Disney gets ready to play "musical chairs" with some of its Broadway musicals

The audiences will decide whether these shows are good or not, but I for one am glad Disney is putting so much energy and effort into producing shows on Broadway.

Time for the other major theatre producers to catch up... or put on a pair of mouse ears and holler "uncle."

---

I am also a big fan of Disney. Let's face it, the days of a one man producer, a la Cameron Macintosh, is gone. Nowadays, producers needs corporate backing or a lot of other producers to come together and produce shows. Disney does a great job in targetting their market and produce a product which is well liked by the general public.

Kudos to them.

Disney put together VISIUALLY amazing shows! Not to mention shows that are definatly safe to take kids to! I agree completely that Beauty and the Beast needs to close! I wouldn't say I am worried that Disney is taking over. I find it great that at least there is interest at all in Broadway! I am just worried about nameless artists being shadowed by the corporation.

---

Yes. Send BEAUTY on the road -- or to Vegas. But please close it in NYC. Enough already.

I honestly think that BEAUTY will close once Disney brings in Mary Poppins. The show will be done at the box office by then, and four shows means that Disney will actually be competing with itself for ticket sales.

"My only question is, with all these Disney musicals at the same time, will there be room for other original musicals (assuming these will all run for years)?"

There are PLENTY of Broadway houses for new works. I don't think this will be a problem.

Also, I love that they expect to recoup their investment for TARZAN before previews. $10 Mil in Group sales alone before individual tickets go on sale! WOW!! So much for all the cinics! Does anyone smell Humble Pie???

---

Updated On: 9/29/05 at 02:22 PM

I feel so oddly conflicted now whenever I talk about Disney's involvement on Broadway. On one hand, you have to thank Disney immensely for forcing New York City to clean up Times Square and make it family friendly. On the same note, though, their reasoning behind it wasn't exactly humble. It's obvious Disney is trying to build an empire on Broadway. It's business, I totally understand that. There's really nothing wrong with it, either. There's pleanty of space and hell, if they do start building their own theatres, you're really not taking away anything. I don't really harass Disney for their business, they've found something that works and stick to it. That's a good business plan. What I do harass Disney for is with that obvious egotistical gusto in which they put these shows on. An excellant point in that article is how they're already working on Aladdin, which won't open for 2-3 years, while Tarzan hasn't even opened yet. If you're going to be lazy and simply rely on trodden and true movies as almost identical basis for your show (not just basing the musical, but practically trying to recreate the exact thing on stage), please just take the time to make sure it's at least good! Sure, Disney's great at marketing and all that; pre-selling $10 Million in tickets is no laughing matter, but does it insure that it will be a good show? No. Does the simple fact that it's Disney mean it's a bad show? No. Beauty and the Beast is a great family show and stands on it's own, Lion King...well, without Julie Taymor, Lion King would have died. it's a great example of a show where people go to see the spectacle instead of the performances (a lil Cameron Macintosh theory there...hehe). I guess, when it all comes down to it, I can't blame Disney for doing what their doing because they can and there's a large audience for it....not to mention the rebirth of Times Sqaure they've helped usher in (despite the horrid amount of commericialization and disney-fication that it's becoming....it's still better than porn everywhere...lol) I guess I just wish they'd take more time on their shows and churn out one or two really good shows, as opposed to 4 or 5 mediocre ones. Of course, this all being said, every single show could become a major hit and actually be wonderful....but looking at their track record, I don't know if Disney can pull that off. Alas, we shall wait and see. All I know is that in 10 years, I don't want to be taking my kids to see a show on Mouseway.

---

CJWesselman, you contradict yourself.

You said: "An excellant point in that article is how they're already working on Aladdin, which won't open for 2-3 years, while Tarzan hasn't even opened yet."

Then later say: "I guess I just wish they'd take more time on their shows and churn out one or two really good shows, as opposed to 4 or 5 mediocre ones. Of course, this all being said, every single show could become a major hit and actually be wonderful....but looking at their track record, I don't know if Disney can pull that off."

