New York saw through it. Sadly London hasn’t been so perceptive."
Stage crews all have boats and second homes??? Seriously? What is your source for this ridiculous claim? If everyone working in theatre is “paid too much money”, just exactly how much money would you like them to be paid? Would minimum wage be too high for you?
Posted: 8/14/25 at 5:53pm
binau said: "I’m happy you think that way but I could not disagree more strongly. The entire concept of the show mirrors her own as you put it middling career in a strange abstract way and her vocal aesthetic, the quality of the dynamics and unique timbre is exceptional. Do you really think any of the alternates or understudies could beat Audra in Gypsy?
And regardless of talent, the job is to sell tickets which Nicole did. None of her understudies or alternates could do that.
"
In what way does it mirror her middling career? Norma was a star of a transitioning medium and fell out when voice became a thing. Nicole was in a third rate girl group with 2 popular songs. Do I think the others could have beat Audra? Had they started with the production in London, probably? Tonys and sales are all about a narrative and the narrative sold for her. Again, I said the whole thing was a vanity project and given that they lost millions of dollars on it, that shakes out. Just like Audra's Gypsy. She sold tickets, sure. She didn't sell tickets to generate a profit clearly.
