Has THE LION KING lost its quan or did we catch a bad night?- Page 3

[D2]

Posted: 2/22/07 at 3:26pm

I love this thread - I've been so tired of defending myself for the last 8 years because I saw through the glitz of this overhyped production. Even as far back as '99 the cast was bored and giving perfunctory performances, barely a year and a half into the run.

Very few people remember that the original reviews were not raves. Appreciation for Taymor's staging, yes, but not so much for the material.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 2/22/07 at 3:50pm

I think the thing that has surprised me is that most of the discussion around THE LION KING has been around the Disney issue relative to other shows -- BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, TARZAN, MARY POPPINS, and THE LITTLE MERMAID. Had I known or heard that the show was as far removed from the original, I might have simply opted for something else.

Other long-running shows have tended to be better maintained. Not all, of course, but I've seen some that have been tight and good and fun. Goes to that other thread on knowing when to close a show...

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/22/07 at 4:13pm

IMHO, it all depends on the source material in terms of how well you can tolerate repeat viewings. I sat through GREEN BIRD three times and loved it all the more with each viewing, but with LION KING, once you get past the production style and realize there's nothing under it (I mean, please, if you're going to do HAMLET, then do HAMLET), it loses all around.

And frankly, that's what happens with most Disney shows. BATB is all eye candy and not a very good book or score to support it. TARZAN -- well, the less said there the better, I think: they were trying desperately to recreate the initial magic of LK, and it failed miserably. It's running now only because of the Disney name and not because of any inherent quality.

This is why I'm all the more suspicious of LITTLE MERMAID, even tho the BBW hype machine will give me grief about judging a show before seeing it. They've hired a technical and design team that are well known for their high concept work outside musical theatre. It's not much of a story (C'mon, Anderson's original tale isall of five pages, and that's in large print!) and not much of a score with it. But we will see the Disney machine kick in faster than you can say "Under the Sea", and no matter how scathing the reviews, it will run for a decade, if not more.

But when you look at the entire Disney catalog, there's not much that could survive the move to stage without a *lot* of lip gloss applied on top. Even my personal favourite, HERCULES, would have trouble because of story issues that would have to change things radically for it to succeed -- and Disney isnt exactly well known for its ability to adapt.