Hogging of big theatres?

Just wondering how people feel about the fact that several large Broadway theatres are currently tied up for potentially long periods of time. What I mean is, the Winter Garden is going to be filled for years with "Mamma Mia." The New Amsterdam Theatre will be full of "Lion King" until Cheno and Shoshideden bring their grandkids to see it. "Phantom" shows no sign of slowing down at the Majestic and "Spamalot" and "DRS" will be at the Shubert and Imperial for some time to come. "Wicked" looks pretty comfy at the Gershwin for quite sometime to come and I have a feeling "Chitty" will be a hit at the Hilton/Ford Center. On a smaller scale, I'm thinking "Hairspray" will be holding court at the Neil Simon for a while. I'm just thinking that if big musicals such as "Mary Poppins" are looking to come in, where are they to go? I'm thinking "Woman in White" will take the Minskoff and if that happens, there really is no where for "Mary Poppins" to go unless "La Cage" closes at the Marquis or "Mambo Kings" fails at the Broadway.
What are people's thoughts on these big, long running shows holding on to big prize musical houses for years?

---

This isn't an egalitarian system, where everyone gets a chance to be on Broadway just because. Does it irk me that Brooklyn, for example, is still running? Yeah, a bit. But what can you do? Life's unfair, and that show got to the Plymouth first.

Didn't Disney renovate the New Amsterdam in order to put The Lion King inside it? I'd say they're entitled to sit there as long as they please.

It is a working theater. It's housing a production. I don't see the problem here.

Aww. :)

I have a soft spot for Disney, evil corporation-ness and all. There was a point in my life when I knew The Lion King by heart, beginning to end. And in a world where shows are put together with seemingly no artistic premise except "let's make money," shows that actually try to do something creative- which, you have to admit, The Lion King does- don't look too bad to me.

The first 20 mins is damn good. After that it's nap time.

---

Thank you Munk!
That's exactly what I meant.
I wish shows transfered more like they did in the 60's and 70's and like they still do in London. For example...when Hairspray closes, move Mamma Mia to the Neil Simon....free up the Winter Garden.

---

The New Amsterdam wouldn't have been restored to the degree that it was without Disney. None of the big theatre owning corporations were able to step up to the plate to part with the money to restore that theatre to its original splendor. Plus, in the mid 80s, that theatre was almost completely ruined by the Nederlander Organization when they did some preliminary work on it, never sealed the roof, and allowed snow and rain to come into it for four years, wrecking it far beyond the original damage. Hate The Lion King all you want, but Disney saved that theatre when it was beyond saving, and I think they are entitled to keep that show running there to their heart's content.

---

No one said THE LION KING should close for another show. We know that Disney restored the legendary theatre. AH!

---

Me & My Girl was forced out to make room for Nick & Nora if I am correct

If that was indeed the case, this blows holes in the arguement set forth in this thread. If I owned a theater, as long as a show was putting fannies in the seats, I would let it stay indefinitely

---

I totally agree that Disney should be able to sit on the New Amsterdam as long as they want. I do however, have a feeling that Lion King will move when Mermaid materializes. On another note, Disney might be a large corporation, but atleast they keep their houses nice. Many of the Broadway houses I've seen aren't up to snuff in terms of repair, etc. Lunt-Fontanne was terrible when I saw Titanic, they really spruced it up for Beast.

Does anyone remember how the entire interior of the theatre was painted blue for TITANIC?

---

I didn't think this conversation was about theatre restoration.

---