Does Chicago need to close? — Page 2

Yes. They should get rid of Ann Reinking's brilliant Tony winning choreography. Sounds like a smashing idea!

Personally, I think that show is crap. Kalimba is right. There's nothing to it except for dancing. And when the show is "tired" like the thread-maker said, the show is completely lost.
And I'm sure many people can agree when I say that it needs to make way for something better.

However, if they're making money, the producers have every right to keep it open whether the Broadway lovers like it or not. Hate to say it though.

---

Saw it last week and was very impressed with Ashlee Simpson - smoky voice and surprisingly good in the scenes. I thought the rest of the show was in fantastic shape - there was, however, only one understudy on the night I went. LOVE Brent Barrett is a great Billy and Roz Ryan sings the hell out of her song as Mama.

When I first saw the show the set was very disappointing to me but after seeing it again I realized how creative the whole design of the show is. Having the orchestra on stage in the jury box really accents the music and the dancing while at the same time capturing and darker and gritty side of the show.
The concept of this show works extremely well IMO, but I can see why some people wouldn't like it.

Yes, the show needs to close.

1) The argument that it provides jobs is not legit, even though it is true. If it closes, people will be out of a job, but a new show will open creating new jobs. So it's a lose/win.

2) The show has lost its story. I saw it two years ago and loathed it. Some performances were OK, but the story was lost. It was spotty. Individual actors were trying to showcase themselves, but when it came time to communicate with other actors - it was laughable at how bad the acting was.

3) It's a story that everyone knows already. Everyone knows the movie, everyone knows the music, it's time to move on and get a new show in the Ambassador. I would make the same statement for POTO and MAMMA MIA!, however I have not seen those shows so I will not judge, but I could see how both are in the same situation.

4) Yet, all three of those shows continue to survive. They're trademark Broadway shows. They're default tourist shows. So I don't see them going anywhere at the present. But in regards to CHICAGO, artistically, I think it's time to either close OR bring the director in and whip the show back into shape.

---

REALLY? Well two years ago when I saw it, they must not had checked-in for a long while because it nearly put me to sleep.

---

MusicSnob1, you're right. If, by some strange reason, the show were to be doing harm to the Broadway community in some strange way, then yes, it should close. I feel that people forget that Broadway is a business and the whole notion of Broadway being art went out the window a long time ago.

---

It NEEDS to close because there are shows WAITING to take that territory. Why waste the occupancy of a theatre with a show that no longer works and is dull and tired? There are new FRESH shows to find an audience. CHICAGO will live on, let a new production have a chance.

That's why it NEEDS to close.

---

"There are new FRESH shows to find an audience."

Ok, CapnHooker, so what show is this we're discussing? What new FRESH show is clamoring to get into the Ambassador? There are many dark theaters... why the Ambassador? And what show are we talking about, exactly?

First Wives Club?? Minsky's?? LOL ... Give me a break.

---

I'm totally with MusicSnob on this one. I'm also no huge fan of the show, but if it's selling around 80% capacity pretty consistently, then there is clearly a strong and loyal audience that loves the show. Just because some people find it to be a horrible production, does not mean it should close. If we used that argument, pretty much every Broadway show (past and present) would NEED to close because some people though it was "tired" or "boring".

And in regard to Chicago blocking out new creative shows....COME ON! lol. It's not like all the theatres are filled currently AND theres roughly half a dozen shows closing in January, which means half a dozen or so open theatres.

---

Considering that the Ambassador isn't that attractive a piece of real estate to producers, I doubt that anyone is banging on the Shubert's door asking to mount a production there.

Exactly - this is a ridiculous thread. CHICAGO does not NEED to close. The Ambassador is NOT a desirable house for the vast majority of musicals. It only seats 1100 - meaning it would take years for most shows to recoup (obviously CHICAGO recouped years ago). Add to this that there is NO backstage space (the theatre is shaped like a diamond - wedged in between other buildings). Only a musical with a few small moving pieces could play there. It is the perfect place for CHICAGO - like 'em or hate 'em, the Weisslers are brilliant. The show is not what it was when it opened, but it still way better than a lot of what's out there. I saw the original CHORUS LINE about ten years into it's run - now THAT was sad.....