Disney gets ready to play "musical chairs" with some of its Broadway musicals — Page 2

From everything I read about it (and I'm not pretending to be an "insider") The Lion King became Disney's next project BECAUSE of Julie Taymor... The idea of The Lion King on stage was a long standing joke at Disney theatricals... there was this joke it was going to be something like Cats... but Julie Taymor's excitement about the idea... somehow seemed to make the whole project fit together... that's according to a few acconts I've read about the whole thing... um so I guess you may be correct in that The Lion King may have happened without Julie Taymor... but certainly not HOW and WHEN it did... and to second ADAMGREER... not seeing anything 'inventive' about the design of The Lion King seems cynical and misinformed... let's look at the giraffe costume... when you first see it... you see a giraffe... every time I've seen the show people in the auidience GASP when they first see the giraffes... so first you SEE a giraffe... but then you see the person that is creating the giraffe...the performer... her design is not only a recreation of a giraffe... but also her design incorporates the performer in a remarkable way that sparks the auidience to actively use their imaginations to CREATE the giraffe... the whole production asks the auidience to actively ingage their imagination... it asks them to participate in the magic... it isn't spectacle for spectacles sake... it's theatricl illusion...theatrical magic...I guess it's a subjective thing... so I'm not really saying you are incorrect... it's your right to think her designs are not inventive... just as there are people who think Fosse's choreography was just the same five moves in different combination... I just think you might be allowing an opinion to override the actual invention that is at work at the New Amersterdam... soon to be the Minskoff...

---

Nope. I see an actor in a costume, not a giraffe. Some of us are more perceptive than others. While it is "neat" to see an actor play a giraffe, there is nothing "inventive" about the costume. Look up the definition of inventive. Nothing about the Lion King is ground-breaking, historically or artistically.

KJisgroovy:

I absolutely agree with you. I found the Lion King incredibly inventive. I never stated I didn't. I was responding to the comments made by Fosse76 that there was nothing inventive about it.

I absolutely believe (as my posts indicate) that it had one of the most original designs ever.

And for Fosse76: It's inventive because that was an unconventional way of creating all those animal costumes. The conventional way would have been to have an actor in a zip up giraffe costume. However, Taymor came up with many, many creative costumes for the animals- the gazelle, the bicycle, the birds- everything. We've never seen anything like that before onstage. That makes it inventive.

Updated On: 9/30/05 at 04:43 PM

Fosee, seriously? are you just being a jerk to be a jerk? How can you not find the Lion King inevative in ways of puppetry and whatnot. Its so amazing. We had Timone and Pumba from the current tour come to do a master class at my university the other day and they explained how all the puppetry works and how it is to work with Julie and whatnot. I haven't seen the show yet, but I still think its pretty imaginative.

See, to me... the effects in a show liked Wicked... are what you are describing... oh look she's standing on a rising platform! I mean it is a great stage picture... with the long cloak and the lighting and all of that... but... to me it just doesn't compare with The Lion King... The Lion King forces the auidience to use their immagination... that something you can't get in a movie... which is a totally passive experience...there are a few bits in The Lion King where the creativity falls a little short... but for the most part... i really do think it's one of the most (if not the most) creative commercial musical on broadway right now... if not ever...

kc

---

That was a good article...I like the little digs at the ATC boards.

As far as the "Disney is taking over Broadway" concerns, people have been saying that for years, and it's never happened. I don't think shifting some shows around is going to be the downfall of anything.

I seem to remember that Disney bought the New Amsterdam so it could be used for different shows. King David was there, then they had the preview screenings of Hercules. But then "Lion King" opened and became the hit it did, so that plan was never able to continue. (and I'm sure they cry on their way to the bank every night about that one)

And I'll be honest...as long as the shows are good, I'll be fine with them putting as many as they want on Broadway. I saw "Beauty and the Beast" in 1994, when I was in college. Now, 11 years later my friends are taking their kids to see it, and they love it. It's their first theater experience. I'm glad they're planning on keeping it around for awhile longer.

Wait, so they bought the new amsterdam to do what with it? "King David"? Hercules? I'm so confused!

When they opened the New Amsterdam, intended to be their flagship theatre, the christening was done with a performance or two of a musical called "King David" written by Tim Rice and Alan Menken. It hasn't gone much further than that, and though an album was released it's hard to find now. http://www.alanmenken.info had it all downloadable at one point under the "weekly downloads" section.

As for Hercules, I believe that during the movie's opening they just threw a screen up in the theatre and people watched the movie. Kind of like the Pocahantas in Central Park thing.