Mary Poppins Arrives on Broadway Oct 2006, Lion King Moves to Minskoff June 2006- Page 3

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 9:05pm

when in june does the minskoff start refurbishing, and how long will it take? im supposed to see it in july with my little cousin...
or does the lion king OPEN in june at the minskoff?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 10:08pm

I think they mean its going to open in June, one week after it leaves the New Amsterdam. FIDDLER is closing in a month or so, and unless they have a VERY brief engagement of something else, the Minskoff will probably be dark until LION KING opens which gives them five months for improvements/refurbishment.
Updated On: 11/10/05 at 10:08 PM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 10:19pm

Can I say SUTTON, please?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 10:42pm

Yeah, Sutton would be good.

Sorry, isn't the Minksoff rather close to the New Amsterdam? I'm not from NYC, just trying to go on memory here.

The Producers won?! Wow, sorry - I know i'm a little late, but wow, I don't get what ppl see in that show. Its good but not THAT GOOD.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 10:54pm

The New Amsterdam is on 42nd and Broadway. The Minskoff is on Broadway between 45th and 46th. So they're fairly close, but there are several theaters in between them.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/10/05 at 11:40pm

I'm saddened Laura Michelle Kelly won't be coming over here with Mary Poppins. I read so many wonderful things about her. However, may I suggest ERIN DILLY? Every time I see Chitty, I think to myself how delightful she would be in this.

Didn't someone on this board say that the number where the toys come alive and attack the children will be gone?

As for the price tag....people and families are still paying $100 (or is it $110 now?) for Lion King. By all accounts, they are paying $100 for Tarzan. The New Amsterdam, however, is structured such that they can have a few price ranges. The balcony seats are definitely affordable.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:21am

Since Mary Poppins opened in London, I have read in several different places that Laura Michelle Kelly signed a contract that stated she would open in the role if the show did indeed come Stateside. Is this information simply inaccurate? I know it was stated officially and find it hard to believe that it was just plain wrong.

Mary Poppins IS a name itself. This show does not need a "name" to sell and I will be truly sad if genuine talent and a perfect match for this particular role are sacrificed for a "name." Yes, I realize it happens all the time, but it's difficult enough to accept in every other case where it occurs, let alone in a situation where the Disney name and the property can sell the show as is.

JMO.

[timote316]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:35am

Oo, Erin Dilly is a great idea. She's amazing in Chitty.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:50am

Yes but she's not a name. As Michael Bennet said...Disney is looking for a "name" actress to help turn this show into a solid hit instead of a soft one.

As for Kate Winslet, Keira Knightley and Minnie Driver...I just don't see it. Maybe Kate.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 2:17am

"I have read in several different places that Laura Michelle Kelly signed a contract that stated she would open in the role if the show did indeed come Stateside."

Yes that was reported here -- incorrectly. Cameron McIntosh doesn't have the power to offer any performer an International Contract because he doesn't have jurisdiction over American Actors Equity. Kelly would have to be petitioned and very possibly could be declined permission. Thus no producer can put a guarantee like that into a contract.

"Mary Poppins IS a name itself. This show does not need a "name" to sell and I will be truly sad if genuine talent and a perfect match for this particular role are sacrificed for a "name."

See my quote earlier. It's apparently not so big a name to keep the London production from grossing only about 85 percent capacity less then one year into the run. Poppins doesn't have the spectacle of LION KING or TARZAN and has a substantially higher budget then BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Plus there is the problem (for most tourists anyway) that this is NOT the film on stage, but a very different animal. Disney sees all this as a potential liability and want to protect their show. I can't blame them after CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG.

But even though they are apparently on the wish list, I'd frankly be surprised if they got a name as big as Winslet or Driver or even Knightly because Disney is notoriously cheap. It's a difficult role to cast because there isn't a major star who is particularly "right" for it.

I'm only reporting what I've heard. My guess is that Poppins will go to a solid performer with some known track record, but that could be as simple as a Sutton Foster or an Idina Menzel (no I'm not suggesting her, merely using an example).

I'd actually suggest Kristin Chenoweth, but they would never find two people shorter then her to play the children.



Updated On: 11/11/05 at 02:17 AM

[pab]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 5:27am

The Times Article on the move

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 7:29am

Cameron Mackintosh doesn't have the power to offer an international contract? If he doesn't then who on earth does? He's one of the biggest producers around. Is it possible that her return to Broadway in Poppins was sorted out while she was here for Fiddler? She had already been cast in the London production when she accepted the role in Fiddler, after all.

I'd actually suggest Kristin Chenoweth, but they would never find two people shorter then her to play the children.

Now THAT was funny.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 7:55am

YAWN - Carry On!

[Norbert Leo's Butt]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:11am

where's practically perfect? she's usually pretty clued up on all this!

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:27am

I think Sutton would make a great Mary Poppins. I agree that Mary Poppins as a title is enough to sell the show. But having Sutton play her, would give us all someone in the theatre community to talk about.

Bernadette Peters, although I very much LOVE LOVE LOVE that woman, I'm not too thrilled on her Brit accent. Song and dance really kinda gets on my nerves...I prefer an American voice on her. Plus, this isn't Mary Poppins sponsored by AARP. Bernadette needs more age appropriate roles.

Also I might wonder about (theatre community) Alice Ripley. Maybe it's just me, but I think she'd be "practically perfect" (thanks?) for the role.

Updated On: 11/11/05 at 09:27 AM

[Norbert Leo's Butt]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:32am

you need to be practically perfect......see what i did there?!

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 10:13am

I thought about this a while, and am I the only one who cannot see Lion King working at the Minskoff at all?

I personally think now that Lion King shouldve stayed where it is and Mary Poppins shouldve moved into the Minskoff.

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 10:27am

I think Lion King should stay put as well, with Poppins moving in EARLY into the Hilton after Chitty closes...say a nice May opening in '06? Poppins would look lovely in the Hilton

[Tigger]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:17am

I think Harvey Fierstein should do the role...That should bring'em in!

[EganFan2]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:32am

Keira Knightley is out. Some article said she was auditioned for the Phantom film even though she said she couldn't sing. They said "You really can't sing, can you?". Minnie Driver would be awesome but I don't know how much of a vocal range she has.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 12:29pm

The answer to your question Pop Culture boy is no one. No producer has the power to offer a Broadway contract without Equity approval. And Equity doesn't negotiate contracts three years in advance. Now, if he threw an ALW and said: "This show was written for Laura Michelle Kelly. No Laura Michelle Kelly, no Mary Poppins on Broadway. Period," -- Equity might be swayed.

But the fact that she's been on Broadway before means nothing. A lot of people have the false assumption that once a Brit has appareaed on Broadway as part of a trade, they can return at any time. And it just doesnt work that way. She would have to go through the entire process all over again with Equity, who would certainly fight her being "uniquely qualified" or a "star."

I'm not saying its impossible for her to come over with the show -- just trying to clarify some misconceptions about how AEA works with international performers.

Another suggestion: How about Lauren Ambrose?

Updated On: 11/11/05 at 12:29 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 12:43pm

I was actually shocked to see that Michael Ball had to be cleared through an exchange with Equity for WIW.

I, too, was thinking of Lauren Ambrose.

[Dame Fanadette]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:03pm

If they are looking for famous people how about Jennifer Garner? I think she would be wonderful.

[Amy Archer]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:28pm

Ewwwww.

[Dame Fanadette]

Posted: 11/11/05 at 1:38pm

Elaborate.... It really peeves me when people do like ewwww and stuff like that. Tell us why you feel she would not work?