Beauty and the Beast transfer... why did it switch theaters?

I think they moved it so that AIDA could take the palace.

so it only lasted this long because of the transfer?

Sort of off-topic...Beauty and the Beast had a nice, healthy run, but I am disappointed that it closed in favor of Little Mermaid. I am a huge Little Mermaid fan and thought the stage version was mediocre. I know a lot of people don't like Disney shows, but if I had to pick one over the other for the Lunt, I'd pick Beauty.

---

I agree with Winston89. It really only closed because Disney wanted it for The Little Mermaid..Disneypractically owns (correct me if I'm wrong!) the Lunt. I have to say though putting it in the Lunt was better for me, the Palace seemed too big for this show. It's a shame it had to end it's run, but I don't think they wanted to transfer theatres again, and I doubt that Disney wanted the Richard Rodgers (where Tarzan had set up an immediate closure) for TLM, so Bye-Bye-Beauty. I have to say that it's the only Disney show (besides MP) that not only that I liked alot altogether(haven't seen TLM) but kept me in the mindframe that I was seeing a BROADWAY MUSICAL, and not let's see how spectacular we can make this look and spend millions and millions of dollars.

For the record, it definitely would have been open for a couple more years, had Disney not put it's close on. Oh well .

I thought Beauty and the Beast was exciting and breathtaking at the Palace. I saw it years later at the Lunt and felt that it was almost comical how cramped the stage felt, and that Be Our Guest was just plain silly.

Beauty and the beast is done on Broadway now that it closed at the Lunt. There were no talks of moving it from The Lunt to another theatre. It only closed to make room for little mermaid. When people on here were talking about it moving theares they ment that during the run the show switched theatres.

And morosco, Beauty did use the sets from the then recently finished national tour when the show came to the Lunt.

---

Oh. Ha! Thanks Winston89.

---

Actually, the New Amsterdam is owned by the city of New York. Disney only has a lease on it.

---

I miss Beauty.

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 03:17 AM

No. Let's just say for arguments sake that Aida could have fit into the Lunt and they put it there instead of Beauty. I think Beauty if it were still at the palace would have stayed open on its own accord at least until around the same time that the show at he lunt closed. But, keep in mind that at the palace it wouldn't have been forced out like it was in the Lunt.

And, in regards to Tarzan and Beauty announcing a closing at the same time. The sets for Beauty (I am talking about the sets at the Lunt which were fresh off the tour) were WAY to big to fit into the Richard Rodgers. The Richard Rodgers has a very small backstage area. So, even if they just closed Tarzan there was no physical way that they could have had both Beauty and Mermaid running at the same time. The Lunt can house larger sets then the Richard Rodgers can. Beauty had and little mermaid has a large set. There would have been nothing either show could have done to fit in the Rodgers.


BWayJunkie, I think you might have thought that Disney leased The Minskoff from The Nederlanders because a while ago there were talks of the Nederlanders selling the Minskoff to Disney since Disney paid to fix up the place and because they realized that The Lion King isn't going anywhere anytime soon. However, this never came to be.

As for the ownership of The New Amsterdam. I was wrong to have said that Disney ownes it. But, I thought it was owned by The New 42nd St Project. Is that technically the city or its own little group?

---

Updated On: 7/8/08 at 04:14 AM

Some believe that Beauty should return and I saw why not....
It is such a fun show and it is classic in the sense that it is not geared for boys or girls.. it is geared to both.
As much as I loved and adored TLM, it is all for the girls.

---