Anyone Else Think Tarzan Should Be Booted Before Beauty?- Page 2

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 8:43am

I think so, yes. BEAUTY & the BEAST is an amzingly beautiful show. TARZAN is inovative and Phil Collins' music is at times brilliant, but the performances are pale and it's forgettable.

[mikeyb16]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 8:43am

Just a few things.

The reason why BEAUTY has to close for MERMAID to open is because the Disney Company feel that because the 2 shows have Iconic Heroines, they would cause a rivalry between the 2 shows and that it would divide audiences.

Reason to why TARZAN isn't going is because from what I read in an interview with Thomas Schumacher is that TARZAN is covering it's costs.

And apparantly, MERMAID won't be going in the Richard Rodgers Theatre and neither will BEAUTY. The reason for that is because the Sets for BEAUTY & MERMAID are far too huge for the Theatre's stage and that The Richard Rodgers Theatre is a far too small venue for MERMAID & BEAUTY.


bially082, I 100% agree with you that BEAUTY should be re-done to look fresh. It would make the shows reputation popular I think.

From what I read somewhere on the Message Board is that BEAUTY is actually planning a Farewell Tour after is closes although I don't know if it's confirmed yet.

I think they down-sized BEAUTY when they transferred it to the Lunt Fontanne and probably when they had that Smoke Fumes Problem 10 years ago at the Palace.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 9:30am

Again, don't ever trust whatever Disney states in the press. The whole "irony" bit about the Disney heroines is total crap. There are definitely more reasons than that as to why they're closing Beauty. Not that I have a problem with that. I love the movie and the show was my second Broadway show, but it's run its course and it's now past its prime.

I doubt that mid to low 70's% is covering costs for Tarzam. What with the actors, musicians, technicians, and crew's salaries as well as insurance for the actors and theatre rent. If it is covering costs, than Tarzan is surprisingly cheap to run.

And yes, Beauty did downsize. Most of the sets they use are from the 1st (or 2nd) National Tour. Also, there are a handful less actors than before as well as a few less musicians.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 10:19am

Well, I for one, along with at least 4 other people that I know of, enjoyed TARZAN far more than BEAUTY. We may be the only four going to see it though BEAUTY just hasn't "grown old gracefully" as they say.

Updated On: 6/15/07 at 10:19 AM

[BroadwayBound86]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 1:06pm

As mikeyb16 stated they do have semi-logical reasons as to why they are closing one over the other. I do wish B&TB would stay in it's place however there's no way Disney would shut down Tarzan since they are opening other productions up. When they speak of Tarzan covering it's costs I do believe they are talking about the entire Tarzan enterprise. The Holland production is making more than enough money for it and actually recieved great reviews. I wouldn't count on the Broadway production closing soon. It will at least make it through this upcoming Holiday season.

[justafan2]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 3:25pm

I haven't seen Beauty in about 5 years, but I definitely enjoyed it more than I enjoyed Tarzan. Maybe Beauty has declined in quality since then (I think I saw it at the original theater----Palace?--don't remember). I agree with Bially 082----if they would retweak it and bring it back with a new freshness, it would be better than Tarzan. (IMO). Watching Tarzan, to me, was like watching kids play in a huge green box.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 4:41pm

I agree that Tarzan and Beauty should both close, but Beauty should return in a few years, and be more like it was at the Palace. It will create enough press to afford the bigger production.

[theatrenut2]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 4:56pm

The thing about Disney is that Disney Theatrical was never intended to be a cash cow. To them, it is just another market to hit. The Tower of Terror in Disney/MGM Studios costs three times as much as the original Beauty and the Beast at the Palace Theatre. Tarzan had much opposition within Disney Theatrical. Many wanted to not open it because of the Mary Poppins transfer and Little Mermaid. It would have been nice to refurbish BB, but Disney is not big on scale down and then rebuild, even in their theme parks.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 5:11pm

Nope. I haven't seen Tarzan yet.

[jv92]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 5:28pm

Tarzan should go. Josh Strickland shouldn't step on, let alone swing aobve the same stage Gwen Verdon originated most of her Broadway roles. The score shouldn't be played in the same theatre where Chicago was first heard. I'd much rather see it close than Beauty, though I'm no fan of that either. (The movie, absolutely. The show, no.)

[jagfkb]

Posted: 6/15/07 at 8:05pm

What should have happened:
Tarzan either closed or moved to a VERY small theatre
Beauty (after making the set smaller) moved to the Rogers Theatre

OR

Rent either closed or moved to another theatre
Beauty (with maybe some slight set enlargement) moves into the Nederlander

[Dover]

Posted: 6/16/07 at 12:23pm

I think Beauty is actually a really good show. I've seen the show twice, and I've done it regionally, and I never got tired of watching it. It's entertaining for kids and adults alike. Tarzan is a bore for children of all ages. The cast is very talented, but I felt bad for them to be working so hard for so little result.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 6/16/07 at 12:26pm

I liked both.

[amalou]

Posted: 6/16/07 at 12:50pm

In my opinion, the only Disney shows that should be on Broadway are Aida and an English version of Glockner von Notre Dame.

[mikeyb16]

Posted: 6/17/07 at 5:05am

I would love to see Der Glockner Von Notre Dame on Broadway. I think it was/and still I think planning on doing a live-action version by The Wonderful World Of Disney.

With AIDA, I wouldn't think it would come back for another few years as they closed it because Ticket Sales weren't going very well in it's late years.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/17/07 at 9:07am

"Beauty (after making the set smaller) moved to the Rogers Theatre..."

I don't think Beauty would've worked well in this theater. People already complain about Beauty downsizing the show after leaving the Palace (which in my opinion, after hearing what was done, doesn't sound like a lot of downsizing), so why would they make the set any smaller?

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/17/07 at 9:10am

I think I enjoyed Tarzan more. It might have helped that I didn't pay for Tarzan and was thinking I'd want to leave after act I, making it a pretty stress-free experience. I actually paid for Beauty (albeit at a discount) just to see it before it closed. I couldn't believe I wasted my money on such ****e. I probably would have felt the same way if I had paid $60 for Tarzan, though.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/17/07 at 9:31am

Although both movies are popular, Beauty and the Beast is definitely a more popular show, which is one reason why I don't think it should close.