MARY POPPINS: Commercial and Questions.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:20pm

Just saw the commercial.
It's the London cast, so do they get paid for that?
And again the Broadway cast gets screwed like the did when they decided not to make a Broadway Cast Album.

And they are making a little above a Million a week, but how much can be profit?

The nut has to be very high and the profits are being split between DISNEY and Cameron INC.

And I still hear hawkers on Broadway selling tkts for $40.

Will this show have a short two year run like London?

And will DISNEY let Ashley Brown perform in BROADWAY BARES?

What do you think?

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:23pm

Will this show have a short two year run like London?

And will DISNEY let Ashley Brown perform in BROADWAY BARES?


A) The London Production is still open and to my knowledge has not posted a closing date.

B) They let Josh Strickland so I don't see why not.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:27pm

why isn there a cast recording yet?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:35pm

A. I thought I read it was closing in London to make room for JERSEY BOYS.

B. Not sure, DISNEY knew Josh was doing it, and he is in a loincloth already. MARY is a different story.

There will be No Broadway cast recording.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:37pm

There won't be a cast recording because Disney sees no need to record one. The London CD is selling well at the theatre, so why should they record another when the London one is selling fine.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 12:34am

It depends on if Brown wants to do Broadway bares.

The reason why disney didn't make another cast album is because the London one is the same songs and whatnot and most people who would buy the thing are tourists who buy it on the way out of the theatre. And they really can't tell you the difference between the people that they saw onstage and the people on the album itself. i think it's a smart move because as much as I would love to hear brown's soprano on recording it would coast too much money to do. I think disney learned this lesson when they created a beauty and the best album for EVERY international prodution. Even for ones that wer in other countries but still in english. this is the same reason why Les Miserables didn't make another ecordingfor the revial. It A coasts a lot of money to make one and B there is already and english recording ( in Les Miserable's case 4 english recordings) and thus no need to make another one.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 12:44am

A. I thought I read it was closing in London to make room for JERSEY BOYS.

What you read was that Des and the producers or Jersey Boys want that theatre.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 12:49am

thanks neddy

I still think when Ashley got the role
A part of her excitement was that she would get an OBC recording.
Too bad she won't
So maybe she will Bare her Bod at BROADWAY BARES to say
Screw U Tom Schumacher.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 12:52am

It's hard for me to imagine Ashley Brown as a sexual being and baring all at Broadway Bares. Not that she isn't beautiful, but because of Beauty & the Beast and Mary Poppins. That said, though, she had a couple of hot moves in Poppins during Supercal...
Updated On: 5/9/07 at 12:52 AM

[Mouses Magic]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 1:39am

Seriously...CurtainPullDowner...Do you EVER have any Positive comment about a Disney show. If you do a search of your posts, its a plethora of knocks against Disney on Broadway.

"And they are making a little above a Million a week, but how much can be profit? "

Its the 3rd/4th (it has flip-slopped the last few weeks) f*cking best selling show on Broadway and you are STILL trying to knock it to see if it is making money. Its making OVER a million!!! Honestly, stop...not only is it annoying how you knock EVERY little thing about Disney, but it also comes off as juvenile and immature. We understand you dont like Disney, but honestly...move on.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 1:42am

Neddy,

Des and crew were consiering the prince of wales as a POSSIBLE place to put Jersey Boys if it ever went to London. Thus, this started rumors about how Poppins is closing over there because JB wants the space.

[zerodanny]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 2:02am

Well JB whoever he/she may be can go and take a long ride somewhere else he/she AINT HAVING that space!!! :P

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 10:04am

Winston- I am telling you that is the theater they want- not a possible one.

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 10:54am

Just to make it clear - I presume you mean The Prince Edward and not The Prince of Wales. Mamma Mia looks fairly secure in the latter...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 12:00pm

Actually I don't hate DISNEY.
I grew up rushing home from school to see THE MICKY MOUSE CLUB, loved Sunday evenings with my family watching THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY, and I enjoy the theme parks, even EURODISNEY.
And I don't evem begrudge them for having many shows on Broadway, if they have the money and the product, I say produce it.
But since they are major players on Broadway now I feel we should discuss their shows and what they are doing to change the business.

I don't get what they did with POPPINS, I know they wanted it more like the books but to me there is no story now, and it is just an unconnected string of musical numbers, and poor Ms. Brown (who I think is extremely talented) has no character or story arc in the show.
I likd THE LION KING when I first saw it, but revisiting recently I was much less impressed.
And I enjoy BEAUTY AND THE BEAST beside some up and down casting, I still don't understand why they are closing a show that is still making money for an untried property like MERMAID.
And TARZAN???
I mean c'mon.

[caitlinette]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 3:07pm

Ignore. Updated On: 5/9/07 at 03:07 PM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 9:32pm

Curtain...

They are actually likely saving quite a bit of cash because Disney OWNS the theatre...so no rent, etc. I'd say the nut is probably very high, around $600,000 or so (no producer would be dumb enough nowadays to go far above that...I hope). That's over $400,000 in profit every week.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/9/07 at 9:58pm

Eastwickan, Thank you I clearly got confused.

Neddy,

I couldn't tell from the article in the daily mail. It was unclear from the tone if they were looking at the theatre or for sure if it was the theatre they wanted. It made it sound as if The Prince Edward was one of the theatres that they were looking at. And keep in mind that part of the problems is that Poppins is playing there. But, there was a thread on this exact topic on the west end board. And after reading it, it made me think that they know how to handel a run of a show. They were talking about how the show has been playing for a good few years and already recouped and that it is time for it to go. I like how they are talking about how it has served its time and it should go as oppose to having it run into the ground just because it is making money.

[Mouses Magic]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 12:11am

CurtainPullDowner..

I just personally dont understand your comment about profit when the show is making over a million a week and is the 3rd/4th best selling show each week. I understand the show has a large nut but as stated, they own the theater. It just seems to me, in my opinion, that your "grasping for straws" when it comes to trying to find something to knock on the show. If you dislike the show itself, which it seems you do, thats fine...its your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think its a bit of a stretch however when you start trying to knock the show on how much money its making. I mean, over a million a week is phenomonal for ANY Broadway show.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 12:22am

Winston- That is there problem, Poppins is still making money so they aren't planning on closing it- there is one other theater though that Des is looking at.

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 1:07am

Last I checked, Disney doesn't actually own the New Amsterdam. I think they got a 99 year lease on it or something of that nature but they don't actually own it. I also know that they've been trying to buy it recently but I don't think they have it yet.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 4:39pm

You seem to be correct:
From Answers.com:
The Nederlander Organization purchased the landmark property in 1982, but it would not be on the road to rehabilitation for another eight years. In 1990, after a court battle, the State and City of New York assumed ownership of the New Amsterdam and many other theatres on 42nd Street.

Despite this, I think Disney has more control over the New Amsterdam than it would over other theatres.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 5:22pm

Yes, it is true that NY city and state owned The New Amsterdam Theatre. They then sold it to disney. Disney owns the theatre. They have a STRONG relationship with the nederlander's because thier LA production of Lion King played at the Pantages and that did well and is also owned by the Nederlanders. When they moved the Lion king to the Minskoff apperently they were talks of buying it from the Nederlanders.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 6:15pm

The reason they use the London cast in the commercial - they didn't film much press footage for the NY production.