will NEWSIES not win cause it's Disney?- Page 3

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 10:12am

"^Beauty and the Beast terrible? What a laughable comment coming from a definite anti-Disney perspective."

I though the set mechanics on the first national tour were top-notch. The book, costumes and design were horrendous.

"Beauty REDEFINED theatrical special effects and was a very good adaptation from the film."

It did no such thing. There was nothing revolutionary about the effects in Beauty and the Beast. Not even the Beast's transformation was anything spectacular.

"And, while yes, Mermaid and Tarzan did not live up to typical Disney standard, they were not terrible shows."

I enjoyed the score to Tarzan, but the book was a mess and the design hideous. The opening sequence is the only thing they got right. Mermaid was even uglier than Tarzan, and the book so laughably awful I felt the show at Disney World was leagues better. I'd never been so embarassed for an actor than when I saw The Little Mermaid.

"They just weren't as good as what Disney has become known for. Disney has never produced a TERRIBLE show,"

Tarzan, The Little Mermaid, Aida, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King are all terrible shows. I have a friend who loves everything, and even she hated Aida. I was so bored at The Lion King I was sure I'd found the cure for insomnia.

"they have just had some that did not live up to their hype and could have been much better. I still stand by the belief that Mermaid was not as bad as people made it out to be, but there was much room for improvement."

No, it was every bit as bad as people said it was. I don't think its awfulness can be truly articulated in words.

"NEWSIES is a prime example of the incredible work Disney can do, and I think they will be rewarded for it on TONY night."

No, it's not, because Disney had very little to do with the production. People seem to forget that this was a Papermill Playhouse production, from design to direction. Disney was passively involved until it garnered great reviews. Disney is now doing what it has done with films fr years: taking the credit for other people's work.


Read more: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1046296&dt=49&boardid=1#ixzz1wpibMnBU

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 10:28am

"Beauty REDEFINED theatrical special effects and was a very good adaptation from the film."

It did no such thing. There was nothing revolutionary about the effects in Beauty and the Beast. Not even the Beast's transformation was anything spectacular.

I have to agree here. Beauty and the Beast had some nice visual effects, but didn't redefine anything.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 10:32am

^ You've got to be kidding me? The only thing Papermill about that production was the venue. The entire creative team was brought on by Alan Menken (most of which he had worked with MANY times before - for example, Dany Troob did the orchestrations for the original movie 20 years ago), and Director Jeff Calhoun (who brought most of his creative team over from Bonnie & Clyde). Papermill was basically the venue for the out-of-town-tryout, but instead it was labeled a regional production because Broadway wasn't quite yet on the agenda. Thomas Schumacher's speech at the first day of rehearsals showed just how much Disney is invested in this production. It is no secret.

I never realized that Schumacher, Menken, Feldman, Calhoun, Ost, Ortel, Troob and Gatelli all worked for Papermill? LOL

Talk about a bunch of hot air. And yes, you can find many articles discussing the how Beauty's effects were revolutionary for Broadway at the time.

Updated On: 6/4/12 at 10:32 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 11:22am

I have to agree here. Beauty and the Beast had some nice visual effects, but didn't redefine anything.

I agree. Yes, it had some cool effects, but I would not say it redefined spectacle or special effects in musical theatre. Phantom and Miss Saigon - yes, but not Beauty and the Beast.

Updated On: 6/4/12 at 11:22 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 1:59pm

TheatreKid3, stop embarassing yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 2:12pm

I don't?! You're the one who said Papermill created the stage version of NEWSIES. The only thing they basically did was give Disney a venue.

