THE LION KING to tranfer to Minskoff in the Spring — Page 2

Quick question...why would they move Lion King?? Why not just keep it at the New Amsterdam, and bring Mary Poppins into the Minskoff? It seems like an unecessary move.

"Sondheim is a composer...Disney is merely a producer. It's not as if Michael Eisner has composed the music and lyrics to all of the shows running. Each show has a different composer and book writer...making them COMPLETELY different from one another.

So your example fails to prove a point."

Disney may be the producer, but it is the same Disney creative team that creates the animated movie behind the musical. Most of these movies and the resulting shows have exact same characters (handsome prince, the beautiful princess, the bad guy, the funny sidekicks) and musical numbers (inspirational ballad, rousing energetic number, bad guy's evil plot song, romantic ballad). Disney movies may have different individuals creating the shows, but they all have the same "Disney" feel to them, which does tend to overshadow the talents of the individual creators.

The average person walking down the street may not know that Alan Menken and Howard Ashman wrote the music to Beauty and the Beast, but they can definitely idenitify it as a Disney show. Using the example from my previous post, I don't know who produced Sweeney Todd or Gypsy, but I can definitely identify them as Sondheim.

It's not necessarily about the individual creators, it's about the overall feel of the shows. Having 5 Disney shows running simultaneously will definitely influence the way Broadway is perceived, in the same way so many musical theater fans complain about the Andrew Lloyd Webber/Cameron Mackintosh monopolies in the 1980s.

---

Every show follows the basic history of theatre.

There is the hero or heroine, and the forces that are that hero's obstacle. Those forces can be nature, fate, or even be in the shape of a person (aka the bad guy).

If Disney chooses to make their heroine a "princess" and that obstacle a "bad guy" then so be it. That's their method. There is no Disney-ification of Broadway. It's not going to mold how people perceieve theatre.

No matter how you slice it...Disney is the producer...Sondheim is the composer. It all depends on who you're dealing with. If you are dealing with the typical tourist...yes they probably won't recognize who Howard Ashman or Alan Menken are. But avid theatre-goers will. Typical tourists WILL, however, recognize the names of Elton John and Phil Collins. No matter who worked on the animated movie...it is a completely different team that works on the show. Making each show's staging and "feel" different from the other.

I saw no similarities between the feel of BATB and TLK besides the fact that I was impressed by the amount of work and creativity put into them.

Sometimes I feel people jump on this bandwagon against Disney because they're just looking for something to complain about. Not all people...but some.

---

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 03:07 PM

No, TARZAN is going into the Richard Rogers.

---

"There is no Disney-ification of Broadway."

That is so false it is laughable. Disney has caused corporate america to invade Broadway by producing shows with elements the public knows (the jukebox musicals, the movie-to-stage-show productions) thereby producing unartistic family fluff. While musicals aren't necessarily, nor by definition, considered high art, producers are less willing to allow subjects that may produce controversy (i.e., Bush-bashing, homosexuality that isn't stereotypical, etc.). The corporate producers definitely dictate what they will allow the creators to put in their show. Disney may have hired different artists to do their movies, but I guarantee you that Disney, the producer, was involved in the creation at every single step. I doubt Universal was so involved with "Wicked". Clear Channel probably has a fill-in-the-blanks plot where you stick pop songs in. While Macintosh was definitely personally involved with the creation of the shows he produced, it isn't the same type of involvement that Disney has. Disney, using different artists, created the works. They dictated what they wanted. With Macintosh, artists approached him, and they then collaborated. There is a complete difference.

yes, damn you, Disney, for restoring an incredibly beautiful theater, cleaning up 42nd Street, and offering quality family theater

Just as an aside, don't forget that Mary Poppins is jointly produced by Disney AND Cameron Mackintosh, and contains elements not only of the Disney movie, but of the much darker books that the movie inspired. P.L. Travers (the author of the books) hated the Disney movie, which is why she granted the theatrical rights to Mackintosh. So unless they make significant changes to the production from what I saw in London, trust me, it will be different than a typical Disney show.

Even if all five of the Disney shows play at the same time, I just can't get too upset about it. It isn't as though Disney is artificially propping up their shows with their financial backing; their shows are consistent financial successes because people want to see them. It's simple supply and demand.

Good god! FIVE Disney shows? What is Broadway coming to? Gahhhhh.

---

I love Disney movies (does my icon give it away?) mainly, the Ashman/Menken movies (again, does my icon give it away?). So far, Disney has done no wrong. BATB help cleaned up Times Square, TLK restored what is now one of the most gorgeous theatres on Broadway, and Aida has introduced Adam Pascal to luvtheemcee.
Where has Disney gone wrong? I realize Tarzan seems like a bad choice to many, but from the reviews of the sneak peek it seems as if they're taking a route between Lion King and Aida, which can't be bad. I'm open minded. If anything, Disney has brought more people to Broadway and opened their minds to theatre more.
Believe it or not, Broadway IS a business. Producers can't afford to do a Sondheim every time. They can't do a show that is controversial and will take audiences years to finally grasp. If they did, they'd have no money to another show.
To summarize my post: I'm with FOAnatic on this one.

---

But, it's like they're INVADING Broadway now. Plus, I think The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are both really bad shows. That's my opinion. AIDA should've never closed-it's the only good one out of the three.

I'll still be able to see AIDA (Yay) here in California, though. That's a good thing. Anyway, getting off track...

I think three is enough. Not FIVE.

---

Lion King is one of the most visually stunning shows on broadway! Have you seen it? I mean I prefer aida but lion king was absolutely fantastic to sit through and get a whole new picture-much more earthy and tribal in look and sound- that from the bad movie.

---

If you're underestimating the show in a derrogatory way because of its art form thats fine by me. It doesnt make it bad though. Cause then by what you just said, seems like you would hate avenue q if you were allowed to see it

---