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

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 1:38pm

Craig, I was mostly joking. Although I do not think money is the only consideration. Clear Channel gives lots of money to its radio stations as well, but then insists they toe a very strict corporate line, including making news shows refrain from any negative stories on the Bush administration.

There are far more important things than money. If clear channel invested in Bway for the are then great, but if there were strings attached then they need to keep away.

The money must come from somewhere, but where that money comes from is actually extremely important.

[442namffug]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 1:40pm

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.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 1:44pm

MARY POPPINS is their new show...and, thus, will draw a larger crowd. The New Amsterdam is larger theatre which means more tickets to sell.

The Minskoff is a smaller theatre but it has a larger orchestra, so by moving THE LION KING there...they still continue to make a profit in a smaller theatre and give their larger theatre to their new show.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 2:50pm

"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.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:04pm

"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."

There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is that, Mary Poppins will be their hot new show, and they'll want to put it in the theater they own. It's kind of their "flagship" theater, if you will.

The other reason is purely logistical. I remember reading that there are only four or five theaters that were configured correctly to handle the flying in Mary Poppins, and the Minskoff was one of them.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:07pm

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

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:14pm

Marry Poppins is going to the New Am, and Tarzan is going to the Palace.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:16pm

No, TARZAN is going into the Richard Rogers.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 3:58pm

People may recognize the names of composers, but The Lion King will always be a Disney show first, and then an Elton John show.

I personally love Disney movies, so it's not that I'm anti-Disney. I just think that the saturation of Disney shows on Broadway is unncessary and selfish when they already have places like Disney World to as a venue, while other composers (and producers) don't have that opportunity.

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 03:58 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 4:17pm

"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.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 4:20pm

I stand by my statement.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 4:41pm

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

[magruder]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:44pm

Can't say that I would lump The Lion King in with "unartistic family fluff". The Lion King is not a deathless piece of writing, but there is tremendous, stunning artistry on that stage.

[Jilani]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:46pm

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.

[cathywellerstein]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:48pm

oooh! a dark mary poppins! that sounds so exciting. i read the book, and it's so different from the movie.

i want to see this now.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:52pm

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

[magruder]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:53pm

Despite PL Travers' protestations, Mary Poppins is not such a peach in the Disney movie either. She's kind of a bitch.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:56pm

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.

[Jilani]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:56pm

Magruder, that's very true - and actually, the only thing P.L. Travers liked about the movie was Julie Andrews's portrayal of Mary Poppins. In the stage version (at least, the version currently in London), she is even more of a bitch, and it's awesome!

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 5:59pm

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.

[magruder]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:03pm

Yeah, not too long ago, I sat down and watched that remastered DVD. She's pretty starchy to the kids, and of course, the father is a total asshole. Thought the film was more tough and less saccharine than its reputation, dancing penguins be damned. And I choked up when Jane says of her father, "I don't think he likes us at all."

[C is for Company]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:04pm

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.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:06pm

Yeah...but seeing people dance with puppets on their heads is not my type of fare.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:09pm

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

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:14pm

*sigh*

I forgot to add that I think TLK's score is bad, too.

I know it's art, but you know...I think it's creepy. Avenue Q is another form of art. It uses puppets, too, but is my type of fare because...GAH. I don't know. I think I might go bash myself in a corner.

Personally, I think Ragtime should've won that Best Musical Tony.

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 06:14 PM