THE LION KING to tranfer to Minskoff in the Spring- Page 4

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:27pm

JMVR and blaxx,

I am right on board with you both. Thank you for the insights and open-mindedness.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:36pm

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

This makes me laugh. Disney could have produced Sweeney Todd and Parade and people would still be upset over the Disneyifcation of Broadway.

Their shows really are quite different. While 3 are based on animated films, they're nothing like each other. The only one that follows the Disney formula of a heroine, a prince, a bad guy, and some funny sidekicks is BATB. The look and feel of that is totally different from Lion King. Aida is altogether different as well. Mary Poppins is nothing like any of the above titles, nor is Tarzan. This idea that each Disney show is a carbon copy of another is a fallacy.

[Jilani]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 4:26pm

For those who bash tourists who go to Broadway shows (including Disney shows), the reality is that the majority of the Broadway audience consists of tourists. The League of American Theaters and Producers put out a study earlier this year: only 16.7% of Broadway audience members come from inside New York City limits. 60% come from outside the tri-state area (inlcuding 10% from foreign countries).

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 4:41pm

Yeah. I agree. None of their shows are alike. Its good that they took Mary Poppins and made it darker and changed it around so it wouldnt resemble the movie so much. And the fact that they add new songs and whatnot. They also do a lot on a technical aspect. For instance, with Tarzan they uncovering new techniques for flying actors around. This could help other shows down the line, etc.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 7:04pm

blaxx, I was actually talking about Rent and I don't remember the mafia having any role in that.

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.

Thank you, Michael Bennett. This is exactly why I believe Disney is not just a producer.

The only one that follows the Disney formula of a heroine, a prince, a bad guy, and some funny sidekicks is BATB.

The Lion King
Heroine: Nala
Prince: Simba
Bad Guy: Scar
Funny Sidekicks: Timon and Pumba

Tarzan
Heroine: Jane
Prince: Tarzan
Bad Guy: Clayton
Funny Sidekicks: Tantor and Terk

(since it's also been proposed) The Little Mermaid
Heroine: Ariel
Prince: Prince Eric
Bad Guy: Ursula
Funny Sidekicks: Flounder, Sebastian, Scuttle

There have been countless studies and articles written on animated Disney movies, and these archetypes are consistent through the vast majority of them. A "prince" character doesn't have to be a Prince in the show (like Beast, Eric), but the character does embody the symbolic qualities of a prince.

And I didn't say the shows are carbon copies of each other, I said the shows are carbon copies of the movies, much like Spamalot is, just with added songs.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 10:06pm

Ha ha, hero, heroine, bad guy and sidekick..you can find that in A LOT non-Disney musicals

[Phantom05]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 10:38pm

Lol, I'm just excited that for once in it's lifetime, the Minskoff WILL be housing a real hit, hehe....YAY for the Minskoff!

....And also, the Minskoff is huge, so any down-sizing fears for Lion King should be able to be put to rest!

Phantom05

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 10:52pm

blaxx, my response was to adamgreer, who claims only Beauty and the Beast has those types of characters.

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 10:52 PM

[JayKid]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:51pm

This post is retarded... well the whole anti-disney part.

I agree with what everyone says that is all for Disney. Seriously, the shows are all different and they are popular and fun to watch, what's the big effin deal? They make money, period... and people see them, tourists or not, it doesn't matter.

First off the a lot of stories in general share that hero, bad guy, herione, side kick thing... it's common. But regardless, Disney movies catch attention and people enjoy and watch them. I feel they did a great job with BATB and TLK, they were much better than the movies. I just think the whole, omg it's for kids tho is a horrible arguement... if anything it's a GOOD THING! (and plus I disagree with them being painfully similar, they are quite different)

It's just rediculous that you all care so much about them being directed towards children. There is Chitty and that's about it that is truly suited for kids... now there is TLK and BATB and then tarzan for kids... if it wasn't for disney, kids would hardly have options to go to theatre and get into it. So it's beneficial in that respect.

Mary Poppins, isn't exactly a kid show and is good for adults as well, so don't complain.

Either way, I just want to agree with the numerous points made on the behalf of Disney likers, because I agree with so many posts and opinions on that side that I can't mention it all.

There is no really good reason to hate Disney like you all do. I really think the good outwieghs the bad in every way. Really, exception of one or two arguements made, none of the arguements against Disney were strong.

Disney is beneficial, period... end of story, they benefit Broadway more tahn anything and are staying because they can. I don't see the problem with this, stop complaining.

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 1:13am

Will the move affect it's offical count for performances? It'd be a shame for them to have to start over.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 1:59am

JayKid, you of all people should not call posts "retarded", especially after your enlightened "Why do black people sound different than white people?" thread.


Radioactiveduck, when Beauty and the Beast moved, it didn't interrupt their performance count (4684 as of Sunday). It will still the same production of the show, just in a new location.

[JayKid]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 9:25am

I can call whatever I want to call retarded, because many I don't think those against Disney have very good arguements... as compared to those in favor of Disney. It's just 4 or 5 shows out of 40 theatres, and they do much more good than bad, so stop complaining.

