NYT: The Broadway Musical Is in Trouble- Page 2

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:03pm

London isn't much better for new musicals. Aside from Prada not much recouping. Burlesque has dug a massive financial hole. Others are all struggling MJ, For Just One Night, Tortoro. Tends to be a lot of theater owners putting in their own shows to lack luster results. Paddington is probably the best new prospect

. 

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 12:03 PM

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:13pm

Ensemble1711444445 said: "London isn't much better for new musicals. Aside from Prada not muchrecouping. Burlesque has dug a massive financial hole. Others are all struggling MJ, For Just One Night, Tortoro. Tendsto be a lot of theater owners putting in their own shows to lack luster results. Paddington is probablythe best new prospect

Is it just possible they’re green lighting things nobody actually wants? 
 

People didn’t even see Burlesque in the movie theater.



."

 

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:31pm

I was under the impression that when there is a Big Star in a show and there is a week that a show underperforms, usually the difference comes out of their salary? Maybe that’s only when they’re also a producer. 

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:41pm

Is it just possible they’re green lighting things nobody actually wants? 
 

That seems to be the case these days. I'm glad there are less musicals this season, last season was overstuffed and mostly doomed to fall. Still bizarre they brought Smash to Broadway 12 years too late and thought it was going to be huge. Wild. 
 

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:48pm

Sutton Ross said: "Is it just possiblethey’re green lighting things nobody actually wants?


That seems to be the case these days. I'm glad there are less musicals this season, last season was overstuffed and mostly doomed to fall. Still bizarre they brought Smash to Broadway 12 years too late and thought it was going to be huge. Wild.
"

It is still going to be overstuffed as Shubert has a lot of houses to fill every spring. Just this year they are doing a ton of plays and their musical choices seems like the same process that got us Smash and Boop in the best houses last season. 

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:49pm

Already 500+ comments on the NYT article.

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 12:59pm

A mentor of mine recently told me "you need a good sentence-fragment elevator pitch for your show, if the title isn't going to sell it on name recognition alone. Something that tells someone very quickly what your show is and makes it sound appealing. (Case in point: "quirky dark-carnival satire" was tentatively the one I had for mine.)

Maybe Happy Endings can tell you in two words what it is and why people will enjoy it. "Musical Kdrama." On the other hand, Boop has no clear elevator pitch besides "Betty Boop" to make a case for itself. And I liked Boop!

[DaveyG]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 1:01pm

SteveSanders said: "Already 500+ comments on the NYT article."

I’m really glad this article was written, so the average person can see just how dire the situation is. I know at least eight people who used to regularly invest in musicals but have now paused for the time being.

[ggersten]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 1:14pm

Sutton Ross said: "Is it just possiblethey’re green lighting things nobody actually wants?


That seems to be the case these days. I'm glad there are less musicals this season, last season was overstuffed and mostly doomed to fall. Still bizarre they brought Smash to Broadway 12 years too late and thought it was going to be huge. Wild.
"

the crazy thing to me was that the fans weren't asking for a stage version of Smash - the fans wanted a stage version of Bombshell.  I don't know what would have happened if they had put that on stage - but would it have had any less "success"?

[Ensemble1711444445]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 1:22pm

ggersten said: "Sutton Ross said: "Is it just possiblethey’re green lighting things nobody actually wants?


That seems to be the case these days. I'm glad there are less musicals this season, last season was overstuffed and mostly doomed to fall. Still bizarre they brought Smash to Broadway 12 years too late and thought it was going to be huge. Wild.
"

the crazy thing to me was that the fans weren't asking for a stage version of Smash - the fans wanted a stage version of Bombshell. I don't know what would have happened if they had put that on stage - but would it have had any less "success"?"

I suppose this is part of a larger problem. Shubert needs more long running shows so the market isn't flooded like this. They have the most theaters but the fewest long runners. Lets hope Outsiders, Happy Ending and Buena Vista stick and that they land a few new musicals that last more than 2 seasons. Wanted and Galileo don't seem likely to do that. Maybe Purple Rain, but 30 million and high running costs make it a long shot. 

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 1:34pm

"I don’t think lead-time is the issue. Audiences buy later nowadays."

While this is probably true, I'd like to point out that I can no longer afford to buy tickets in advance. For the majority of my life, I'd come to New York twice a year with all my tickets bought way in advance. Tickets bought in advance were always much more affordable, either because tickets were priced lower to generate interest and word of mouth or because there were discount codes offered before a show opened. With notable exception, the trend for a few years seems to have been to price tickets as high as possible and only lower them closer to the performance date.  

I don't know if this new pricing model is a response to audience habits or a driver of them. Regardless, I can no longer secure affordable tickets in advance so I can't continue to make these bi-yearly trips centered on New York theater. While admittedly, I'm a weirdo... I can't help but imagine I'm not the only one. If I lived in New York, or close, this wouldn't be a problem. However, as an out of town tourist who wants to fit as many shows as possible into a trip I have been completely priced out. With the price of everything else in New York, it's not worth it to me to only see one or two shows.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 1:48pm

ggersten said: "Sutton Ross said: "Is it just possiblethey’re green lighting things nobody actually wants?


That seems to be the case these days. I'm glad there are less musicals this season, last season was overstuffed and mostly doomed to fall. Still bizarre they brought Smash to Broadway 12 years too late and thought it was going to be huge. Wild.
"

the crazy thing to me was that the fans weren't asking for a stage version of Smash - the fans wanted a stage version of Bombshell. I don't know what would have happened if they had put that on stage - but would it have had any less "success"?"

