How'd Cabaret and Sunset Lose So Much $? - Page 2

[TheatreFan4]

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. 

[Dolly80]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:32pm

Matt Rogers said: "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? "

I know many people who work In New York theatre and we talk.  There’s a huge difference between people being paid too much money and minimum wage. I don’t want anyone being paid minimum wage, let alone in the theatre when the hours are so tough. But some wages in New York are completely out of control vs the work those people do.

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:34pm

I think we’re all burying the lede in this thread… Dolly is alive, and back? (Or at least there’s a tribute account…)

[Kad]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:36pm

What work are you even referring to here? You said everyone in New York theatre, which is a very wide-ranging spectrum of the well-compensated folks on Broadway and then the people who are barely making minimum wage off or off-off Broadway.

And since most theatre productions are either limited runs or simply don't run long, a higher than average salary makes sense for many theatre workers. 

[Kad]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:37pm

darquegk said: "I think we’re all burying the lede in this thread… Dolly is alive, and back? (Or at least there’s a tribute account…)"

If you're referring to Dollypop, this is an entirely different member. 

[Dolly80]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:41pm

darquegk said: "I think we’re all burying the lede in this thread… Dolly is alive, and back? (Or at least there’s a tribute account…)"


There are more Dollys?!!

[two ladies tickets]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 6:52pm

I know that we've all discussed this before, but I think it bears repeating:
Local One Stagehands which include carpenters/automation/props/flymen/sound/electrics, make an ungodly amount of money. They get paid double time just to walk in the door on Sundays and often they don't even stay through the entire show, they leave after their last cue. But wardrobe and hair are not paid nearly as much. And most stage managers are getting equity minimum, so we can't group all of the backstage personnel together. 
also, when discussing Andrew Lloyd Webber shows specifically, remember: he takes home a significant chunk of the box office every week, usually over 50% so that has to be factored into running costs and weekly grosses.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 7:01pm

Tomorrow night and Saturday/Sunday matinees of Cabaret are about 20% sold, and weeknights next week have massive availability. Are they really going to keep it going until October? Is ATG that proud?

[Dolly80]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 7:02pm

two ladies tickets said: "I know that we've all discussed this before, but I think it bears repeating:
Local One Stagehands which include carpenters/automation/props/flymen/sound/electrics, make an ungodly amount of money. They get paid double time just to walk in the door on Sundays and often they don't even stay through the entire show, they leave after their last cue. But wardrobe and hair are not paid nearly as much. And most stage managers are getting equity minimum, so we can't group all of the backstage personnel together.
also, when discussing Andrew Lloyd Webber shows specifically, remember: he takes home a significant chunk of the box office every week, usually over 50% so that has to be factored into running costs and weekly grosses."

Very true. I was rather too general with what I said.. I do mean Local One stagehands

[bear88]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 10:04pm

I find the financial failure of Sunset Blvd. far more interesting, and concerning, than the problems with Cabaret, or for that matter, Gypsy. 

Cabaret seemed doomed from the start, a divisive revival with a budget that made no sense. The last two Broadway revivals of Gypsy had been commercial failures, and with another Broadway star as the touted lead, it was pretty much destined to fail at the box office too - as it falls into the category of a prestige revival that runs out of steam after a few months.

Sunset Blvd. was supposed to be different, a reinvention of a tired musical with a flashy director, a new star, and a dedicated fanbase. It won awards, started strong and ended even better. If Scherzinger had wanted to stay longer, it would have continued to do well. 

But in the end, how is Sunset really all that different - aside from losing less money and winning awards? One of the things that strikes me is the difficulty of musical revivals. Remember how surprised everyone was that the most ballyhooed revival of the past decade - Hello, Dolly! - barely made a profit. It also was rare in bringing in replacement stars that allowed it to make some money.

It’s the rare musical revival that turns a profit - Funny Girl, thanks to Lea Michele; Sweeney Todd, despite the grumbling of purists like me; Merrily We Roll Along, thanks to Daniel Radcliffe and Jonathan Groff. [ETA: I forgot about The Music Man, a financial success thanks to Hugh Jackman.] Merrily and The Music Man did not try to replace the stars and forge ahead. Only Hello, Dolly! and Funny Girl toured.

Sunset Blvd., in the end, was about Nicole Scherzinger belting out her pair of big songs along with some Jamie Lloyd atmospherics that some people loved and others tolerated.

It just seems like the sort of revival that should have broken even. The fact that it didn’t does not bode well.

