Posted: 8/18/19 at 12:53am
Posted: 8/18/19 at 2:09am
It was a Disney production produced with the major German musical theater producers at the time, Stella GmBh.It ran for 3 years in Berlin. There were a variety of reasons it did not transfer. Among those reasons were: It was a hugely expensive production. At the time, it was the most expensive musical ever produced most due to the set. It would not have been able to have been reproduced on Broadway due to the restrictions of space on most Broadway houses. In addition there was concern as to how it could be marketed. The show was directed by James Lapine, who adapted the animated movie for the stage. It was dark. All the wit and humor that was in the movie was gone and Esmi died at the end. If it was marketed at the time as Disney's Hunchback, audience would be expected a cute cuddly Quasimodo and a lighter touch than what Lapine is known for. There was some talk of bringing it in under the Hyperian banner as Aida was, but Aida had opened to less than stellar reviews AND people might not realize that it was Disney if it was brought in with Hyperian. Notre Dame de Paris had opened around the same time and Disney had recently lost a lawsuit to one of it's former partners with led to Disney stock going down. Finally, when Michael Eisner, who loved Hunchback left the company, the project, which was not as popular with other Disney folk such as Tom Shumacher, was abandoned for Broadway. The German show was far from perfect but many who have seen both prefer the Berlin version. Anyway, that is a basic answer to your question.
Posted: 8/18/19 at 2:56am
SouthernCakes said: "Im rewatching the German production of The Hunchback of Norte Dame and its visually stunning. Why did this production never make it to the US? And was this a Disney production?"
Light & Sound Int’l - July 1999 (Hunchback in Berlin)
Playbill article 2002
Whilst there were reports at the time of imminent productions in London, New York and a German transfer all of these failed to materialise. I think the short answer is that Disney were probably very uncertain that the darker story adaptation that was deemed acceptable for a European audience would be popular on Broadway where the Disney brand was still faithful to the tone of the movies (while London was hosting the run of Notre Dame de Paris at that time which probably ruled out opening there). Arguably it’s the same reason the updated version failed to transfer from The Papermill more recently. What DID differ is that, while Disney licensed the production to Stella Entertainment in Germany their logo appeared above the title in Berlin, which it subsequently did NOT in the US to reduce the association with the animated story and it’s (slightly) more child friendly ending. (If I remember a minimum age suggestion was also featured in booking information).
When we went to see the show and spoke to staff at the theatre at the time there was definitely some ill feeling towards James Lapine and his interest (or lack thereof) with the show. I can’t remember the specific phrases used but when asked about that collaboration it wasn’t met with enthusiasm. Given that the production fully utilised the hydraulic stage configuration unique to the brand new theatre I can only assume there was no intention for it to be replicated in an rate.
It’s interesting that you focus on the visual aspects because I preferred to LOOK at the show in New Jersey. I found the mechanical stage and projections a bit cold and gimmicky (however technically impressive). But for me it will never SOUND as good as that Berlin production. Drew Sarich, Judy Weiss and Nobert Lamla were breathtaking - and the huge chorus and orchestrations eclipsed even the scale attempted in San Diego/New Jersey. Which is probably the second main reason it didn’t transfer to Broadway; The economics of having a cast, choir and orchestra of the size desired.
Updated On: 8/18/19 at 02:56 AM
Posted: 8/18/19 at 3:10am
Tsao5 said: “The German show was far from perfect but many who have seen both prefer the Berlin version. Anyway, that is a basic answer to your question."
Great answer Tsao5 and sorry for basically repeating much of what you said but I’d already written it!
I was lucky enough to have seen both and I definitely fall into that category of preferring the Berlin version. The songs and orchestrations were my favourite representation of the score. Though I preferred the set design and removal of the gargoyles at the Papermill. Much as I like “A Guy Like You” as a song their presence in Berlin did confuse the tone that adaptation was striving for.
Updated On: 8/18/19 at 03:10 AM
Posted: 8/19/19 at 10:59am
Posted: 8/20/19 at 11:22am
ukpuppetboy said: "I was lucky enough to have seen both and I definitely fall into that category of preferring the Berlin version. The songs and orchestrations were my favourite representation of the score. Though I preferred the set design and removal of the gargoyles at the Papermill. Much as I like “A Guy Like You” as a song their presence in Berlin did confuse the tone that adaptation was striving for."
See, I disagree, and I feel like, in addition to (pointlessly, IMO, with the final product seeming to me an ersatz Les Mis as a result) shifting the book closer to Victor Hugo's novel, most of the rewrites for the American version came from trying to fix two problems: without the gargoyles, what little levity the show had in a darker approach was gone, and key aspects of Quasimodo's personality were missing. However Lapine may have felt about the project -- which, judging by your post, seems to have been that he felt he was either "slumming it" or hamstrung by Disney's demands and, in any event, unhappy -- a key contribution that he made was making the gargoyles work as well as they ever would.
At least until the American version came to life, Disney was reluctant to lose the sole distinguishing element of the piece that they owned (which, let's face it, was nice in the case of the movie so they could sell some toys), and so rather than cut them entirely, Lapine made them fit the darker tone they were looking for: different names, less wackiness, and playing a much more integral role in the story than just comic relief by representing parts of Quasimodo's subconscious (Victor (movie)/Charles (stage) is the sensible side, Hugo/Antoine the impulsive, and Laverne/Loni the free-thinking balance between the two), conjured up from his imagination to combat his loneliness. (Remember, this was accentuated by their blocking: in addition to talking to him and bantering between themselves, they often freely moved around when other characters were in the scene.)
Further, I actually think "A Guy Like You" worked better onstage than in the film, for the same reason that "I Feel Pretty" works well at the top of Act II in West Side Story onstage. In a show that becomes increasingly packed with tension and darkness as it progresses, it's important by whatever means necessary to leaven it by lightening up the mood for variety, which is why it laid an egg in the more realistic format of film (had "I Feel Pretty" not been moved to earlier in the story in West Side, I honestly feel it would have done the same).
And if (spoilers) a comic number with the statue of a headless saint is equally inappropriate at that point in the story, you might as well go with the tune everybody already knows and likes, even if some of the lyrics are cringe-worthy. (Besides, how long has it been since Stephen Schwartz wrote a new lyric you completely liked? Don't worry, I'll wait...)
Updated On: 8/20/19 at 11:22 AM
