Why was the original Dreamgirls so expensive?

What book is this??

thanks!

Yeah...that show was a sight to behold. Those tall gleaming towers that glided around the stage and transformed it in the blink of an eye.

I especially loved the cat walks that descended from the roof of the theater during STEPPIN' TO THE BAD SIDE with all the payola guys on them against a green scrim.

I also loved the long, long staircase and the lighting utilized for that Second Act opener.

That show was just beautifully produced.

Updated On: 5/6/12 at 08:59 PM

I agree with most of what's been put forth thus far, but I want to add another factor. This has been documented elsewhere, but I can't recall where exactly (I'll look for it). Anyway, during the original Broadway run, the cast was on a "favored nations" contract, which meant that everyone was paid the same weekly salary. I assume the chorus had one level, and the principal actors shared a higher one. When it came time to take the show on the road, contracts opened up, and Jennifer Holliday demanded the star salary she felt she had rightly earned and deserved to be paid. Naturally, because of her accelerated fee (and probably that of a few other leading actors) the break-even bar for the show was set much higher. When the box office in Los Angeles was straining, producers asked Miss Holliday to take a cut and she (within her rights) refused. The show's operating costs were simply too high to sustain.

I saw the original production and the return engagement twice and I remember more about the original production than the latter. What I came away with from the '87 production was that it was Dreamgirls lite. It definitely didn't have the same impact as the original production. I even returned to see Sharon Brown as Effie (loved her as the Narrator in the Joseph) and don't remember anything about her performance.

---

Wasn't there a second tour where the towers were moved by actors?

This show along with Evita are the two I wish that the original productions would be restaged on Broadway! Thanks so much for the link to the coffee table book.

---

I also love this board because people here just "get it." They know theatre as much as they love it. To everyone else, those gliding towers are gliding towers. To the members here they create several distinct locales and points of view all supplemented and made often times more real than 'real' by ones's own imagination. That's why there is that feeling of magic that is at once rewarding--nothing is spelled out but is suggested and in a way that is remarkably effective.

I agree that the original Dreamgirls and Evita are two productions that should be celebrated and recreated as opposed to 'reinvented.'

---

Wow, thank you so much everyone for the great responses! I wish I could have been around to see this production; I've never heard anything bad about it.

In the attached video you can see how the set was reduced for the later tours and the broadway revival. And you get to hear Sharon Brown putting in a pretty fantastic performance.
Sharon Bown - I'm Not Going

Only Michael Bennett could get away with staging the show's biggest showstopper/Act I finale BEHIND A F&^KING TABLE and still have people 30 years later arguing that the original staging is sacrosanct.

And, yes, the staging of "Steppin' to the Bad Side" was thrilling. To this day I have no idea what it had to do with the song (except that, of course, actors were "steppin'", often to one side). I thought a lot of Bennett's staging was smoke and mirrors designed to distract us while the show delivered a history lesson. Frankly, I was more interested in the history.

DISCLAIMER: all of the above is quite obviously a minority opinion.

That's how I always interpretated the staging of Bad Side.