Why did DREAMGIRLS close?

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 2:26am

Perhaps a stupid question, but looking at the comprehensive Dreamgirls site, the Broadway production only lasted about 3 1/2 years, and the capacity only occasionally went below 70%, it was still in the 70s and 80s it's final year. Was it just too expensive a production to keep running?

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 2:42am

That was an ENORMOUS run back then. When it closed, it was probably in the top 20 longest running shows. This was before the late 80's-early 90's when ALW's shows racked up all the big numbers.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:52am

Did it earn back its initial investment?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:58am

My guess it was a very expensive show to run

Never saw the original but saw the revivival. This needs to be revived now with a killer cast

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 11:58am

My guess it was a very expensive show to run

Never saw the original but saw the revival. This needs to be revived now with a killer cast

Updated On: 3/4/07 at 11:58 AM

[folkyboy]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 12:08pm

Foster, i don't believe it did.

Posted: 3/4/07 at 12:20pm

3 1/2 years was a very good run at the time. It's still a very good run for a good show. And by good show, I don't mean Wicked or Mamma Mia! Those things run longer because the same people see them over and over and over because they don't have the intelligence to cope with shows like Grey Gardens or A Class Act

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:10pm

Since when has Grey Gardens been for the intelligent? It's a decent enough show but it is hardly cerebral in any form. Lightweight, forced and, for the most part, dramatically weak. Ok, it has stunning performances and some nice little tunes but it is a mess of a show overall.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:12pm

The revival deserved a longer run

[DAME]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:18pm

I was fortunate enough to see Dreamgirls first at a actors fund performance with the original cast. I then saw it a whole bunch of times during its run. To me the revival that ran at the Ambassador was a much tighter ship. But I did miss the original set.

Updated On: 3/4/07 at 01:18 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 2:43pm

First off, Tom14850, I thought "Wicked" and "Mamma Mia" were both good...not the most amazing pieces of theatre, or that deep, but they were both very enjoyable, and for me that's what it's about.

Second, the "Revival" with Lillas White was NOT a revival, it was a return engagement, with a limited run, and I believe the final stop on the tour. It was not intended to be a revival because it was just the scaled down version of the Broadway production.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 2:55pm

Thanks for the answers, all.

I believe it was nominated for revival Tony, no? It must have been a much more scaled-down show to go from the Imperial to the Ambassador.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 3:00pm

Was it really a return engagement, though? Wouldn't that have meant that the closing cast went out on the tour? Was that the case?

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 3:14pm

The production that played the Ambassador was Bennett's reconceived bus and truck version of the show. I really wouldn't call it a "return engagement" of the original production, as the Robin Wagner set was scaled back, pushed by hand by the dancers, and I think other elements from the original show were dropped, such as the hydraulic bridge, the illuminated "Dreams" sign, the underlit moving platform for "Hard to Say Goodbye," etc. The show still worked like a charm though.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 3:18pm

No, the closing cast did not tour (Though they are the ones in the Lincoln Center Archives). Technically since it is basically the original staging it is a return engagement. It was never meant to have a full run, unlike "The Wiz" in 84, which was expected to run MUCH longer.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 3:50pm

Foster and Folkyboy,

Dreamgirls not only recouped, but it was a pretty big hit at the box office, earning a profit well into the millions.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 3:58pm

The "revival" from what i remember was amazing

[Gavino77]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:24pm

Also, who would want to follow Jennifer Holliday?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:35pm

Jennifer Hudson

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:36pm

Plenty of people followed Holliday (she only did the first year and then a few months in the LA production) and lots of them were quite outstanding. In fact, depending on who you talk to, Holliday may not have even been the best of the many women who played the role over the years (Frank Rich, for instance, thought Julia McGirt was at least Holliday's equal).

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:40pm

Not to mention Jennifer Hudson.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:41pm

Hudson was solid, but I for one, wouldn't put in her in the top four or 5 people I've seen do the role.

Updated On: 3/4/07 at 07:41 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:48pm

Film is a completely different medium from theater and the way roles can be approached in both venues differ greatly. I don't think Hudson is capable of being held up against Effie's who've come before her at this point because she hasn't done the role on stage like they have.

If (or when) she does the theatrical version of the show we can compare, but until then... I'll keep my stage Effie's on a seperate scale.

Updated On: 3/4/07 at 07:48 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 7:49pm

In the return engagement Arnetia Walker was just as wonderful as Loretta Devine. They were two fantastic Lorrells.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 8:39pm

After hearing Margo rave, I'd KILL to see McGirt.