I've never seen the show but last month when I was at TKTS my mom asked the people behind us about Beauty and the Beast b/c it was on the board and the woman seemed to know a lot about theatre and said "Yeah it's good, but they've scaled it down with less lights and special effects and its a lot simpler than it used to be." Is that true? I didn't think so but I wasn't going to tell that lady she was crazy.
There's a Forbidden Broadway parody, "Beauty's Been Decreased," I think it's called. I don't know if it's true, but if it isn't, maybe that's where she got it.
when they moved from the Palace to the Lunt-Fontanne they brought in the first national tour sets...
That's true, CATS. But that was a few years ago... I wonder if that's what she was talking about.
ETA - the bit about the lights, special effects, props, etc comes right from Forbidden Broadway. She probably just took that for the gospel or something.
Well maybe that's what she meant...I dunno. Just curious..why did they move? Does that happen very much for a show to move theatres?
I don't know exactly when they moved, but they moved so AIDA could have the Palace. AIDA opened in March of 2000, so that can give you a semi-time frame. It would've been before that.
Sorry...double post. That makes me sad though...I wish I could see Be Our Guest with fireworks...that's just the picture I've always had in my mind. Is it still good? Updated On: 2/13/05 at 01:36 PM
That's my question as well. I'm contemplating going to see Beauty and the Beast soon with my parents, mostly because I'm still a little kid at heart and watched my Beauty and the Beast tape until it broke when I was little. Do you think it is still an enjoyable show to see?
Yes, when they moved it, it was scaled down significantly- way too much if you ask me.
B/B was my first Broadway show, back in 1995, when it was still at the Palace. I saw it a few times there and then they moved it to the Lunt. I've since seen it twice at the Lunt and it just isn't the same. It no longer feels like a Broadway show to me, instead it just feels like a glorified Disney World stage show.
It's sad really, but when a show is so grand and then you go to see a watered down version of it, you can't help but think of how good it used to be.
Of course if you've never seen it before you won't notice it but if you did see the original version, it makes the more recent version just...lackluster.
"It no longer feels like a Broadway show to me, instead it just feels like a glorified Disney World stage show."
this is soooo true! except the first time i saw it, i was about 7, so anything looked big and extravagant to me. i just saw it last january with my theatre group and thought the same thing. besides brooke tansley's horrible acting and out of tune singing, i did notice that "be our guest" looked a little weak. when we went to a talk back after with the cast and stage manager, the s.m. said that they downsized in sets, but also in number of ensemble members. i mean, they didn't even have a spoon for the end of the number! i think she was in the beginning and then had to change into a twirling plate or something. it was sad.
I loved the Forbidden Broadway parody!
Ah... the infamous "missing spoon" that FB sings about!
Many of the Beauty sets have changed from flats to backdrops, with the exception of the staircase (whivh one tour DID use a backdrop for). All of the ensemble members now play more parts then they used to (Townspeople become wolves, then some perform two enchanted objects now rather then one... etc.) If you've never seen the show at the Palace, you probably wouldnt know. Its still a bigger show then the tour ever was, but not as big as when it opened. Brooke does the same amount of dancing that Susan Egan did, which many Belle's would back out of. Watch that girls foot kick her head when she dances with the napkins in Be Our Guest.... CCRomano stood stage right at that point. Many of the current cast right now have played other parts, have dance captained, or have understudied over and over in previous casts, tours, theatres.
And dont worry, there are still some Fireworks coming out of Champagne bottles at the end of act one.
Did I miss anything?
I havnt seen the show since 4th grade, im in 11th right now, so i prolly saw the origional stuff. but i was so amazed, it sux that they brougth it down a bit
they still do the fireworks at the end of "Be Our Guest", it's not THAT scaled down. The sets are just smaller as they were built to move for the first national tour which was the sit-down tour that played for several months not the second one which was scaled down enormously in order to move from place to place within a few days. I think on Broadway it still captures the magic. it's just not quite the same. it is however better than nothing as the score is just so beautiful ... ugh ... you'll still be floating off your seat. and thank goodness they still use "A Change In Me" as the armature productions that are popping up are not allowed to use it at this point.
A few less knives here, a few less forks there & what happened to the candlestick ?
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/12/04
"...it just feels like a glorified Disney World stage show."
I never saw it at the Palace so I can't comment on the first part, but even so. Maybe it was the fact that I was subjected to CCR, or maybe it's that I'm STILL not over Melanie in Chicago...either way, I definitely didn't enjoy the show, but that's probably because I don't see it's target audience really being older than...well not 19. In my defense, it was my friend who decided that "that girl from 'Even Stephens'" sounded like a GREAT idea.
If you're young enough, you'll like it, but don't get me wrong...it's no Brooklyn.
yeah, cuz' brooklyn raises the bar on good theatre...
This is sort of off topic, but yet still about the Beauty and the Beast set. I saw the National tour in Nashville in 98. Does anyone know if this was the first national tour, or second. I'm wondering because I thought when I saw it, the set was amazing along with the special effects and costumes. Though it was not "Lion King" or "Phantom" spectacle, the set was still top bar. Any help or knowledge would help.
It was probably the first because the second nataional tour's sets were not "top bar".
I'm pretty sure fireworks don't come out of the champagne bottles. Isn't it smoke instead?
Actualy its paper streamers (that shoot straight into the house) and smoke, but it gives the effect of fireworks.
Leading Actor Joined: 1/9/05
I'm torn on the champagne bottle effect at the end of "Be Our Guest." I saw the original show in '94 and liked the pyrotechnics used, they used the same pyrotechnics when I saw the show in '96 in Atlanta. I caught the show this summer and was a little disappointed initially at the use of CO2 instead of the pyrotechnics. I got to thinking, and the CO2 is more fitting since it is the substance that actually comes out of a champagne bottle when it is opened. I saw the Theater of the Stars production of BandB in January and they had a clever twist on the champagne bottles. Their bottles shot real bubbles from a concealed bubble machine. This was the the best execution of the effect I'd ever seen. Anyway, the Broadway show has not been scaled down too terribly. I hate the purple curtain with the logo on it. The town set is lacking as well, other than that, it's still pretty much the full show. Atleast they kept the whole orchestra (minus a second flute I believe) when they moved houses, this is uncommon when a show goes to a smaller house.
andyf- Come on now, no show can compare to the masterpiece that is Brooklyn.
*rolls her eyes*
I do think that the way it was scaled down was a shame and that it lost a lot. I still think the score is beautiful and "If I Can't Love Her" will always be one of my favorite musical theater songs, I just think it's sad that the people who are seeing it for the first time now are not seeing it in the magnificent form it used to be in.
Videos