THE LION KING to tranfer to Minskoff in the Spring — Page 3

While I don't deny the idea of the "Disney-fication" of Broadway, I fail to see why this is such a bad thing. As other people have mentioned, how is this different from David Merrick producing numbers of shows at one time? Than the Weisslers having more than one show at a time? And why is it BAD? Aside from the financial advantages of having Disney on Broadway, Disney shows bring CHILDREN to the theatre. They open up the world of Broadway to a younger generation. Without The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, what Broadway show is family-friendly, aside from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang which may as well be Disney? You can't bring an 8-year-old to Sweeney Todd. I always have found Disney to appeal to "children of all ages" and I like that this is being expanded to Broadway. You act like they have plans to run everyone out, I hardly think that's the case. They had three shows when Aida was running, and we all survived just fine.

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

I realize that this board seems to have a lot of people who dislike the Lion King, and that's totally fine. But those people are apparently in the minority of theatregoers, because it continues to be sold out eight years into its run. This doesn't diminish the validity of the opinions of those who dislike it, but the bottom line is, the broader a show's appeal, the more likely it is to sell tickets in the marketplace and be successful. That's just the way the market works. If Disney understands this principle and continues to produce high-quality shows with broad appeal, I just don't see a problem there.

OK they totally should scrap poppins and just put in for it bedknobs and broomsticks. Lol idc if its not good, Angela would come back and make everything better!*fades back into a CHIMERICAL state of mind*

---

Excuse me, but I didn't say "puppets on heads is stupid". I said it wasn't my type of fare, and I think it's creepy. That's all. Never said it was stupid. I mean, I know the work that gets put into making the puppets. But still, once again, I think it's a bit creepy and is not my type of fare. Don't misquote people, okay?

---

Oh. Well, you said it...

Gah, I'm not going to be involved in anymore of this before I get bashed in the head.

---

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 06:36 PM

I'd like to see them do musicals other than just the family friendly stuff. After all, they have movie divisions that make more grownup fare.

The head of Disney theatricals himself said that while Aida wasn't a grand slam homerun like TLK, he'd love to have more shows that performed as well.

FOAnatic, you may still see Disney as "just a producer" like the Nederlanders or something, but they definitely have more influence in their shows than you're willing to admit. The Nederlanders deal with budgets and marketing and stuff. The Disney people have their hand in EVERY aspect of the creative process. The Nederlanders are financial backers and recognize that the creative process is not their place.

If the ticket buying public felt that there were too many Disney shows on Broadway, they'd say so by not attending them anymore.
I doubt it. The majority of the people that attend these shows are tourists with children. They see Disney on Broadway as just another themepark, and will continue to treat it as such. There are countless groups that argue against Disney's domination of children's popular culture in general, but Disneyland is celebrating their 50th anniversary. There will always be someone somewhere that wants to buy tickets to a Disney show just like there will always be someone somewhere that wants to see a Disney movie. But that doesn't mean you should have 5 out in the movie theaters at the same time.

---

Can I not count? What's the fifth?

Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, Poppins and...?

I still hold that producing family-friendly shows is not something that should be held against them. If Disney doesn't, then who will? It's what Disney does!

I think the main argument of Disney is that they produce the same crap over and over again. Nothing Disney produces on stage is even remotely intelligent and all of it plays to a level children understand. There are a lot more adults in the world than children, so I don't see why everything has to be directed towards them. AIDA could have worked if it had a good score, book, and choreography. It was a step in the right direction, even if it was a horrible show. All of Disney's characters, are...well, cartoonish. They never develop any type of personality. And while they are based on cartoons, that doesn't mean they should be staged versions of cartoons. I personally didn't find anything impressinve with Julie Taymor's designs for TLK. The music bland and the book is too childish. The African music doesn't work when mixed with Elton Johns crappy score, and the only two upbeat songs from the movie had the life sucked out of them on stage. Beauty and the Beast is just horrendous. None of the costumes even look like the objects they are supposed to be, and the set could have been done better by a community theatre. And talk about underdeveloped cartoon characters...none of these went well to the stage. While I applaud Disney's efforts to get involved with Broadway, they should stop trying to use it to make a quick buck. The thing about the early Disney movies is that the stories were family-friendly. Adults can easily enjoy Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon and so on. All of the Disney filmns of the recent past are only kid friendly, and generally insult the intelligence of its adult audience. And Disney is only involved in Mary Poppins because Macintosh wanted to use some of the Disney score, since HE owned the stage rights to the material, and not Disney. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as dark as has been described.