 

Updated On: 8/15/25 at 10:04 PM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 8/14/25 at 10:23pm

Given its capitalization, choice of theater, and length of run, I don't think it is particularly surprising that Sunset did not recoup.

[dan94]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 10:17am

The empty seats are the reason Sunset did not recoup. It was never impossible to get a ticket. And the empty seats depressed the ATP. They would have recouped had they gone into a smaller theatre. There were several other mistakes made (brought over too many Brits, could planning to switch the alt out every few months have pushed that number higher?, the Nicole pay number was clearly too high) but at the end of the day it was a show that should have recouped yet did not because of semi-incompetent producing.

Since many people are bringing up Gypsy, I would like to point out that the Audra Gypsy sold identically to the Patti Gypsy. Put Patti's numbers into an inflation calculator and in 2025 dollars she was sitting around about a million a week. Highest selling week was 1.3M. Lowest was about 642k. Admittedly inelegant line drawn because the larger picture in 2008 was different (less seats marked and sold as premium seats), but the big picture is those revivals sold identically. Audra's most attended week even had more people in than Patti's most attended week, despite the Majestic having about a hundred less seats a night than the St James. The running costs between the two are worlds different.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 10:25am

People like to think of Sunset as being “stripped down” due to its lack of traditional production elements, but at the end of the day it was still a cast of almost 30 people, including swings and alternates. It wasn’t a small production. 

Updated On: 8/15/25 at 10:25 AM

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 10:28am

The Brits and their associated costs should have been avoided. I think it should have been Tom and that’s it. Oh well. Everyone had a great time and that’s what counts! Lol.

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 1:05pm

two ladies tickets said: "also, when discussing Andrew Lloyd Webber shows specifically, remember: he takes home a significant chunk of the box office every week, usually over 50% so that has to be factored into running costs and weekly grosses."

50% ??????????!!!!!!!

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 1:23pm

Owen22 said: "two ladies tickets said: "also, when discussing Andrew Lloyd Webber shows specifically, remember: he takes home a significant chunk of the box office every week, usually over 50% so that has to be factored into running costs and weekly grosses."

50% ??????????!!!!!!!"

Yes that can’t be right. 15% at most, surely? 

[Wick3]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 3:51pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "The Brits and their associated costs should have been avoided. I think it should have been Tom and that’s it. Oh well. Everyone had a great time and that’s what counts! Lol."

I thought Tom was great but honestly the only essential person they needed was Nicole Scherzinger. There are lots of Broadway male actors living in NYC who could have done Joe Gillis. Even after Tom left, Sunset's grosses were still sky high.

The word of mouth was mostly positive amongst my theatre friends for Sunset. 

Did Sunset Blvd recoup when it was in London's West End back in 2023?

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 4:22pm

As someone else said above, only transferring a few Brits still wouldn’t have made enough of a difference to recoup. That was just one expense. 

[KrupYou]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 4:37pm

the weekly running cost of sunset was huge........

[Timon3]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 5:08pm

TotallyEffed said: "The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievablyexpensive."

However the groundbreaking camera/video was developed in London, 

Do you think the NYT review, giving both a mixed review could’ve harmed the box office? He also didn’t like Company. Jesse Green seems to not like London shows, well maybe.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 5:19pm

Timon3 said: "TotallyEffed said: "The groundbreaking camera/video work in Sunset had to have been unbelievablyexpensive."

However the groundbreaking camera/video was developed in London,

Do you think the NYT review, giving both a mixed review could’ve harmed the box office? He also didn’t like Company. Jesse Green seems to not like London shows, well maybe."

Well it's not like the camerawork would cost 0 just because it was used once before.  I'm sure they had to account for possible equipment issues/repairs, especially with the weather, security for the walk and for blocking off 44th street, time to rehearse different routes, etc.

And while the NYT review probably gave some people pause if they were already on the fence, I doubt it would've had a huge effect on the box office overall.  Even just based on the responses on this board it seems that this was always going to be a divisive revival regardless of what critics said, and that word of mouth travels.  And there's also people who want the glitz and the glamor of previous productions of Sunset or who are tired of the "minimalist schtick" that directors employ.  Anecdotally I had a friend that decided not to go because he doesn't like abstract staging.

[Timon3]

Posted: 8/15/25 at 5:27pm

No one knows how much Nicole earn, it is just assumed. She wasn’t a big star when she came to New York, well until she deservedly won the Tony.

A consistent figure for this show and others in a mind boggling $1.2m a week, but no one knows how that figures is made up? So how much goes on marketing, I mean for everything from the tv adverts, newspaper adverts, Times Square billboard, press agents and Tony Award presentation, free tickets for press and Tony voters?

