How Could One Show Be So Awful: Tarzan — Page 2

The songs are classic? Right.

I understand the rope bit, but to me it looks like the ropes are acting as more of harnesses rather than actual vines that they're using, but that's just me. My real complaint came from the begining with the parents and the HUGE ropes. I thought that scene would have been stunning if they had just made the harnesses less obvious.

And I still stand by the fact that Tarzan should have been more Matt Bogartish. I just think his voice and persona fit the story better. Some of the songs seems too "pop" for what the show is about.

well that's your opinion. The CD is non-stop on my iPod and I am in love with the show and the enitre cast. And Disney only has 4 shows on Broadway, I wouldn't consider that "Wal-Mart". Tarzan is an amazing, touching show that people need to stop judging and have an open mind with . You probably would like it a lot better if the Disney name wasn't on it, but because of that you think it's bad. I do respect your opinion, I'm just saying don't discourage people from seeing it.

Aside from the first few minutes, it's just a boring show. So many missed opportunities.

The set is disappointing not just because it is "Disney" but because Bob Crowley is such a gifted designer, and this is just a big green blob of nothing.

It was not an intentional choice to make the Tarzan character "soft." They had no choice. There is a reason he doesn't have a lot of dialog. Draw your own conclusions.

For one producer to have 4 shows running on Broadway simultaneously (soon to be 5) does constitute at least an approach to theme park proportions. Considering the number of shows running, 4 shows is over 10% - a considerable amount.

Shuler Hensley is bored out of his mind and is just playing until his contract is up and he can go into "Young Frankenstein."

Interesting suggestion to use the boxes as a playing space, but that's a tough one considering the boxes are in use by the crew for some of the technical equipment, and also by the a few of the show's masseuses, who are actually working behind those curtains even while the show is in progress.

I'm glad the show has it's fans - at least it is live theater in some form and if it brings a few more young audiences into the fold, more power to it. They will all have time to develop a sense of what is good and bad as they grow up.

---

Updated On: 12/25/06 at 09:37 AM

Corine I love you! LOL. B&tB is definetely the BEST Disney shows = )

Yeah, they're supposed to be vines but you can see the friggin' harnesses.

---

>> But when disney produces four or more shows its not

As D2 rightfully points out, we're not talking about a David Merrick here. We're talking about a corporation, one whose artistic sense has been on the decline for years and one that has been coasting on past glories for way too long. Aside from the work Taymor did wirh LION KING, there's been little in the way of RENT or AVENUE Q style innovation in the approaches to the material. It's just been taking the movie and plunking it on stage. And that's a WalMart approach.

Agreed: Crowley is a gifted designer, and his work here (both as designer and director) almost felt like he was strolling through a contract.

---

My problem with Disney is that they've turned musical theater into a bussiness instead of an art-form. They're just trying to make money off of it rather than make it progressive. I applaud their choices with Lion King and at least Aida was somewhat original, and I'm glad they're creating another somewhat new musical with Lippa, but to me it seems like shows can't survive on Broadway unless they're completley minimal (Sweeney Todd, Spring Awakening, Rent) or mega-musicals. But maybe that's just the way that Broadway was heading? Who knows. I just don't understand why they would create such crap with Tarzan. The performers aren't giving that great of performances, and the show is a total bore. Phil Collins is not a musical theater composer. Josh Strickland is all wrong for his part and Jenn G. is about as personable as a rock. I just don't get it. Oh well. I guess there's an audience out there somewhere for it? At least it made Frank Wildhorn look good.

I'm surprised it's still open.

Winston, you missed the point. Disney and Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh should all be blamed because they've turned the musical into a spectacle. People can't appreciate 'small' musicals anymore - at least the average theatergoer - because they don't have some flying chandlier or something coming up through a trap door. I just think it's lame that these kinds of shows have to rely so much on the spectacle rather than the score or the book or the acting values. I don't care if Disney is employing actors, they're turning them into walking drones. They just do what they have to do to get by. I wonder how much time Bob Crowley spent on the acting values in Tarzan and the motionvations of each character in their scenes rather than teh overall look of the show.

With the exception of Drowsy Chaperone, most new musicals or revivals, that open and do not have a big name producer or actor seem to flop. Wonderful Town flopped despite great reviews. High Fidelity flopped and now people are saying "it wasn't that bad." But because things aren't household names, then people don't give them a chance. If Cameron Mackintosh would put his name on something like Grey Gardens and help out a show that would not normally do too well on Broadway, then i would applaud him. If you strip the Disney musicals down to their bare bones, they suck. There's nothing of substance. And I know I'm just taking a consensus and I don't know what EVERY tourist is thinking, but that's the scheme.

And WINSTON please please please work on your spelling. Just take the time to the look the words up, you'll learn that way. Seriously.

I think they should do a whole casting switch and let Jen play Tarzan and let Josh play Jane... They are much more suited for those roles than the one's they have been cast in.

I meant the songs were classic in that I think most people know "youll be in my heart" etc and associate them with Tarzan.

and of course Disney had a choice in the type of Tarzan they have. They had a casting process afterall. I know who 5 of the final 6 were and I wouldnt consider them all the same type. What are you trying to say? They didnt realize Josh would walk/sound the fine line between feminine and masculine when they hired him? And consider this... in the jungle there wouldnt be this sort of 'stereotype' of what being masculine means like we're fed in our world. In that world the alpha male is determined by ability to conquer another, no more no less. One could reasonably assume that apes dont sit around discussing the latest way to wear their fur, how to get around while looking cool or why loose wrists have a connection to their sexual preference.

Josh was cast for his singing, his physique and for the chance to cash in on his American Idol status. Once they got into rehearsal, however, it was realized that his *acting* abilities were, shall we say, *lacking* and by then it was too late - the publicity machine was already in full motion, the advance sale was huge, and it was decided to forge forward with fingers crossed.

---