Variety Pans 'Mermaid'- Page 2

[stonewall2]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 12:05pm

"In the old days they'd have folded out of town, fire a bunch of people, and start from scratch."

Or else they'd have had the good sense to relize that they had a turkey on their hands and never have staged the thing in the first place! It is simply beyond me how so much can be so wrong and yet no one has the courage to say "Hey, enough- the (costumes-sets-lights, or whatever) are all wrong and need to be re=worked or we can't move forward" BEFORE they pour millions of dollars into something. Directors etc. used to see that from looking at sketches on a pad of paper and now, computers can put life-like simulations right in front of their noses, yet this sort of mess seems to be getting more common. Do they really think the public is that stupid or have we convinced the world when junk like "High School Musical" rakes in billions or composers and lyricists pen songs such as "OMyGod, You Guys"?
Where's Cole Porter when you need him?

[leefowler]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 1:23pm

Uh....Are you aware that there were plenty of flop shows in the "good old days"? And, yes, some of them were by Cole Porter.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 1:58pm

I think there is plenty of time for a retool. I don't think the article (at least the Variety one) slammed the cast at all. It seems to me that they were saying that they're a good cast, but don't have anything to work with. I'm sorry, but even the greatest actors and actresses can't make crap into something worth watching. If Disney is smart, they'll strip away all the costuming/sets/lighting and just focus on the book. That seems to be the main problem. Maybe fix some score stuff, like having "Fathoms Below" work right into "Under the Sea." Or something.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 2:02pm

Schumacher is in some serious sh!t right now. This is the same crap he pulled in feature animation. He took the fantastic niche that some very talented artisans happened into and moved to exploit it. (Treasure Planet, Dinosaur, Home on the Range, Brother Bear, to name a few) His "work" basically killed 2D animation.

His rush to stage Tarzan by hiring untried talent really cost the company a lot image wise. Just because Julie Taymor's avant-garde style/direction worked wonders for Lion King does not mean that every Disney property can be assembled by various theatre auteurs.

Probably not the best idea closing Beauty so soon. From this review it seems the entire show needs an overhaul. I know a lot of you write this off as just another tourist trap, but Lion King, Beauty did not get panned like Aida and Tarzan did. That’s simple math for most producers. Bad reviews did not close Tarzan, but good reviews could have kept it open. I’m not sure how much Aida went on to make but it was a very expensive endeavor.

Something tells me if this show comes as/is, Schumacher will sink the division and step down. There is too much at stake. Heck Shrek is in the wings and from what I’ve seen and heard it’s going to be fantastic.

I think the only thing Tom can count on is fabulous lighting by Natasha Katz but that's about it moving forward. Is anyone else sick of people talking like this "No water, no wires" something tells Julie Taymor doesn't make rules, she breaks them. What kind of direction is that? Does "no water, no wires" mean that it will be good? Crack.



In comparison, read the earlier Lion King try-out review in Variety Updated On: 8/27/07 at 02:02 PM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 2:11pm

I am going to say how I feel right now:

Tom Schumacher, in my opinion, has absolutely positively no true understanding of theatre and how it works as an art. He uses it to exploit, not create a good show that can be a huge commercial hit. (Beauty and the Beast, although not a complete art fest, was a good show...it just ran its course physically).

I think he is a very foolish producer. He came close to destroying Mary Poppins, which was likely only salvaged by Cameron Mackintosh and his passion for the project; He rushed into mounting Tarzan on Broadway; and now....

Although he's given Mermaid an out-of-town tryout, he has actually limited time for himself to fix it, ignoring appearances. He has a month and a half to initiate the major changes the show (and many audience members) seem to be calling for. Even if there would be time to fix the book/staging issues in New York, this is a stupid thing to do. Overhauling a show during its New York previews is like scheduling your own appointment with the coroner...people will talk if it's being overhauled in New York and not in Denver (or in between).

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 2:27pm

Sounds like they're in a LOT of trouble. It would be one thing to just bring in someone to do a quick rewrite of the book, but it sounds like the basic overall concept and design of the show were misconceived from the beginning, which to completely overhaul and rebuild from scratch will take a lot more than the two or three months they have until the first New York preview. Add to that the fact that there aren't a lot of brilliant show doctors around anymore -- George Kaufman, George Abbott, Jerry Robbins, and Michael Bennett, to name a few, are no longer with us -- who know how to quickly turn a troubled show into a hit.

I wish them luck -- they're going to need it.

Updated On: 8/27/07 at 02:27 PM

[Justin D]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 2:30pm

I am very glad for that Lion King article, I;ve always wondered how that show was precieved before making it to Broadway.

but for Mermaid, the whole thing seemed too rushed, almost like they are certain that from the first go it would be ready for Broadway. Even having all the posters up at the Lunt to me seems rather overconfident, and now i am sure if the idea of taking a few months off to re-tool popped in the minds of the producers, they would see it as a great embarrasment and probably wont put it off, instead rush it onto broadway and end up with a flop.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:15pm

The problem with TARZAN (aside from the fact that the final product was awful) is that it was a poor choice to be turned into a Broadway musical. TARZAN is one of the few Disney animated features that appeals mostly to rowdy little boys. BEAUTY, MERMAID, SNOW WHITE, POCAHONTAS, all appeal to little girls that want to be princesses in fantasy lands (and little boys that want to be princesses in fantasy lands). Rowdy little boys don't want their parents to take them to see Broadway musicals. Disney needs to appeal to the little girls; and MERMAID, however awful the show itself may be, will run on the name ("MERMAID," not Disney) like "TARZAN" never could have.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:26pm

Wanna Be A Foster (no abbreviation). I think you are partly correct, but THE LION KING is not a fairy princess story, however it was done with imagination and artisitry and appealed to all ages and sexes.
TARZAN may have worked with the right artists behind it.
THE LITTLE MERMAID may sell tickests, closing BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was partially done to force people to buy MERMAID tickets.
But having another artisitc "flop" on their hands is still going to be an embarrasment for DISNR|EY THEATRICALS.
Updated On: 8/27/07 at 03:26 PM

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:27pm

Foster beat me to it. TLM is an infinitely better story than Tarzan, and has a much better score.