[Sauja]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 2:21pm

It's getting a little red state/blue state up in here. On the one hand, that's great because it shows how ardent supporters of various shows are. I loved during the livecast of the Drama Desks that one person kept screaming for Bonnie and Clyde to take everything. I actually didn't see that show, but just to see her so enthused was a wonderful thing. Takes me back to Side Show. :)

Regardless, I don't think Tony voters have shown a distinct anti-Disney bias other than Aida's year. Newsies is well loved, and I think it has a great chance on Sunday. And in a different year, I'd be rooting for it. I happen to have fallen head over heels for Once. As did many others. Still others despise it. I haven't heard from anyone who hated Newsies, though there are certainly those (myself included) who feel it's good but not great and could have been even better than it is. Regardless, Newsies could win on Sunday or it could lose. But I don't think the ultimate result will have anything to do with Disney. I truly think that this year people will be voting for their favorite show and that it will be less political than in years past.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 3:30pm

Theatrekid, Fosse76 works in the industry. He knows a thing or two.

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 3:48pm

Fosse76 is wrong about Newsies being a Papermill production though, it was Disney presents Newsies at the Papermill. They chose Papermill because it's close to NewYork so that they could get Ny press coverage for touring and stock purposes. As well as there was no Broadway pressure at Papermill, since they have never had a Broadway transfer unlike the other major regional theaters in the country, with the possible exception of the , but then again Muny is summer stock.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 3:54pm

since they have never had a Broadway transfer

Paper Mill's 1983 revival of YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU transferred to Broadway and their 2002 production of I'M NOT RAPPAPORT, which was a joint production with two other regional theaters, also transferred.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:02pm

Who is to say I'm not? And I know more than a thing or two about DTP and how they work, especially in regards to this show. Papermill just served as the venue, like the Ellie Caulkins Opera house did for MERMAID, except that show already knew it was going to Broadway.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:08pm

Who is to say I'm not?

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't really believe someone with the name "TheatreKid" works in the industry.

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:33pm

Ljay a play transfer is nothing like a musical transfer....plays rarely play out-of-towns as a pre-Broadway run (at least titled as one), their regional world premieres happen because those are the only places a play premieres unless your Neil Simon, August Wilson, Williams, Miller, and even then they usually premiered elsewhere and if they were good they transferred. Plays premiere regionally or off-broadway and if they get good reviews and sell tickets producers will come and bring them to Broadway, because it doesn't cost money for a playwright money to write a show and put it together like it does a musical....

But I will correct myself, Papermill has never has a MUSICAL transfer to broadway.


Updated On: 6/4/12 at 04:33 PM

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:37pm

Touché. And I don't think it is rude, but I just wanted a fun name, haha. Something generic and not specific to one show, but fun.

Anyway, that aside, my point is that Disney doesn't trust anyone with their major titles but themselves. Papermill did not assemble that creative team. Disney is like the Apple of theatre, very exclusive and privatized and not very keen on using outside parties to produce their major works that are in development.

Read any of Jeff Calhoun's interviews or listen to Alan Menken or Harvey talk about the creative process for the show. This isn't the first time they have tried to adapt NEWSIES to the stage. It just finally worked from a planning standpoint this time.

I honestly don't mean to sound so uppity about this, but Tony or no Tony, credit needs to be given where credit is due.
Updated On: 6/4/12 at 04:37 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:47pm

Wow, the children are uppity on the interwebs today.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 4:51pm

^ Bahahahahahah love it.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 6:00pm

my point is that Disney doesn't trust anyone with their major titles but themselves. Papermill did not assemble that creative team.

If that's true, then what was Aladdin at the 5th this summer?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 6:06pm

Disney doesn't trust anyone with their major titles but themselves.

If this is true, then why is NETworks producing the current national tour of Disney's Beauty and the Beast? Disney had nothing to do with that tour. And, like JohnyBroadway just said, Aladdin was not done by Disney either.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 6:15pm

It was a tryout just like NEWSIES (however, unlike NEWSIES, I doubt ALADDIN will see Broadway - or at least anytime soon). Make no mistake Disney had a ton of control over that production, especially getting Casey Nicholaw to direct. Also, how do you think they got Jonathan Freeman to come back and play Jafar? 5th avenue can't just go out and get stars like that. Alan Menken was a music supervisor. I doubt they will have much do to with the MUNY production, but they were definitely involved in the initial staging. And I don't want this to sound or be taken the wrong way, but in some form or fashion, Disney has to be involved. It is their title and show being created for their company to license, and they have to grant the permission for the adaptation to happen. If it has the DISNEY logo on it, you can bet Disney is the main entity pushing it. That's why STARCATCHER doesn't have the logo, there are more producers besides Disney, even though DTP originally commissioned the work. It was a big step outside their typical offerings. (truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually does receive the logo, haha, especially if the show takes off). I honestly think had Disney pushed STARCATCHER under their name more, then it would be selling better with tourists (if it follows the trend of all Disney shows selling because they are Disney).