I doubt Andrew Lloyd Webber got 50% of the box office, it would also mean that Don Black & Christopher Hampton would be on a nice percentage, so that is not right.

[binau]

Posted: 8/16/25 at 2:37am

"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"

The entire concept of the production is this, I'm not sure what to say if you can't see it. Jamie Lloyd has confirmed this:

For Lloyd, the people in the room are selected to bring their unique skill sets to the production and character. He enjoyed how, with Sunset Boulevard, “It’s built from [Nicole], for her, and really embraces the idea of where does Nicole Scherzinger end, and where does Norma Desmond begin?” When there were discussions about recasting Scherzinger at the end of her contract, he couldn’t see how they’d do it.

The entire concept of Jamie Lloyd's Sunset Boulevard is that it is in a kind of abstract kind of alternative reality where the sensibilities of a fading film star have been aesthetically changed to mirror a fading pop star, which kind of works when it's a musical and she has to sing. I know that sounds weird and strange, and I know not everyone can see it and feel it, but that is the point. That's why Nicole's Norma looks, acts and sings the way she does. People like to pretend she is twerking because she is going for cheap laughs, instead of fully committing to the concept of willing to humiliate herself and show her desperation to still appear young and relevant. 

It's very funny to watch people who don't seem to get it articulate what they see in the show. I understand that not everyone will get it and it can't work for everyone, it is very strange. But if you can see it, what we are looking at is essentially a faded pop star in real life use the vehicle of Sunset and Norma Desmond to convey similar ideas and themes with a brand new musical aesthetic/timbre we have never seen before. We are not literally watching Nicole play a silent film star in the 1940s. That is not the concept of the production. That is the Glenn Close production. 

And the killer x-factor of Nicole is we are not just watching a faded pop star attempt the songs, we are watching a faded pop star pour her entire soul and virtuosic talent into these songs in a way that we almost never see on a Broadway stage and no one knew she had, including myself, challenging every expectation and shocking audiences. That is why Nicole's "With One Look" and "As If I Never Said Goodbye" are so powerful. When we listen to "As If We Never Said Goodbye" it is as if time stops while she invites us into a super personal and intimate world of watching her and us discover the range and limits of her talents, which no one really has been able to do before like this because she has been held back in her career and told she was no longer relevant, like Norma Desmond.

We have literally just been a part of theatre history - this performance is as important as Patti in Gypsy, or Alice Ripley in next to normal, or Bernadette in Sunday, or Angela Lansbury in Sweeney Todd. The quality of Nicole's vocals is like a cross between Judy Garland (the emotion, vulnerability and depth) and Whitney Houston (the power of her belt). 

I could not laugh more at the idea that Nicole could be replaced by one of her understudies lol (of which Jamie Lloyd clearly does not agree with either based on the above comment). If you honestly believe this it does make me wonder if you can't actually properly see or hear the aesthetic of what is actually going on here. 

The idea some like to paint Nicole as some kind of mediocre entity is crazy. I remember reading a comment on reddit suggesting Nicole was the 'commercial choice' between her and Audra. I just find this thinking so lazy and cheap. As if Nicole is this cheap pop star who was stunt casted and sung a few songs without any acting/emotion ability. No. That is not what is going on here. It's the exact and complete opposite. Most broadway actors/singers are extremely mediocre next to Nicole. That's fine, that is how it works. Most actors/singers are also very mediocre next to Patti or Bernadette or Audra.


 

 

 

Updated On: 8/16/25 at 02:37 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 8/16/25 at 3:26am

binau said: ""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"

The entire concept of the production is this, I'm not sure what to say if you can't see it. Jamie Lloyd has confirmed this:

For Lloyd, the people in the room are selected to bring their unique skill sets to the production and character. He enjoyed how, withSunset Boulevard, “It’s built from [Nicole],forher, and really embraces the idea of where does Nicole Scherzinger end, and where does Norma Desmond begin?” When there were discussions about recasting Scherzinger at the end of her contract, he couldn’t see how they’d do it.

The entire concept of Jamie Lloyd's Sunset Boulevard is that itis in a kind of abstractkind of alternative reality where the sensibilities of a fading film star have been aesthetically changed to mirror a fading pop star, which kind of works when it's a musical and she has to sing. I know that sounds weird and strange, and I know not everyone can see it and feel it, but that is the point. That's why Nicole's Norma looks, acts and sings the way she does. People like to pretend she is twerking because she is going for cheap laughs, instead of fully committing to the concept of willing to humiliate herself and show her desperation to still appear young and relevant.