And I really don't think the show is an utter disaster that is beyond repair. I just can't believe that they won't continue to work on the show for the rest of its run here and when they get back to NY.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:37pm

Isn't this all just a bit too much doom and gloom though? I'm not the biggest Disney musicals fan but the whole point of an out of town try out is to work on the show. Maybe someone who's seen it more than once so far can comment as to whether they've made changes and if those changes were for the better? Also, this is one review from one paper, granted it's a pretty big one, but it's still just one. I say give them time and see what they can do in the amount of time they have, I doubt Disney would postpone it's Broadway run.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:39pm

"TLM is an infinitely better story than Tarzan"

I would argue that. In a way they are practically the same story. Both concern lovers that have to leave their families to be together. Both have to make personal sacrifices to be with their lovers. Both have lovers that fall head over heals for the protagonists...... um... typical of broadway musicals.


Outside of spectacle it appears Mermaid suffers from serious second act issues. It is after all based on a short fairytale. I would say to the book writer... goeth and mineth Shakespeare.


Tarzan itself is a fantastic story based and wildly popular book. I think the Broadway show had huge potential, they just got wrapped up trying to make it specsational.
Updated On: 8/27/07 at 03:39 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:46pm

I took a group of 19 to see "Mermaid". Within that group was a 12 year old boy who loved it. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to do fine in New York for a few years. A lot of the things we are finding wrong won't matter to the general theatregoing public. Meaning the tourists and people who are not avid theatre goers. The evening I went, there were a lot of kids and they all seemed pretty happy when they left. There were some families pre-ordering the CD also.

(I don't believe I am defending this show!!)

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:50pm

That was painful to read. Ouch!

[Broadwayboy2631]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:58pm

Yea, extra painful since I already bought tickets!

[folkyboy]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:58pm

i'm with uncageg. i don't think people who see theatre these days really expect a lot (albeit how much they actually should). if Disney doesn't decide to do a complete overhaul, we're in for another crappy Tarzan/Grease/LegallyBlonde/Xanadu type of theatrical piece that everyone can hum & haw over and that will still sell out the place.

i.e. toilet theatre

[MovieGuy1031]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 3:59pm

I plan to go enjoy it no matter what!

*feigns a smile...*

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:02pm

Thanks folkyboy. I don't think the show is crappy though. On some levels I liked it more that Lion King. I think the Variety critic was a wee bit harsh.

[TimeSuckage]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:24pm

"Outside of spectacle it appears Mermaid suffers from serious second act issues. It is after all based on a short fairytale. I would say to the book writer... goeth and mineth Shakespeare.

They should really just mine some more Shakespeare. "

I'm sorry, could you explain what The Little Mermaid has to do with Shakespeare? I'm so confused...

I agree that the Variety review is very harsh. Do they have a history of dissing the Disney theatricals? And I'm still surprised that people expect great art from Disney. Isn't it fairly accepted that what they put out there is primarily geared towards families and tourists? Maybe that's why I didn't hate TLM, my expectations really were not that high because of what it is and who is putting it up.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:28pm

Like how I'm surprised Riedel hasn't picked up on Grease, I'm surprised Jim Hill (resident anti-Disney blogger) hasn't picked up on this yet...perhaps tomorrow.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:29pm

Sorry that was a typo, um Mermaid is essentially Romeo and Juliet.

It's so interesting that a show you think would be natural for Broadway (Mermaid) would be very simple to translate. Unlike Lion King which was unthinkable at the time without cat suits.

It's a scathing review. It is not something Disney will take lightly, they have shareholders and a theater business outside of Broadway. The fact that producer allows such a short window to fix this is nuts.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:32pm

Under the direction of a seasoned Broadway pro - Jack O'Brien, Joe Mantello, even Rob Roth or Julie Taymor, Mermaid would be simple to translate.

They choice to go for style, again. Same problem that failed them with Tarzan.

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:33pm

I'm a little confused by that comment too, but I think what he/she meant by going the Shakespeare route is TLM can relate to many of his plays. Think about it: Royalty battling it out for the thrown (can I hear a 'Richard the third' ringing in the background?) families torn apart, star crossed lovers, funny sidekicks, and much more. Also isn't The Lion King loosely based off of Hamlet and another cartoon idea that Disney stole?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:39pm

I think an excellent point is "who ya gonaa call?"
There really are very few show doctors, if any, out there.
Also the egos invoved these days are so large, they refuse to listen to anyone.
Some on this thread have said, oh it's DISNEY, they have time, they have money they can fix this, but if the same people who have created the mess are left to fix it, it really can't improve that much.
And so much money has already been spent on the set and costumes (neither of which it has been said were ready on time) this could be a real problem.
I do agree there is an already built in audience but I believe DISNEY THEATRICALS badly needs some critical success at this point.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 8/27/07 at 4:47pm

My point is (and I do have one) that Schumacher has been down this road before. He was DIRECTLY responsible for the demise of 2D animation. He is going to ruin any credibility Disney has in legite theatre and when it's time to redeem themselves, it will be do late. Too late because shows like Shrek, Willy Wonka, Spiderman and Anastasia will be wowing crowds.

Just watch Geoffrey Katzenberg steal the show with a Shrek redux!