This is a tinfoil hat moment for me, but the last development of Bombshell was a reading in May 2022. 2 months later, the movie Blonde was released. Wasn't exactly the best climate to depict Marilyn Monroe's life (and her affair with JFK) as "fun musical comedy".

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 2:50pm

KJisgroovy said: ""For the majority of my life, I'd come to New York twice a year with all my tickets bought way in advance. Tickets bought in advance were always much more affordable, either because tickets were priced lower to generate interest and word of mouth or because there were discount codes offered before a show opened. With notable exception, the trend for a few years seems to have been to price tickets as high as possible and only lower them closer to the performance date."

I also used to buy all my tickets way in advance to get the best seats at the best prices, but this is no longer an effective strategy. My visit in July for the Sunset Blvd finale was the first time I ever went to NY without pre-purchasing all of my show tickets. I currently have another visit planned for November, and I've only bought tickets for Chess (and I almost wish I hadn't bought this show ahead of time) and Masquerade; all of my other slots will be filled post-arrival, based on available good seats at reasonable prices.

 

[binau]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 2:58pm

Ensemble1711444445 said: "London isn't much better for new musicals. Aside from Prada not muchrecouping. Burlesque has dug a massive financial hole. Others are all struggling MJ, For Just One Night, Tortoro. Tendsto be a lot of theater owners putting in their own shows to lack luster results. Paddington is probablythe best new prospect

."

Yes but I think it's a different situation in terms of the struggles. There are so many empty seats in the West End every night, but the costs are much lower so the shows don't have to close quickly. There is room to grow, to bring audiences in. The ticket prices are much more reasonable too so it might be theoretically possible. So the solution to the west end problem is get shows that appeal to audiences and do the marketing right, and when you do you can make money (e.g. look at Evita, which I understand was likely to at least break even even in that short run).

NYC the problem is that the only way for a musical to make money now is basically to sell out at 100% for >$150 USD on average each week in a medium size theatre for at least 12 months. You basically need to go beyond just being a 'show' in NYC to having at least a mild cultural impact to reach a broad enough audience to bring in these kinds of numbers.

So NYC is a lot more dire and difficult. 

 


 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:06pm

Greed kills. Extortionate prices = short term gain, long term loss. An average person might use up their whole annual theater budget to see Hamilton or Denzel, to the detriment of the rest of the theater industry as a whole.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:10pm

the crazy thing to me was that the fans weren't asking for a stage version of Smash - the fans wanted a stage version of Bombshell. I don't know what would have happened if they had put that on stage - but would it have had any less "success"?"

I wanted Hit List!   

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 03:10 PM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:12pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "An average person might use up their whole annual theater budget to see Hamilton or Denzel, to the detriment of the rest of the theater industry as a whole."

Yes. This is how freedom of choice works. 

Some people save up all year for an expensive vacation to the detriment of every other city they chose not to visit by making more trips.

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 03:12 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:15pm

Nobody chose this.

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:17pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Nobody chose this."

You know darn well I was commenting on people choosing to only attend one more expensive show, something you lamented in the post I responded to.

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:19pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Greed kills. Extortionate prices = short term gain, long term loss. An average person might use up their whole annual theater budget to see Hamilton or Denzel, to the detriment of the rest of the theater industry as a whole."

And that's none of your business.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:20pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Greed kills. Extortionate prices = short term gain, long term loss. An average person might use up their whole annual theater budget to see Hamilton or Denzel, to the detriment of the rest of the theater industry as a whole."

If somebody uses their whole theater budget up to buy one ticket to see a star, that’s not a systemic problem. That person could very easily not see Denzel for $800 and instead see 10 shows at $80, but they chose not to.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:25pm

Again, nobody chooses to see only one show. Prices are PROHIBITIVE. Even with "regular" pricing. One show is a lot for some. Too many people have NEVER even seen one show in all their lives, because it has never been accessible to them. Which means they are shut out from day one, leaving privileged people such as us to argue about it. You just posted a long list of shows you plan on seeing in London, Steve. You're fine.

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:31pm

Jay:

You have this habit of consistently shifting the goalpost of the point you try to make.

You asserted that when people opt to buy expensive tickets to one show they do so to the detriment of all others shows.

Several of us pointed out that is free will.  If they wanted to see more shows, presumably they would buy tickets to more shows, but they did not.

And yes, I am fortunate to see a lot of theater when I am working in London because I spend almost all my discretionary dollars there to do so .. to the detriment of all the restaurants where I will not be having nice meals.

 

Updated On: 9/22/25 at 03:31 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:41pm

Kad argued that is not a systemic problem. I could accept that more readily if we did not have such insane celebrity culture. Hype builds around George Clooney. Danny Burstein not so much. The average Joe just does not have the same awareness of what's on offer as the users of this board. They may be initially drawn in by Gyllenhall, but after two hours of Shakespeare, subsequently turned off for life by the high prices.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 9/22/25 at 3:45pm

"It's free will" 

So is everything. This is not an interesting or unique observation. And it's not relevant to what the poster was saying.

When there are shows that costs 900$, people aren't going to see as many shows. Of course, this is their choice. However, if there weren't shows that cost 900$ a ticket they would not have to make this choice. Folks would have plenty of money to see other shows.

Jay has made this same point everytime he's posted. Whether you think this is a valid point or not, fine. However, you seem more interested in getting digs in than understanding what the OP meant.