It's very funny to watch people who don't seem to get it articulate what they see in the show. I understand that not everyone will get it and it can't work for everyone, it is very strange. But if you can see it, what we are looking at is essentially a faded pop star in real life use the vehicle of Sunset and Norma Desmond to convey similar ideas and themes with a brand new musical aesthetic/timbre we have never seen before. We are not literally watching Nicole play a silent film star in the 1940s. That is not the concept of the production. That is the Glenn Close production.

And the killer x-factor of Nicole is we are not just watching a faded pop star attempt the songs, we are watching a faded pop star pourher entire soul and virtuosic talent into these songs in a way that we almost never see on a Broadway stage and no one knew she had, including myself, challenging every expectation and shocking audiences. That is why Nicole's "With One Look" and "As If I Never Said Goodbye" are so powerful. When we listen to "As If We Never Said Goodbye" it is as if time stops while she invites us into a super personal and intimate world of watching her and us discover the range and limits of her talents, which no one really has been able to do before like this because she has been held back in her career and told she was no longer relevant, like Norma Desmond.

We have literally just been a part of theatre history - this performance is as important as Patti in Gypsy, or Alice Ripley in next to normal, or Bernadette in Sunday, or Angela Lansbury in Sweeney Todd. The quality of Nicole's vocals is like across between Judy Garland (the emotion, vulnerability and depth) and Whitney Houston (the power of her belt).

I could not laugh more at the idea that Nicole could be replaced by one of her understudies lol (of which Jamie Lloyd clearly does not agree with either based on the above comment). If you honestly believe this it does make me wonder if you can't actually properly see or hear the aesthetic of what is actually going on here.

The idea some like to paint Nicole as some kind of mediocre entity is crazy. I remember reading a comment on reddit suggesting Nicole was the 'commercial choice' between her and Audra. I just find this thinking so lazy and cheap. As if Nicole is this cheap pop star who was stunt casted and sung a few songs without any acting/emotion ability. No. That is not what is going on here. It's the exact and complete opposite. Most broadway actors/singers are extremely mediocre next to Nicole. That's fine, that is how it works. Most actors/singersare also very mediocre next to Patti or Bernadette or Audra.

You have a strong and interesting argument, and one that Jamie Lloyd appears to agree with.

The problem, from a commercial and artistic perspective, is that Lloyd’s vision almost requires background knowledge that most theatergoers don’t have. I know Nicole Scherzinger was in the Pussycat Dolls but I’m not terribly familiar with them - or of her as a faded pop star. I got the idea, but some of the sillier, fourth wall-breaking stuff was lost on me. It took me out of the show. Hell, the vaunted walk did too, for the same reason. 

I think that partially explains the split in audience responses and those long months -,in a 10-month run of a pricey revival in a big theater - when the show was an easy, inexpensive ticket.

The other problem, not unique to this revival but created on purpose, is it made Scherzinger impossible to replace. That doomed the show, despite its awards and some huge box office weeks, to financial failure.

Part of me wonders if Andrew Lloyd Webber’s surprisingly negative remarks about Evita - a smash hit in London - might stem not only from professional jealousy about the credit Jamie Lloyd has been getting but also from the awareness that Sunset Blvd. didn’t make money. 
 

 

Updated On: 8/16/25 at 03:26 AM

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/16/25 at 5:02am

bear88 said: "binau said: "

Part of me wonders if Andrew Lloyd Webber’s surprisingly negative remarks aboutEvita- a smash hit in London - might stem not only from professional jealousy about the credit Jamie Lloyd has been getting but also from the awareness thatSunset Blvd. didn’t make money.


"

I think he's frustrated as an author that Lloyd's concepts (even more with Evita than Sunset) are only tenuously connected to the basic material. You really can't tell the story of Evita effectively as a glitzy rock diva's concert because, while she became a celebrity, she didn't start out as one, so a whole lot of Act 1 doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the new concept. This is true of Sunset, too, as is indicated by people who "don't get" the concept of the production. I think it results in a very flashy, emotionally pumped show, but one of style over substance.

I think Webber was fine with Sunset because at least in that case there was the parallel between a has-been actress and has-been singer. The connection of concept-to-content seems less strong the second time around, and even though technically Lloyed attemped Evita first, Evita now just feels like a retread of Sunset. Maybe if Sunset was financially successful, he'd feel more generous, but I'm not sure. Particularly as I'm not sure Sunset has ever been financially succesful (I remember all the talk when this version opened on Broadway about how this time around, the show stood to be a money-maker; that is not what happened.)