News on your favorite shows, specials & more!
pixeltracker

Does Chicago need to close?- Page 2

Does Chicago need to close?

Wildcard
#25re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 3:08pm

Maybe it's time for the producers to re-invest the millions they've earned back into the production. Rethink it a little bit… new costumes and sets and choreography perhaps? It needs a refresh and gives us reason to see it again.

ljay889 Profile Photo
ljay889
#26re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 3:09pm

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

James885 Profile Photo
James885
#27re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 3:23pm

I don't think it needs to close. It's still making money. I'm probably in the minority, but I like the production's bare-bones set design. It brings the choreography and staging to the fore.

I realize I'm probably going off-topic here, but I don't think it matters how big and grandiose the set is, as long as people walk away from the show feeling like they got their money's worth from the performance. I remember an interview with Bebe Neuwirth back from when the revival first opened where she talked about how people pay big bucks just to come see the set with all the bells and whistles, and how refreshing it was to be in show where nothing takes your attention away from the actors and the staging.


"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
Updated On: 12/14/09 at 03:23 PM

onedaymore Profile Photo
onedaymore
#28re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 3:51pm

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.


Whoever says money can't buy happiness simply didn't know where to shop. - Bo Derek

#29re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 3:57pm

So now people are complaining that Chicago is too much of a dance show? huh? *confused* Isn't that the very appeal? it is for me...

mrscott
#30re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 8:48pm

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.

Gobstopper Profile Photo
Gobstopper
#31re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 9:37pm

Perhaps they just need to import the tour cast. I saw them in Indy less than a month ago, and that company is fantastic. They were so energetic and the crowd loved them. Carol Woods, in particular, is phenomenal.

I don't get why people are complaining about the design of the show. I love the set, and the lighting is incredible.

jonmbway4652 Profile Photo
jonmbway4652
#32re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:56pm

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.

MusicSnob1 Profile Photo
MusicSnob1
#33re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:43pm

I mean... Regardless of how it actually is, why does that matter?

It's making money and tourists (and loyal fans) love it. Continues to create jobs and offer another means of escapism.

I just don't get this argument that it "needs" to close. What harm is it doing exactly? I have seen cast members in WICKED, PHANTOM, LION KING, and other similar shows sleepwalk their way through the performances. Do they "need" to close as well?


When I think about you, I touch myself.

CapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
#34re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 12:24am

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.


"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

ljay889 Profile Photo
ljay889
#35re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 12:27am

Actually Walter Bobbie and Ann Reinking do frequently check in on the show.

CapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
#36re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 12:42am

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.


"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

MusicSnob1 Profile Photo
MusicSnob1
#37re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:12am

You're failing to tell me why it NEEDS to close. I've now heard why you WANT it to close - because you think it's boring, dead, tired, lost, etc., etc.

But why does it NEED to close? What's the necessity? Is it negatively affecting Broadway? I'm not a fan but to say something NEEDS to close is ridiculous. If you WANT it to close or you think it SHOULD close, then we have a different debate there.

I feel like I'm defending this piece of crap. I'm on the same page with the majority of you but this is, by no means, a legitimate reason to feel the NEED of closing a show. If that were the case a lot of theaters would currently be dark.


When I think about you, I touch myself.

winston89 Profile Photo
winston89
#38re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 3:06am

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.


"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear" Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll

TalkinLoud Profile Photo
TalkinLoud
#39re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 5:50am

winston, don't kid yourself: Broadway has always been business. But thankfully, it's not an either/or scenario.

CapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
#40re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:58am

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.


"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

James885 Profile Photo
James885
#41re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 9:27am

I thought part of the reason why the Chicago revival has been able to enjoy such a long run is that the Ambassador, for whatever reason, is not a very desirable theater. So if nobody's clamoring to take the Ambassador theater, why shouldn't it continue running?

But that's beside the point; in this economy, with the continuing recession, it would be very foolish for the producers to close the show when it's still clearly turning a profit. I know if I were a producer I wouldn't close it.


"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

MusicSnob1 Profile Photo
MusicSnob1
#42re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 10:31am

"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.


When I think about you, I touch myself.

CapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
#43re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 11:18am

Snob -- At this exact moment, who knows! I can only name a handful of shows I know have plans for Broadway. There were several times in the past two years since I have seen the show when all theatres were booked and shows were looking for homes. Back then, CHICAGO could have made room for them.

So I assume you agree that it NEEDS to close since you stopped counter-arguing that point and have moved on.

Does it NEED to close today? Only if there is a show ready to move in. But the industry doesn't work like that. Shows don't close if they are making money, even if there are new productions ready to move-in. So CHICAGO will have to run its course, sadly.


"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle

TreyKenyon Profile Photo
TreyKenyon
#44re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 11:22am

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.


Wicked Tour (2/26/08); Wicked Bway (7/1/08); HAIR (7/1/09); Rock of Ages (7/2/09); Wicked Bway (7/3/09); Mary Poppins Tour (8/2/09); Wicked Tour (11/18/09); Wicked Tour (12/5/09)

Yankeefan007
#45re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 12:32pm

For the record, the Weisslers were the ones who produced the GREASE revival at the O'Neill.

frogs_fan85 Profile Photo
frogs_fan85
#46re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:19pm

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.

winston89 Profile Photo
winston89
#47re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:35pm

CapnHook, your point might be a good one if Broadway as a business of art first business second. However, that isn't the case. As it has been said before, just because you find the show to be old, doesn't justify it closing. It might only NEED to close if something bad was going on with the show. Hell, the last time I had a conversation with a friend of mine about a show that NEEDS to close was when we were talking about The Little Mermaid after the Bailey incident.


"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear" Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll

mrscott
#48re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:38pm

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.....

Mister Matt Profile Photo
Mister Matt
#49re: Does Chicago need to close?
Posted: 12/15/09 at 2:45pm

If a show is profitable, it doesn't need to close. If the cast is slacking off, then it does need a director or stage manager to take some control. The last time I saw Rent on Broadway, half the cast were either phoning it in or goofing off for the Rentheads. Unfortunately, it was my partner's first time seeing the show on stage and we both felt completely ripped off and being a fan of the show and the score, he was absolutely furious.

Does it NEED to close today? Only if there is a show ready to move in.

Other shows open and close constantly. Even when theatres are full, it generally isn't for a long period of time. It makes absolutely no sense to close a profitable show simply to provide space for a show that can wait for something unprofitable to close in a suitably sized theatre. Broadway real estate is extremely fluid and space is available pretty much quarterly. Broadway needs some smart business decisions in order to stay alive. Otherwise, theatres will start renting their spaces out to Borders and Forever Twenty-one.


"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 12/15/09 at 02:45 PM


Videos