Wicked's Dropping Grosses — Page 2

Mr. Wormwood said: "As I said in other threads, I'm very much in the camp of it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

That being said, I'm curious how close they are to releasing amateur rights now that the movie has come and gone. Phantom hadamateur rights available for years before it closed while Les Mis was right before it closed IIRC.

While it might seem counter intuitive because "everyone will be doing Wicked" (and yes, we'll get a lot of bad HS versions) but perhaps it would renew interest in the OG version especially from people performing it around the country and world.

I doubt amateur rights getting releaeed happens very soon but feels like it could within the next five years?"

Though it's of note that the amateur rights released for Phantom, at least here in the US, were and still are restricted to high schools and youth groups. It's not available to any old community theatre, and nor to any theatre under an Equity contract.

It’s definitely trending downward and it pretty much correlates to following the second film and a strong holiday. That second movie damaged the brand, unfortunately. As someone said it exacerbated the issues the show has. Couple that with tourism drops, perfect storm. It would be absolutely crazy to think of any other show in the Gershwin though. Even if we’re still talking 5 years from now.

They got cocky with the movie. It should have just been one film. The second act is notoriously bad. The fact that it didn’t even get a best song nomination speaks a lot.

TheQuibbler said: "
I’m not sure how much blockbuster business a 23 year old show is expected to do. Like others have said, I’m sure it can have a nice run for a bit longer coasting in the mid-range of grosses."

Well, The Lion King is still doing blockbuster business at almost 30 years. I do think it's tied to the movie but not just because of the way things went for the second movie but also a course correction for how popular it was leading up to and after the first movie.

Updated On: 7/11/26 at 10:38 AM

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Plannietink08 said: "I’m a huge fan of the show and would bereallyinterested in seeing it close. Given some of the non-replica productions we’ve seen I’d love to see what regional theatres would do to the show.


Famously, it’s in very bad shape in London. So above all I do think it’s worth closing there."

Bad shape in London? Please elaborate!"


do u mean quality or financially

in new york the show is in horrible shape in terms of quality

it has become stale and lifeless

and sounds like a bad high school production

it is obvious that the overseers are doing nothing but collecting paychecks at this point

the non-replica versions like Brazil make the broadway version look static and outdated

at some point they will close and go into hibernation

then reopen in a few years with new tech

which i fully expect to happen with phantom

MezzoDiva47 said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "

then reopen in a few years with new tech

which i fully expect to happen with phantom



It really frustrates me when people think the original 1986/1988 Phantom even had any "tech" or needed an "new tech." The whole point of Maria and Hal's vision of the show was to to be a love letter to theater and to use theatrical "technology" that's been around forever---backdrops, curtains, footlights, etc. Even the "tech" stuff, like the strikeless matches and flash paper is old. The show that opened in 1988 could have opened in 1948 and looked exactly the same. There was no cutting edge technology in the show unless you count strobe lights as cutting edge, which you shouldn't. The fact that there always seemed to be something rising out of the stage, or tracking in from the side, or flying in from the rafters created an atmosphere of high tech but it really was 19th century tech that was already in Her Majesty's Theater. Adding tech to the show, which, let's face it, would undoubtedly just mean replacing said elements with screens and projections would be horrific, but it is the way the theaterical world is heading so I suppose it is inevitable.

"

Phantom4ever said: "MezzoDiva47 said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "

then reopen in a few years with new tech

which i fully expect to happen with phantom



It really frustrates me when people think the original 1986/1988 Phantom even had any "tech" or needed an "new tech." The whole point of Maria and Hal's vision of the show was to to be a love letter to theater and to use theatrical "technology" that's been around forever---backdrops, curtains, footlights, etc. Even the "tech" stuff, like the strikeless matches and flash paper is old. The show that opened in 1988 could have opened in 1948 and looked exactly the same. There was no cutting edge technology in the showunless you count strobe lights as cutting edge, which you shouldn't.The fact that there always seemed to be something rising out of the stage, or tracking in from the side, or flying in from the rafters created an atmosphere of high tech but it really was 19th century tech that was already in Her Majesty's Theater. Adding tech to the show, which, let's face it, would undoubtedly just mean replacing said elements with screens and projections would be horrific, but it is the way the theaterical world is heading so I suppose it is inevitable.

"

"

I feel as though there’s cheap tech and there’s TECH tech. If you asked a lot of people what one thing they’d change from the original staging, many of them would say the improved chandelier drop from Vegas could make the list.

Well that's wonderful that a lot of people enjoyed the Vegas chandelier, as did I, but it does not belong on Broadway. Ruthie II is timeless and iconic. The one in Vegas was obnoxious and crazy and not designed by Maria.

HasBeen1947 said: "The Gershwin's upper mezz used to have a faux wall to hide space for about another 150 seats (I believe it was installed before the run of Oklahoma), but the wall was removed during the renovation for the 10th anniversary. The wall was replaced with a curtain, so they could open up more seating based on demand and close it off when needed."

Sounds kinda tacky.

I don't know. Yes, technology transformed how lighting, sound, queuing, etc. worked, there's scenic automation, etc.



But we had trains, fire, horses, and mermaids in water tanks onstage before 1948. In many ways staging and spectacle got far less sophisticated and opulent over the course of the 20th century. I don't see why a version of the chandelier could not have been attempted if a show called for it.



And of course, it's all slid downhill a lot faster since the pandemic, when we're pulling out every possible euphemistic buzzword for "It's a screen" or "It's projections."

Updated On: 9/18/26 at 11:52 AM

Well, yes, there's that.

Theatrefan2 said: "Mr. Wormwood said: "TheQuibbler said: "
I’m not sure how much blockbuster business a 23 year old show is expected to do. Like others have said, I’m sure it can have a nice run for a bit longer coasting in the mid-range of grosses."

Well, The Lion King is still doing blockbuster business at almost 30 years. I do think it's tied to the movie but not just because of the way things went for the second movie but also a course correction for how popular it was leading up to and after the first movie."



The difference with the Lion King is it offers something very different to the movie, the staging is unique and 'has to be seen live'. Wicked doesn't really have that and if anything seems more dated by today's standards.

As for Phantom, based on the last time I saw it the main thing id love an update to is Christine's dressing room and the masquerade stairs. Those things are loud and very distracting if you're sat near the stage."

Doesn't seem dated and is still pulling in 98% capacity. Why is this discussion even happening?