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

JMVR and blaxx,

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

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).

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.

---

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

---

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.

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.

---

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

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?

---

"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.

"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.