Disneyway

[JRTO]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:26am

I know there has been a recent thread on this, but it is worth repeating. From Reidel's article today:

Footnote: By this time next year, Disney should have four of Broadway's top musical houses all locked up: "Tarzan" at the Richard Rodgers; "Beauty and the Beast" at the Lunt-Fontanne; "The Lion King" at the Minskoff (where it transfers from the New Amsterdam in the spring); and, moving into the New Amsterdam, "Mary Poppins."

Geez. Guess Beauty and the Beast isn't going anywhere. Also confirms Lion King is moving. If you're an actor, make sure you lock down a Disney job- you'll be working for years. When will it end?

[beenthere]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:31am

what about the Shuberts? At one time they were huge producers of shows too! Good for Disney!

[jynni]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 10:06am

"If you're an actor, make sure you lock down a Disney job- you'll be working for years. When will it end? "

So successful shows that keep hundreds of actors/crew/musicians employed are a bad thing?

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 10:07am

Was this post necessary? Not to be mean...but the original post is two threads below this one.

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 12:09pm

Pfft. T. would have a fit living in the 1960s when David Merrick was Broadway's top producer. For the Abominiable Showman four shows on Broadway at the same time would be a slow period!

[showbiz]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:07pm

Didn't I hear that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is coming to Disneyway too? When will it end?

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:17pm

Tell me you're joking, showbiz.

[showbiz]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:25pm

No, I'm serious. Could have sworn I saw a brief clip of it today on some morning show.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:31pm

First off, CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG is already on Broadway and has been for several months.

Also, Disney has nothing to do with the production. It was a film they produced...but they are NOT producing the stage version.

[showbiz]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:37pm

Well excuse me, guess you can tell I'm not a Disney fan. Chitty is still associated with Disney though, same old stuff. Too much of it on Broadway, these are kiddie musicals.

[joniray]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:50pm

FOAnatic, CCBB was not a Disney film. They didn't produce it, they didn't have anything to do with it. Some people assume that it was a Disney film because it had the same songwriters and leading man as Mary Poppins, but it was a United Artists film. If it was a Disney film, this production would have certainly have been a Disney Theatricals production.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:58pm

Wrong again, showbiz.

AIDA was a Disney show and it was far from a "kiddie" show. It was breathtaking and a beautifull staged produtcion. A remarkable show.

In reference to BATB, TLK, and even CHITTY (Disney or not) they are also FAR from "kiddie." Yes, they're not LES MIZ, they are shows geared towards family...something people of all ages can enjoy. I say to that effort...GOOD JOB. By creating family oriented shows they are exposing theatre to children at a very young age. Hopefully this will spark an interest in them and, as they grow up, their taste will mature and they will venture to see other productions. I don't believe people who see Disney shows will ONLY see Disney shows. That's absolutely ridiculous.

All of the Disney productions I've seen have been wonderful productions that show a great deal of effort and creativity put into them. I thoroughly enjoyed myself at them and I am far from a child.

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 02:58 PM

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:59pm

Not entirely true joniray....CCBB the movie was REALEASED by MGM (who is the sister of Disney), thus MGM studios at Walt Disney World. So to say "they didn't have anything to do with it", could be true for the stage musical, but not for the movie.

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:07pm

MGM was jsut recently bought by Disney... I doubt Disney owned MGM when the movie Chitty Chitty was released.

[joniray]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:17pm

MGM is not now, nor has ever been owned by (or a "sister company" of) Disney. Disney entered into an agreement with MGM to use their name and some of their properties at the Florida theme park (such as Wizard of Oz in the Great Movie Ride). They did this because Eisner wanted to compete with Universal Studios and didn't think the name Walt Disney Studios and it's film library would be a strong enough draw so he wanted to get another studio name and their film library in there as well. Consequently, the contract that Disney has with MGM is ending soon and the park may have to change it's name if they aren't able to renew the contract with MGM.

United Artists released CCBB. United Artists was later bought by MGM to form the current company MGM/UA. MGM/UA video then released CCBB on video. Disney had no connection to the film at any time.

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:24pm

That's what I meant to say. Thanks.

I hate how people think Disney owns everything. It doesn't.

Viacomm, on the other hand...

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:33pm

The contract between Disney and MGM could be in trouble, too. Sony just recently bought MGM and all of its properties. So the contract will have to go through them and I don't know if they'll be agreeable with Disney or not. I certainly hope so. The Great Movie Ride is my favorite at DisneyWorld because of the Wizard of Oz parts!

