THE LION KING turns 10 on Broadway.
Can you believe it's already been 10 years? I mean, it feels like CHICAGO has been there forever, but THE LION KING is thriving. And I don't mean financially. How is it that CHICAGO and RENT, two shows that, in my opinion, are written much better than THE LION KING and yet they are sooooo bad right now, and LK can still not only rack in the dough, but the show is in GREAT shape!! It was even in great shape before the transfer, I hear.
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/15/05
Oh my...
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/8/04
I can't believe I saw TLK the weekend after it opened.
Now that's something.
Stand-by Joined: 4/12/06
aww... I share a birthday with one of my least favorite shows... interesting...
Chorus Member Joined: 11/18/06
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/04
Rent is still doing business in the 70s most weeks, sometimes more, sometimes less. I wouldn't call that bad by any stretch, given how long its been open. Chicago is also pulling in good attendance, granted by stunt casting.
Even still, the weekly running costs for both shows allow for low(er than capacity) attendance on a somewhat regular basis.
Screw attendance, I'm talking "shape" as in how GOOD it is.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/04
Ah, well, in that case, I agree with you re: RENT. I haven't seen it on Broadway in a year, but I can't say I was impressed with most of the cast when I did see it.
Lion King is a machine, who's primary star was its director. As long as there are actors to fill the parts in her vision, it will continue to be a success. There aren't any roles in Lion King that require actors with any particular flair or stand-out quality. You basically need four or five lead actors who can manage stereotypical english or african accents and can sing decently and you've got a hit that just keeps on running. The other shows you mention, however, are built around the performances of the actors. Chicago in particular with its bare staging.
I feel so old.
Joined: 12/31/69
Wow, I saw it with the OBC too
Where are my crows' feet to show for this...
"How is it that CHICAGO and RENT, two shows that, in my opinion, are written much better than THE LION KING and yet they are sooooo bad right now, and LK can still not only rack in the dough, but the show is in GREAT shape!!"
Simple: It's Disney, the movie was VERY popular, and it's a family-friendly show. Duh.
Joined: 12/31/69
Gosh Theatreboy it's so easy, you go do it. Really. Go.
I've seen the Lion King a few times during it's ten years and have never seen a cast that wasn't giving 100%. I won't say that it's the best show on Broadway by any stretch, but I have to hand it to Disney, they have put togther a first class show that is not showing it's age.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/23/05
That is a year from now, why you posting it now?
Yeah, um, it's only been nine years. Planning a party Capn? I'd love an invite!
OMG! That is unbelievable! And to think I saw it with the OBC. Now I feel old
This makes me think of Ragtime.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
The only people who care about the shape of a show are on the message boards. You think the tourists would know the difference?
^They will once they buy and listen to the "soundtrack!"
When I saw RENT last month, the two "tourists" seated in front of me walked out.
And as I stood in line at TKTS, I got into a conversation with some tourists from Australia. They saw RENT the day after I did and thought it was dreadful. They were in line for tickets to BEAUTY & THE BEAST...I persuaded them to see AVENUE Q instead. (They had seen LK in AU and loved it).
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
Maybe they walked out because they thought the show itself sucked. Same with the Australia tourists. Doesn't have to do with "quality."
JoeKv, do what? What's with the attitude? Is what i said really that harsh or outwardly challenging?
Videos