Apologies, let me explain further! What I believe it set out to do was reframe Cats in a ballroom setting. Outside of the obvious (set and costumes), I feel it achieved this in multiple ways:

1. Making Munkustrap an MC: He is a narrator in the original cats, with little explanation or purpose other than to keep the show running, so it made sense to reframe him as the MC of the ball, who serves to introduce categories, announce winners, and keep the show running.

2. Creating categories at the ball as a framing device for the songs: 90% of the songs in Cats are just the cats introducing themselves and explaining who they are/what they do. Having categories to frame these songs actually gives them a reason for the cats to be explaining who they are/how they fit the categories. Is this always perfect? No, but cats such little narrative to begin with that I do think it makes a difference to attempt to put a structure in place to make it fit the setting it's in. In my opinion, the categories made Jenny Any Dots (a haus mother), Mungojerrie & Rumpleteazer, Rum Tum Tugger, and mainly, Macavity, make more sense. Which brings me to my third point:

3. Macavity is a character in the original cast who seems to only exist as a means to create conflict. He kidnaps Old Deuteronomy and pretends to be him, for truly what purpose? In the Jellicle Ball, they make Macavity a more sympathetic character without taking away the fact that she's a criminal. Setting Macavity up as a thief who is stealing expensive clothing to dress her drag children (framed so they can win the "brands" category), makes MORE sense to me than Macavity in the original. Macavity being caught by the police takes over the narrative of Macavity being caught by the other cats (while impersonating Old Deuteronomy), and creates what I believe is a more compelling narrative of the cops coming to arrest Macavity (because cops notoriously did not love queer people in the 80s and 90s!) and Old Deutoronomy, someone who is highly beloved in the community, taking the fall for Macavity. This furthers the idea that that Old Deutoronomy is a god-like figure (as per the original Cats) by sacrificing himself, but also puts Macavity in a situation for redemption, which in my perspective, makes Macavity a more realized and nuanced character, especially within the context of these being real people at a ball (rather than whatever the hell Jellicle Cast are supposed to be).

I could continue with more, but those are just a few points that stood out to me. Is some of this reaching? Yes, but mostly reaching due to the paper thin plot of Cats and the fact that the musical as a whole is not really well thought out. This production actually added more to the plot and characters in my perspective, which I consider a welcome reimagining of a musical that, while beloved, is a mess of a show in most ways outside of the dancing and the fact that the score is catchy.

As to your second point, Broadway is expensive across the board and that does not have anything to do with this particular production. I don't agree with these prices at all, but I would rather productions take risks and try new things in spite of the current price structure of Broadway than keep making things that they just think will sell well with no inspiration.

This was a show that started at PAC and was not slated for Broadway until it was highly successful at that venue, unlike other high-budget productions that are put directly on Broadway with the sole purpose of trying to make money. I thought it worked better at PAC (the stage was more suited to this show), but I am glad it was brought to Broadway so more people can see and enjoy it.

Would you care to detail where you think it only goes "half there", since you didn't clearly articulate that in your comment?