They ARE taking their time with shows, as evidenced by the fact that as you admit, they're already working on Aladdin, which won't be seen until sometime in 2008. Little Mermaid has been talked about since about 2002. You cannot say they just churn out shows. They spend a long time developing these shows, and actually scrap shows that aren't working. Remember the show about the basketball players that Susan Lori-Parks was writing the book for? Obviously they've abandoned that project.

Whether or not their shows are any good is completely in the eyes of the beholder. Two of the three Disney shows (Aida excepted) opened to solid reviews. One is a Tony winner for Best Musical. One is the sixth longest running show in Broadway history, one is still playing to capacity houses after 8 years. The public has obviously responded to these shows in a VERY positive way.

Every single show HAS become a major hit, and with Tarzan's advance sale of $10 million, that trend will continue. You speak of their track record, wondering if they can pull it off. Again, going strictly by that track record, they're 3 for 3, about to become 4 for 4.

You said: "What I do harass Disney for is with that obvious egotistical gusto in which they put these shows on."

Would you prefer they didn't promote their shows, and just threw them up onstage and said, "Well, we'll see what happens"? Again, I think their promotion of their product shows their committment to theater. When they do a show, they don't cut corners. They go all out. We need more producers who put on shows with as much "gusto" as Disney does.

no matter what anyones opinion is..if you havent worked in big corporation..trust me..be cautious..disney has more than "putting on a show" in their plans or on their agenda. they should be monitored constantly for what they do and you should not become complacent.
be very cautious.

CJWesselman - it seems like you just have something against Disney... while I certainly understand a distrust of large corporations... the negative things you say about Disney on Broadway... don't really seem to have much basis in reality.

1.)The Lion King is so remarkable because Disney trusted such an artist outside of the commercial mainstream with such a huge production... The Lion King wouldn't have died without Julie Taymor... it never would have been born... The Lion King exsists BECAUSE of Julie Taymor and BECAUSE Disney give her that opportunity...
2) Disney takes a VERY long time to create it's shows... how long has The Little Mermaid been in creation... The Lion King took a long road... Aida was completely restaged... in fact can you imagine another coproration letting a production grow for that long...
3.)If you have an issue with egotism in producers... you shouldn't frequent the theater... which is deeply rooted in the egos of it's famous producers... Disney's "obvious egotistical gusto" does not hold a candle to Ziegfeld... Merrick... and on and on... have an ego is part of being a producer...
4.) Finally... Disney does not seem to be interested in merely recreating their movies... as you and many others have stated... while The Lion King and Mary Poppins are both indeed Disney movies... and a lot of the movies can be found in those stage show... you would be foolish to call them recreations... The Lion King is the story of the cartoon infused with seemingly boundless human creativity and imagination... it is not a direct translation of that movie (how what that even be possible)... to think that all Julie Taymor did was put The Lion King on stage as is... is a complete underestimation of a remarkable achievement... she took images, characters, theme, and story from the film and using Asian, African, and Broadway vocabulary produced a work that mostly stands on it's own... to think otherwise (even if you dislike The Lion King) is factually incorrect... As for Mary Poppins... they took what was a highly entertaining childrens entertainment... and turned it into something richer, deeper, and real resonance... wether you agree or disagree with probing the subtext of Mary Poppins or not... it is NOT merely re-stating the movie... and finally... if you think it is at all possible to recreate THE LITTLE MERMAID (!) on stage as is... I think you should contact the Disney people because you must have powers of creation heretofor unknown to the human race... do you suggest the whole thing be created underwater? What about when the sea witch grows to the size of a skyskraper? Do you know any Broadway Diva's of a certain age that can pull off that trick?

Disney has created works with moments of real artistic accomplishments... created by real THEATRICAL artists...Julie Taymor... Robert Falls... Mathew Bourne... Bob Crowley... David Henry Hwang... Richard Eyre... Pichon Baldinu...

So... there!
(sticks out tounge and runs away)

kc

---

The Lion King would have been done with or without Julie Taymor. I still don't see anything inventive about her costumes, and most would agree that the "spectacle" of The Lion King is what beat out the far superior Ragtime at the Tony's.

"I still don't see anything inventive about her costumes"

I'd be careful, those sound like sparring words to me.

---