The Lion King: why the move to the Minskoff?

Posted: 7/7/10 at 1:50am

I know Disney was making way for Mary Poppins to move into the New Amsterdam, but why couldn't Mary Poppins have taken the Minskoff instead? When I look at the weekly grosses, The Lion King seems to regularly sell out while Mary Poppins does not, so why not keep the more popular/profitable show in the bigger theater? The New Amsterdam has always struck me as being the better theater location-wise too, with a more high profile marquee. It seems that the Lion King marquee just gets lost at the Minskoff.
Updated On: 7/7/10 at 01:50 AM

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 1:57am

It could have something to do with the large set which POPPINS has.

They also may have thought that POPPINS would be the hit that LION KING is.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 2:00am

That's a good question. I thought that the Minskoff was bigger, but the New Amsterdam is actually the larger of the two. I would have to agree with IdinaBellFoster. It probably had something to do with production requirements for Mary Poppins.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 2:23am

The final moment of MARY POPPINS.

[tommigyrl5]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 9:25am

I heard a rumore a long time ago that Cameron Mackintosh didn't want his show to be at a Nederlander house because he has beef with the Nederlander organization. So they moved the Lion King and put MP in their own house.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 10:49am

Aside from the technical issue related to MP (particularly the end of the show), Disney wanted its hot new show in their flagship theater. So, they moved the old warhorse, which will sell out anywhere, to the less desirable theater.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 11:16am

A big reason is also that The Lion King, a guaranteed sell-out most weeks of the year, can make more money at the Minskoff. It may have fewer seats than the New Amsterdam, but a larger percentage of them are in the orchestra and therefore can be sold at the top price. The potential weekly gross for the New Amsterdam is $1,379,200 whereas for the Minskoff its $1,512,340.

[Proper Villain]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 11:26am

I dunno about the set requirements, as the Minskoff was home to Sunset Blvd.

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 11:46am

They probably moved it into the Minskoff because its in the heart of Times square and SO recognizable, and would draw in more tourists who saw the gigantic billboard

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 11:47am

The final moment of MARY POPPINS.

That effect is being achieved nightly on tour in EVERY theatre the tour is playing so its not a technically impossible effect that can ONLY be done a the New Amsterdam Theatre.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 12:01pm

"I heard a rumore a long time ago that Cameron Mackintosh didn't want his show to be at a Nederlander house because he has beef with the Nederlander organization. So they moved the Lion King and put MP in their own house."

I'm inclined to believe this...all of his shows have been in Shubert houses. Of course, he can simply have a good working relationship with the Shubert's, or an agreement with them to house all his shows. Either scenario would preclude Mary Poppins from having been booked into the Minskoff.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 1:00pm

He did book one show at a Nederlander house that I know of... OKLAHOMA at the Gershwin.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 1:40pm

Cameron made a demand that the show had to play the New Amsterdam.
That was it.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 1:48pm

The last moment of POPPINS could technically be achieved in many houses, including across the country, as Brody pointed out. However, what I am informing the OP of is that the decision was made, in large part, due to that moment. They wanted it to happen in the New Amsterdam. The main reason they wanted that moment to happen in that theatre, however, never paid off like they thought it would, because the show didn't turn into the big-buzzed success that they thought it would.

[winston89]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 4:00pm

I was always under the impression that The Lion King moved simply because Cameron wanted to have Poppins be at The New Amsterdam and Disney didn't argue.

Considering the fact that there weren't many set modifications (if any) made for the Lion King's move, I do think that set wise both shows could have played at either theatre.

[gypsy4]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 4:49pm

I always figured POPPINS was the grander show so the Grander Theatre was needed.
Updated On: 7/7/10 at 04:49 PM

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 7/7/10 at 7:18pm

I would think a contract stipulation from Mackintosh is the most likely situation. Transferring a show (especially one as large as Lion King) is a pretty pricey endeavor, so I highly doubt Disney and co. did it out of their own desire.

[Bwaynerd]

Posted: 7/9/10 at 10:07pm

mary poppins needs the height of the theater

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/9/10 at 11:22pm

"The New Amsterdam has always struck me as being the better theater location-wise too, with a more high profile marquee"

I think you answered your own question there. By the time of the move The Lion King was a well-established, consistently sold-out hit. A move to a slightly less visible location was not going to hurt it in the least. Makes much more sense to put the newer show that you are trying to turn into a hit into the higher profile location.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 7/10/10 at 12:26am

Whatever the reason, I'm glad it did, because I think the New Amsterdam is a wonderful fit for Poppins. Lion King could really play anywhere, I feel.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 7/10/10 at 10:34am

My understanding was that Disney's could actually earn more by having it in the New AM and earning rent which is part of the operating costs. The Lion King works anywhere apparently to draw in crowds.

I think it was a bad decision all around.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 7/10/10 at 11:42am

How could it be a bad decision? The Lion King is still making money and has probably recouped the investment it took to transfer. Although Mary Poppins isn't the kind of smash-hit that Lion King is, it is still a hit, having recouped its investment a little over a year after opening. This means good decision.