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

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

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

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

[magruder]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:15pm

It's a little more than "people dancing with puppets on their heads." Taymor's work really does elevate the thing to a different level.

[Jilani]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:18pm

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.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:18pm

"Why is it BAD?"

Well, for one thing, five Disney shows is too much. And also, it's always directed to kids (mostly younger than me), with the exception of AIDA. If Disney were to do more shows, they should take a risk again like they did with AIDA. They shouldn't come out with mostly kiddie shows.

EDIT: Jilani, you're absolutely right!

Updated On: 9/21/05 at 06:18 PM

[C is for Company]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:23pm

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*

[wickedfan]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:28pm

Although these shows are "kiddie shows" you also completely forget their reputations. As a movie, Beauty and the Beast was described, by Frank Rich no less, as to having the best Broadway score in a decade (same goes for LIttle Mermaid) if this is true, why not bring it to Broadway? These movies were practically a Broadway musical on film, a transfer to Broadway was pretty much cake. It's not as if they're doing Jukebox musicals. I know I would rather have those five Disney shows than Lennon, Good Vibrations, and Brooklyn all in the same year. Oops! Already happened! Well, then, I guess there's nothing left to do but go forward...
P.S.-gavrochegirl-i respect ur opinion on Lion King if you don't like the score, I do not agree but whatever. It's a better excuse than saying "puppets on heads is stupid".

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:34pm

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?

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:36pm

Gavrochegirl...you have yet to support your "five is too many" claim.

Disney is a producer...of course a producer wants to mount as many successful productions as they can. What about the Shuberts? They have much more than five productions running. Does that mean it's the "Shubert-ification" of Broadway? How about the "Nederland-ification" of Broadway?

I'm so tired of the: "Like, OMIGAWD. Five is WAY too many shows!"
"Disney is INVADING Broadway!"

Broadway doesn't belong to any one person...so they're not invading anything. Anyone is free to mount a production if they have the means...and Disney has the means...deal with it.

RUN! IT'S AN INVASION OF CREATIVITY AND RE-IMAGINING. THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

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

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 6:36pm

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

[Marquise]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 7:02pm

Disney or no-Disney do you guys realize how many jobs these shows will be creating for actors/singers/dancers and musicians?

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 7:26pm

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.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:06pm

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

Do we really need to open that can of worms again?

Personally, I have no problem with Disney for most of the reasons already mentioned. If the ticket buying public felt that there were too many Disney shows on Broadway, they'd say so by not attending them anymore. They continue, however, to embrace for a variety of reasons. And there's no denying the countless good Disney has done for the community.

Way upthread, someone mentioned that Disney has the same team for all these shows. I guess in the case of the composers, that's sort of true. BUT, the music to their shows is nothing like each other. BATB sounds nothing like Lion King, which is only vaguely similar to Aida. Each show has had different directors, choreographers, and designers. Bob Crowley will be the first member of a creative team to work on more than one show.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:56pm

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.

[Theatrical Landladies]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 11:42pm

MARY POPPINS is definitely NOT a "kiddie musical". In London very young children (under 5) aren't even allowed in the theatre! JILANA is right it is a much more adult musical and not at all syruppy. When M.P. arrives on Broadway it will not just be another DISNEY musical there are some magical effects but it is the story at the heart which makes this show.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 11:54pm

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!

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:02am

The Little Mermaid is also on the drawing board.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:03am

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.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:05am

Fosse, I completely disagree with your comments on Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Some of your points were absolutely unsupported and riddled with thick bitterness. I really don't understand where you're coming from.

Am I the only one who thought the designs for Beauty and the Beast, and even more the Lion King, were stunning? Am I the only one who didn't feel that my intelligence level was insulted while enjoying these shows? I just don't get talking about these productions as if they are beneath Broadway standards. Disney has gone above and beyond in their efforts and I think the results have been something to cherish.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:15am

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]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:18am

While I applaud Disney's efforts to get involved with Broadway, they should stop trying to use it to make a quick buck.

THANK YOU! This is like the thesis to my whole problem with Disney.

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 01:18 AM

[JMVR]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:30am

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.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:18am

There's a difference between disagreeing with your viewpoints and not "posting with a clear head".

I never blamed Disney for the fact that Sondheim doesn't have 5 running shows on Broadway, you're putting words into my posts. I wouldn't want that either because I think no creative team should have that kind of monopoly.

Disney is bringing young children to theater, and I respect that. But I also think there should be family-friendly shows available that aren't live action carbon-copies of the cartoon movies they have been spoon-fed since birth. Who knows, maybe if DISNEY PRESENTS TARZAN wasn't opening, some of these families might check out Chitty Chitty Bang Bang instead.

I called Disney selfish because they are once again shake-rattle-and-rolling Broadway theaters to "make room" for their new show. Why not have Mary Poppins open in the Minskoff? Why is it so necessary to uproot The Lion King? And is Fiddler closing- or are they also moving theaters to accomidate Disney? I mean, rich investors kicking out the previous tenants because they want to promote their own business ventures- that sounds like the plotline to one of the non-Disney shows on Broadway. As for cleaning up the area, Broadway had already managed to survive for over 100 years without a national chain restaurant on every corner.

Yes, Broadway is a business, but theater is an artform. Forgive me for believing that the art should be more important than the business.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 10:24am

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:14pm

" I called Disney selfish because they are once again shake-rattle-and-rolling Broadway theaters to "make room" for their new show. Why not have Mary Poppins open in the Minskoff? Why is it so necessary to uproot The Lion King? And is Fiddler closing- or are they also moving theaters to accomidate Disney? I mean, rich investors kicking out the previous tenants because they want to promote their own business ventures- that sounds like the plotline to one of the non-Disney shows on Broadway"

Yeah, because the Disney mafia went to the office of the Fiddler producers with uzis and guns to warn them: "You bettah let us move our Lion King to da theatre, not because you were going to close it anyway because it is not doing very well, but because we are Disney and we can kick you outta here...so say goodbye to Anatevka, and let the King in the theatre..or else...Harvey and Rosie will suffer the consequences...show them Skar...."

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:23pm

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.