I Feel Like Disney Might Not Do Shows On Broadway Anymore — Page 2

Theatrefanboy1 said: "We really missed out on them not bringing hunchback to Broadway that was an incredible production. I hope Hercules makes its way to Broadway as well as Pocahontas. My hope as well is that they start investing in first rate revivals of beauty and the beast and AiDa. As well as a reworking of Tarzan"

It feels like a lifetime ago, and I was still a teen, but I did see the original 1999 James Lapine (book and direction) version of Hunchback in Berlin and THAT was an incredible production, although I'm not sure if the technology would be as impressive now (I still wish I knew how Lapine got involved in the first place--he wasn't exactly known for massive, complex productions.) I don't think the Scott Schwartz production was nearly as good, nor was the new book although overall I think it was smart to just get rid of the Gargoyles (even if they were better used in Berlin than in the film.) Schwartz' background in "story theatre" sometimes I feel gets in the way of his productions (though his Hunchback worked much better than his Prince of Egypt.)

I could have this wrong, but it seems like Michael Eisner was the big champion of Hunchback at Disney (he also wanted a TV movie version of the musical) and with him gone Disney is happy enough to just leave it as a licensed property (although not that long ago it had a significant Japanese production.)

so not true as I have a friend that works for disney theatricals and they do have plans for future musicals on broadway

EricMontreal22 said: "Falsettolands said: " The shows of theirs that didn't turn a profit initially have almost always had a return investment somewhere down the line (removing Tarzan from the equation)"

You know the new production of Tarzan they did for Germany ran in Hamburg from October 2008 to June 2013 (and the same staging but different production also ran in the Netherlands from 2007-2009 for two and a half years.) So I'm not sure Tarzan does have to be removed from that equation https://ovrtur.com/production/2903495

"

I am aware of that fact and I stand by what I said- there is a different licensing agreement altogether for international productions.

EricMontreal22 said: "joevitus said: "Do producersreally fear critics anymore? That seems like an outmoded form of communication. Pull quotes for ads are great, and of course any positive word helps generate buzz. Tony awards are something to brag about. But the days when critics made or broke a show seem to me long gone."

I think it completely depends on the type of show it is. But certainly for the kinds of musicals Disney does, I don't think critics are all that important (and while not Disney, it feels like this *really* started to change with Wicked being a quick blockbuster despite reviews, even if there are earlier examples--like how Les Miz initially got across the board bad reviews in London.)

"

Goes back even further than that. Lloyd Webber's shows have almost always gotten overwhelmingly bad reviews. Oddly, Frank Rich, who really really hated his stuff, gave a grudgingly positive review to Cats.

verywellthensigh said: "No more Disney adaptations?

Oh, no. However will we cope?"

I'm just jumping to conclusions with my weird doom and gloom moment. Please, don't take it too seriously. I need to close this thread and not comeback. Thank goodness this is is my only thread.

darquegk said: "People often blame Scott Schwartz for the Schwartz men’s descent into story theatre as cliche, but… his dad is Stephen Schwartz. The composer of Godspell and Pippin, probably the two most mainstream popular works to ever use story theatre as a backbone.

Hell, before its Broadway premiere, Wicked was story theatre rooted in LA."

Touche and this is completely true. Which is why when it's doubled down with Scott directing his dad's stuff it's particularly--well not to my liking. (I didn't see Scott's Godspell, but I think it's fair to say that Godspell does welcome that approach. Otherwise...)

What is story theater?

MagicalMusical said: "What is story theater?"

As Dramamama611 says, it grew out of a production called Paul Sills' Story Theatre. The "story theatre" name has since gone on to be used to describe productions that resemble the style of that production.

Generally, it's used to describe shows/productions that are typically based on fairy or folk tales, myths, or legends and have a loose, improvisational feel. There tends to be no fourth wall and they lean into the idea that you are seeing a troupe of actors putting on a show. There is usually direct narration to the audience by the company, there is usually a scrappy or DIY-quality to the production and there is a very heightened sense of theatricality. They also tend to blur the lines between musicals and plays. It's most commonly associated with theatre for young audiences but there are some notable larger productions (Peter and the Starcatcher is probably the best recent example of this style).

When done well, it can be a magical and very fun example of how theatre can capture the imagination to create new worlds from very little. When done poorly, it's a cloying example of theatre kid try-hard.

Updated On: 8/23/24 at 10:45 AM

TheQuibbler said: "Sounds a lot like panto. Is that an apt comparison?"

I would say story theatre is usually less irreverent and more barebones in terms of design than panto- the emphasis is really on whimsy and audience imagination, not so much comedy necessarily- but they're in the same world.

Updated On: 8/23/24 at 01:51 PM

Our pleasure (Sorry for speaking for you, Kad.)



Done well, Story Theater is delightful. Done poorly? Yikes.