Meanwhile, as long as Disney productions continue to be well done, and artistic in nature I have no problem with them. Especially considering how many performers, musicians, IATSE workers, etc.etc.etc. they keep employed. I just wish they would mix in new material (i.e. AIDA) along with the stage adaptations of their animated films.

[sharonkurland]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 11:44pm

Disney has been downplaying the concept of MGM in Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park for a long time. For years now, rumors have been flying that they're going to drop the "MGM' altogether.

-Sharon-
Orlando FL

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:34am

Broadway exists for audiences. And there are some people that would like something intelligible on Broadway, something Disney is incapable of doing. People who work in theatre know how precarious the job situation is when they decide to pursue it. We cant keep producing crap on Broadway just because it keeps people working. Should we cheer and encourage criminals so that criminal defense lawyers can keep working in that field (I know the comparison is a biot extreme, but I think you can get the point). Disney should invest their money in upcoming talent, as opposed to trying to make a quick buck off existing properties that so far have insulted the intelligence of the average theatregoer.

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:43am

I thought Julie Taymor's work was anything but insulting.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:52am

I don't understand this. I'm sorry for those out there that don't like or approve of Disney and its properties, but please realize that some of the statements being made are incredibly rude, unfair, and even ignorant.

It seems to me that even Beauty and the Beast, the most family-friendly targeted piece of Disney's Broadway musicals yet, is entertaining, thrilling, and beautiful to many, many people.

Why do people have to stoop to insulting Disney's productions as if they have no merit? I wonder if some of you have even seen Beauty and the Beast, Aida, and the Lion King.

With some of the shows that have occupied Broadway playhouses over the past few seasons, I cannot believe that people are complaining about Disney's shows.

Just my opinion. I really didn't want to get involved with this topic, but after reading the two threads, it was just too hard to sit and watch while people rip apart wonderfully executed, top of the line-quality theatre.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:26am

Ughh.. too many posts about this, let's try to keep it to one, please?

[JMVR]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:34am

H. Higgins, I'm with you all the way.

Please see my post on the Lion King moving to the Minskoff thread, as I don't want to re post my commments

[sharonkurland]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:37pm

> Broadway exists for audiences.

Actually, Broadway, or ANY entertainment-based endeavor exists for the possibility of making a profit BECAUSE of the audiences. Variety-style TV shows, Vaudeville, circus side shows, etc. are no longer in existence, or at least are few and far between, because there's no audience for them, so the businesses can't profit.

> And there are some people that would like something intelligible
> on Broadway...

And there are MANY people who are willing to forego the "intelligibleness" for pure and simple entertainment. Beauty & the Beast has been on Broadway for 10 years. Lion King has been at the New Amsterdam for nearly that long. Aida had a nice, long run. No one, least of all Disney, keeps Broadway shows open if they're not pulling a profit. Ergo, the 3 aforementioned shows were able to pull in more than enough people (look at their history of how maby seats were sold) who DIDN'T necessarily want "something intelligible."

> People who work in theatre know how precarious the job
> situation is when they decide to pursue it. We cant keep
> producing crap on Broadway just because it keeps people
> working.

So it's better for a large group of performers to be out of work every month or two because their "intelligible" show wasn't making a profit? They shouldn't ever have any dreams of having some degree of security for however long their contract is?

> Disney should invest their money in upcoming talent, as
> opposed to trying to make a quick buck off existing properties
> that so far have insulted the intelligence of the average
> theatregoer.

I'm sure that Disney would tend to disagree with you. Disney is a business and to stay in business, they need to make money. If producing a smash Broadway show that is appropriate for all ages is a way for them to make money, who are you to sneer at their busines sense?

And I would LOVE to know what you consider an "average theatergoer" to be.

-Sharon-
Orlando FL

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:48pm

disneys takeover of broadway is a complicated issue for me. yes, their shows are a bit childish and cartoonish (beauty and the beast), but obviously they've been improving in maturity and theatricality as is evident with lion king and marry poppins. my main problem is simply that they are so successful, meaning that they will occupy broadway houses for years, not months and thus prevent a larger number of new shows from entering broadway. already it is clear that broadway is a bit overcrowded, what with chorus line revival not being able to find a theatre, so to have yet another one or two shows that automatically mean that two theatres are locked up for years just doesnt appeal to me. I want a broadway where new good and bad work alike comes in and out, always rotating, providing exciting new seasons and allowing for more and more drama to be seen on such a monumental scale. but if nearly every major house is booked with a show with no end in sight, where can we go from there? as tommy tune said in the recent broadway legends documentary, "it's a shame. i haven't set foot in the winter garden in years!" I hope this doesnt have to be the case with nearly all.