bwayphreak234 - the tours are separate. When I say they don't trust anyone, I was speaking solely on the basis of the development of their Broadway titles. After Broadway, I don't blame them for using established touring companies. The show is what is already, they just use a company to "make it move."


Overall this is a very good discussion! I take your ideas/opinions very seriously, and I offer my counter ones. Agree or disagree, I respect ideas and opinions! Updated On: 6/4/12 at 06:15 PM

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 6:36pm

True Disney did have some hand Aladdin, but I believe a huge portion of the mounting was done in house through the 5th (casting, hiring the creative team) Nicholaw was already a house name with the 5th, in fact he made his choreographic debut with them. The 5th and papermill are higher up there with broadway ties than you may think.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 10:38pm

Yeah, you may be right. I did forget that Nicholaw has had a long past with 5th Avenue, and yes they and Papermill do have strong Broadway ties.

I'm not saying Disney isn't open to collaborations. In fact, they have collaborated on several shows outside their film or traditional cannons that some people may not realize (AIDA being the most notable and most known). Most people don't know that Disney is a leading producer of SISTER ACT (the film was released under touchstone, which is a subsidiary of Walt Disney Pictures). They might be one of the reasons the show was able to stick around through its hard times for so long. And most tourists I'd say don't know about STARCATCHER, even though it is based on a Disney-published book.

Updated On: 6/4/12 at 10:38 PM

[Jonwo]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 11:08pm

Sister Act was produced by Stage Entertainment and Whoopi, Disney simply licensed it to them and got a producer credit when it went to Broadway, Arcadia was also co-produced by Disney but they weren't lead producer.

PATSC was commisioned by Disney but it was developed by NYTW and other producers, I suspect Tom Schumacher didn't think it would succeed outside of off-Broadway hence why they got other producers when it did eventually transfer, Disney will make some money from it as they own the rights to it.

Disney are looking beyond their animated and live action backcatalogue with Father of the Bride and Shakespeare in Love, the latter will be a play rather than a musical and also a co-production with Sonia Friedman.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 11:18pm

Thank you for the enlightening info Jonwo! Oh and now that you mention Stage Entertainment, they are another company Disney is collaborating with on the new production of MERMAID in Europe and Russia. I think they might be doing another one together, too, but I can't remember what it was.

I actually had no idea about Arcadia. Interesting. Updated On: 6/4/12 at 11:18 PM

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 11:19pm

Man Disney has it's hands on a ton of things on Broadway, not always directly, but there's quite a long list of shows that Disney is connected to.

The Lion King
Newsies
Mary Poppins
Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark
Peter and the Starcatcher
Sister Act

That's almost %20 of all current Broadway shows. I'm not sure how I feel about that

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/4/12 at 11:25pm

You know, I actually was involved with a discussion a long time ago about Disney's relationship with Spider-man. From what I can gather, Disney really has no involvement with the show because they purchased Marvel after the show was already in development. SONY, I think, is pretty involved. Disney isn't listed as a producer in the Playbill, but I'm not for sure if the inclusion of Marvel automatically ties Disney to it. it's kind of like how even though the movies THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA were released after Disney bought Marvel, they weren't distributed by Disney as they were already in development with contracts through Paramount. Thus, the next film, THE AVENGERS, was the first to be developed and distributed by Disney, as it went into development after the Disney purchase.

They might somehow be connected, though. If they are, I can understand why Disney is hiding themselves from it lol.


The same goes for TV too, though. It would BLOW your mind just how many tv networks/channels Disney owns. Updated On: 6/4/12 at 11:25 PM