And I'm sorry if you are quick to be judgemental because I posted one thread about the different voice textures of different ethnicites and races (not just black and white). If you can explain to me why that was so retarded, please do. Since it was a legitimate question that I bet you can't answer... since I don't think anyone on that thread was able to. Either someone jumped to the fact that it was racist since for some reason society feels that ANY comments on differences between races is racist (which isn't even what racism means). Then the one person who had a reason, didn't actually compare what I was talking about (timbre and texture) rather they compared the different accents, etc. Those things can be influences by culture, but culture has nothing to do with your voice texture and timbre... you are born with that. And people in many different cultures, when within the same ethnicity or race, still have that same the same texture many times... so it doesn't make sense to say it's influenced by how you were raised.

Anyway, just going to say that because I completely disagree with your statement saying my post was retarded. It was a question that is only seen as stupid if you are too narrow minded to try and actually look at it without being judgemental.

Anyway, don't bring it up anyway, the post is erased now because of morons like you.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 10:27am

I think the major reason that many were offended by your question about racial differences, is that more and more, science tells us that race in terms of the way that many people think about it, doesn't exist.

There are more variances within races than between races. And the superficial characteristics that make up racial identification - hair color and texture, skin color, eye shape, are actually a miniscule part of an individual's genetic makeup.

Besides, an overwhelming majority of Americans who are classified as black in the U.S., are in fact, multiracial. The average African American has between 20 and 30 percent NON-black heritage. Some have a bit more, some have a bit less. This is true regardless of how the person might look. And this is true even when biracial people aren't included in the mix.

This is why some studies about disease and race can't be conducted on African Americans because most don't have "pure" African heritage.

Don't take my word for it. Read Scientific American.

Besides, some of the so-called differences in voices that you attribute to race, are imperceptible to most people.

I mean how was Marion Anderson's voice "blacker" than any other opera singer's voice? Could you listen to it and tell that she was African American?

Updated On: 9/23/05 at 10:27 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 12:35pm

"Mary Poppins, isn't exactly a kid show and is good for adults as well, so don't complain."

That's thanks to Cameron Macintosh owning the stage rights. Had he not owned them, we would have a Mary Poppins so sugar-coated that a dentist would have to be hired to examine people before they leave the theatre. Disney only produces Broadway shows that have easy recognition and will earn them a quick buck (since only they're theme park businesses actually do well). As I said previously, they need to make the shows more friendly to adults. Not one book of a Disney-produced musical is written in human language. It's so dumbed-down that even children should be insulted. AIDA was really the only Disney venture I could agree with (even though it was one of the most horrible shows I've ever seen), because it was their ONLY true Broadway investment. Disney should just do shows in Vegas, where they belong, or keep them at their theme parks, until they realize that it's the adults that are actually buying the tickets. I don't see Tarzan doing all that well.

[magruder]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 12:40pm

From Michael Riedel's column on Wednesday:

"Within a few days of Schumacher's presentation, "Tarzan" had sold around $8 million worth of group-sales tickets, production sources said.

One group-sales agent predicts the overall advance for the show could reach $20 million or more by the time previews begin in the spring."

Still don't see Tarzan doing well, Fosse76?

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 12:59pm

The reason I don't think that Disney threatens to pull down the over all quality of Broadway, is because Sondheim, Brown, LaChuisa, and Guettel don't seem to have a problem getting produced.

People who wnat more challenging fare always have options.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 1:10pm

"Within a few days of Schumacher's presentation, "Tarzan" had sold around $8 million worth of group-sales tickets, production sources said.

One group-sales agent predicts the overall advance for the show could reach $20 million or more by the time previews begin in the spring."


Those are most likely from booking groups (i.e., travel groups and the like). The real test is when tickets gop on sale to the public. Did the film really do that well? It certainly isn't The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast.

[magruder]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 1:34pm

Actually, Tarzan grossed more than Beauty and the Beast.

Worldwide grosses from Box Office Mojo:

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST - $377,350,553
TARZAN - $448,191,819
THE LION KING - $783,841,776

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/23/05 at 3:51pm

"That's thanks to Cameron Macintosh owning the stage rights. Had he not owned them, we would have a Mary Poppins so sugar-coated that a dentist would have to be hired to examine people before they leave the theatre."

We have no way of knowing that, and only their past record to go on. Aida wasn't sugar-coated. The feel of Lion King was altered immensely for the stage so it wouldn't resemble the film. BATB is really the only one that's syrupy sweet.

"Disney only produces Broadway shows that have easy recognition and will earn them a quick buck (since only they're theme park businesses actually do well)."

By your own admission, Tarzan is not as well-known a film. You also predict it won't do well, so how can you say they're doing it to earn a quick buck?

I don't want to get in to the economics of Disney, but they're making money far behind the theme parks. Just as an example, every Disney on Broadway show has turned a profit.

"As I said previously, they need to make the shows more friendly to adults."

I know plenty of intelligent adults who enjoyed Lion King just as much as their children did.

"Disney should just do shows in Vegas, where they belong, or keep them at their theme parks, until they realize that it's the adults that are actually buying the tickets."

I'm not even sure what that means. Adults have been buying their tickets since day one, and EVERY show they've produced has been successful. It's not like their hurting for ticket-buyers.

From Tennessee-Twang:
"The reason I don't think that Disney threatens to pull down the over all quality of Broadway, is because Sondheim, Brown, LaChuisa, and Guettel don't seem to have a problem getting produced. "

Exactly. There's plenty of variety on Broadway.