Disney on Broadway... What's next? — Page 3

I'm worried it's going to be Finding Nemo.

Only because if you think about it, Disney tests these musical ideas in the parks before bringing them to Broadway. Beauty & the Beast in MGM, Tarzan in Animal Kingdom, Little Mermaid in MGM...and now Nemo is in Animal Kingdom.
I saw it this summer, not sure how I feel about it. Only because it was cornier than even I expected.
But the puppet work was amazing.

---

I think the R&H is the only version of Cinderella that we should have (aside from the FILM of Cinderella).

I disagree that the R&H show does not have enough spectacle.

We should all hope and pray that the next Disney property on Broadway isn't "Hannah Montanna the musical." Don't laugh, I am sure it's been tossed around.

Given Disney's interest in producing highly marketable and merchandise driven shows, I doubt they will risk anything they cannot market the hell out of.

Personally, I wish they'd throw the "live cartoon" idea out the window and take us to new places. They have so many untapped, and lesser used properties that they could use to great appeal. Why not a staged version of the story of Walt himself? Why not a show following the development of the "Mickey Mouse Club?" Why not a dark, elaborately staged version of the short "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow?" There's "The Apple Dumpling Gang" which could be a real crowd pleaser, and "Old Yeller" which could be a powerful show.

But foremost, if they took "Song of the South" into careful consideration and changed some of the overtones, I feel it could be a viable property that many would clamor to see.

Disney has a HUGE library to pull from. I just hope they avoid the obvious in the future... the past few shows have proven people want to see something unfamiliar.

Updated On: 10/28/09 at 11:38 AM

"...the past few shows have proven people want to see something unfamiliar."

Or maybe the past few shows have proven that people do NOT want to pay $100-a-ticket to see cheesy musicals based on bland, sappy Disney children's movies. This thread is laughable. Remember, we're talking about Disney crap here.

I'm worried it's going to be Finding Nemo.

Only because if you think about it, Disney tests these musical ideas in the parks before bringing them to Broadway. Beauty & the Beast in MGM, Tarzan in Animal Kingdom, Little Mermaid in MGM...and now Nemo is in Animal Kingdom.

In that case, Aladdin would be a likely property, as a superb production of that is playing in Disney's California Adventure.

However, the productions you mention bear no resemblance at all to the productions that eventually ended up on Broadway. They were all staged differently, and featured entirely different creative teams. To suggest that those theme park shows were the "tryouts" for the eventual Broadway productions is way oversymplifying things.

FWIW, Disney has ZERO intention of expanding and bringing Finding Nemo to NY.

Or maybe the past few shows have proven that people do NOT want to pay $100-a-ticket to see cheesy musicals based on bland, sappy Disney children's movies.

Or maybe the longevity of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Mary Poppins has proven that they do, when it is well-produced.

This thread is laughable. Remember, we're talking about Disney crap here.

Yeah, and that Disney "crap" has been a mega-successful icon in virtually all forms of the entertainment industry for nearly a century, not to mention producing the most universally beloved animated films in history. But I suspect you already know that and are simply trying to be a snarky contrarian.

Little Mermaid is definetely a kid's ONLY Disney Property that's why it failed in Broadway.

Actually, the film was something of a landmark for Disney for ushering in a new era of musical animated features that appealed to both kids and adults. It paved the way for the successes of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. It was very clear when the movie premiered in 1989 that Disney was expanding its audience and adding a touch of maturity and more theatrical drive to their films which previously had been conspicuously absent for at least two decades, but only somewhat sustained it for the next 11 years. It was Pixar that picked up the slack for them.

---

I would love to see Hercules, Mulan, or Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

---

Out of all the ideas I've heard thrown out there, I'd really like to see Hunchback (because it has already had a very successful musical adaptation) and Aladdin. These two are the only ones I think would really work. Mulan may would work but it doesn't have as much of the "classic Disney" feel to it as the others do - same with Hercules. I think Aladdin could be a huge spectacle show with a story that's familiar to almost everyone - while Hunchback would be a more serious turn for Disney and would probably get more respect from the Broadway community (if they can get over the fact that its Disney).

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about having to bring Aladdin's parents back into the story for the song "proud of your boy" to work and I would disagree.
The song could be much more poignant if Aladdin was to sing the song to his deceased mother, who he feels he has failed.

Anyway, as for Disney's next venture, an original work would be more interesting at this point, but if they had to go down the movie route I would have to vote for Bedknobs and Broomsticks or Mulan. Neither are particularly known or loved by today's young audiences though so they don't exactly have the head-start of a built-in audience to guarantee sales like most of their other shows did.

I stand corrected. BEAUTY, LION KING and POPPINS are financial successes that will live on in the pantheon of theatrical artistic achievement.

ZIEGFELD FOLLIES of 1917, HELLZAPOPPIN' and WHOOPEE are just as immortal.

I'm curious to know how you define "artistic achievement", especially with your inclusion of Lion King in your sarcastic remark. Sounds like you believe musical theatre and Broadway should be something that they never were or were meant to be. But maybe you're right. Perhaps Broadway should completely revise its history and remove all evidence of commercial entertainment. As long as we're treating it like some sort of religion, we could take the conservative fundamentalist Christian approach to the Bible and cherry pick only those periods we think should be relevant. When faced with those passages we choose to ignore, we can denounce our adversaries for being anti-Broadway while avoiding the subject completely. Ignorance worked for Christians for centuries, so why can't it work for Broadway?

How about PINNOCHIO played by a computer instead of a puppet...or PETER PAN played by Corbin Bleu with pom-poms...or 101 DALMATIONS played by the entire original cast of CATS in drag...or (for the "serious turn" to appease critics) Phillip Seymour Hoffman in "HUNCHBACK - the True Story".

Gotta love that Disney.

What are you even talking about? If you're just going to be anti-Disney, at least try to have a point. Or make some sense.

---

When I think of Meg in Hercules, my mind immediately turns to Sheridan Smith.

---

My Next Idea For DIsney On Broadway:

3. Hercules - starring Cheyenne Jackson
2. Pocahontas - starring Hunter Foster as John Smith
1. Mulan - starring Lea Salonga or Deedee Magno Hall

Disney, please make atleast one of these.

After Little Mermaid & Tarzan tanking, they may decide to take a bit of a breather.

---