I think their shows are incredibly well developed.

Let's not forget that it could be OH SO EASY for them to put on two hour versions of the shows they do on the theme parks on Broadway, without any special arrangements or new songs, and costumes that look exactly like in the movies - and, hey, people would still go.
But instead, they make sure they hire theatre artists to transform their pictures into great works for the stage. In my opinion, The Lion King musical is way better than the movie.

I look forward not to Disney, but to how the American theatre artists has taken the challenge to transform a well know and loved film classic and use their craft to create something amazing for the stage.

"they should stop trying to use it to make a quick buck."
Completely disagree. They take so long to develop these projects, that this statement is truly unfair.

---

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 01:15 AM

Orangeskittles et al, I understand that you have a right to like or dislike Disney shows, however, you must post with a clear head and note that:

a) yes, Disney has had an influence in how corporate America has invaded Broadway. How? Mainly by reviving the 42nd St area and making it an attractive investment again. It is now family friendly, which means more money to the Times Square shops, restaurants, hotels and (dare i say this?) THEATERS!!
It doesn't hurt the theater district to be a safe, tourist-filled area.

b)It is NOT Disney's fault (nor any producers' for that matter) that Sondheim does not have 5 shows running on Broadway. I love his work, so do critics and theater buffs like people on these posts. But we are not enough to justify an expensive production on Broadway. Let's face it: Sondheim shows have rarely made a profit in the last 20 years. The Frogs, the Company revival, Bounce, Passion, the Into The Woods revival, even the original Follies and Pacific Overtures all failed to make money, despite their quality. THAT alone is the reason. Sondheim doesn't compose for everybody and it is not Disney's fault that this is so.

c) Calling Disney "selfish" for using as many theaters as they need and having money? Gimme a break! This is a BUSINESS. No producer will give millions to a creative unkown in order to take a huge risk when they have a huge catalog of material, a big star or the rights to a blockbuster. If what you want is more experimental, original and daring works, try off-Broadway where this kind of theater belongs and sometimes thrives. Broadway is not meant to be just a more expensvie version of Off-Broadway.

d) people complain about how long Disney shows run . . . do you mean they should apologize for all those years of giving continous work to technicians, musicians, stagehands, actors and dancers?

e) Disney is doing something that is key: they are bringing younger people to the theater and showing them what a great experience the musical theater can be. They get them away from their X-boxes and game boys and other sources of entertainment and provide an alternative. Much as it annoys me to see a show where half the audience is kids who talk during the performance, I must take my hat off to them for creating the audiences of tomorrow. If the theater does not breed new generations of theatergoers in an age where there are so many alternatives for entertainment, then the future of the theater will be very grim.

---

Fiddler is closing because it's been grossing in the 40-50% range, heavily discounted.

Mary Poppins is opening at the New Amsterdam because it's one of only a few theaters configured correctly for the flying at the end of the show.

I think the criticism towards Disney is not in their power, but in their projects. The comparisons with David Merrick and the Nederlanders are completely irrelevent. They may have had five shows running on Broadway, and while their goals were also to make money, they weren't mining a single source of existing titles so shamelessly for the promotion of brand name.

If Disney spent more money developing new shows like AIDA, Broadway would feel less animosity towards them.