Was replacing 'Mary Poppins' with 'Aladdin' a good choice? — Page 2

Maybe this is something that only writers and composers think about, that isn't really part of the actor or spectator mentality, but moving shows out of their Broadway theatre is part of their business plan. Disney has a whole stable of shows in development, but can't run all of them on Broadway at once. "The Lion King" is a "Phantom" sized tourist juggernaut, and the image of "Circle of Life" has become one of the iconic Broadway moments of the past twenty years.

However, not every show is "The Lion King." Disney explicitly does not NEED every show to be "The Lion King." Touring will make them a lot of money, and regional and amateur productions will make them even more, nearly in perpetuity. But if shows are still running on and on on Broadway, they'll never reach that point, nor will Disney be able to move more shows into development.

In terms of the highbrow/mainstream collaborations, "Mary Poppins" is probably the second most successful after "Lion King," but the strangest one. Taking one of Disney's fluffiest and silliest musical classics and retooling it completely with a book by the creator of "Downton Abbey" and a more angular, modernist score treatment styled heavily after Stephen Sondheim sounds like lunacy, but it worked, according to many.

Was Mary Poppins still making money? Why couldn't they just put Aladdin in the Palace or Rodgers so they could have 4 Disney Shows on Broadway. Not that i really love disney musicals or anything, but why did they replace Mary Poppins if it was still making money? Just like they replaced Beauty and the Beast with the Little Mermaid

---

An article in The Hollywood Reporter said, "While box office for Mary Poppins has been up and down during its run, the show consistently draws large crowds over holiday periods. During the recent Christmas-New Year fortnight, the production grossed a tidy $2.5 million."

Another article I read highlighted on they were happy with it being the 22nd longest running show/top five in attendance and were preparing for the regional MP premieres (MUNY, Ontario, etc.)

If they were making money I assume they really wanted to make room for Aladdin or there was a problem with keeping it running at another venue, something like it.

---

I still don't understand the need for Disney to close Poppins so early as Aladdin approx. opened a year after Mary Poppins closed. Mary Poppins should have stayed open through the summer and it would have made some solid $$$.

---

^Hunchback wouldn't be able to fit inside the New Amsterdam anyway! Though I did hear they were looking at the Nederlander...

"Just wondering why you think they couldn't fit Hunchback into the New Amsterdam? If they can fit a massive show like Mary Poppins in there, surely Hunchback would fit?"

It's not that they would be worried about Huncback being too big for the New Amsterdam, but rather the New Amsterdam being too big for Hunchback. In the form the show is in now it would indeed be much better in a smaller, more intimate theatre.

Bwayto,
You have the logic solidly backwards. Hunchback would not fit into the New. Amsterdam because it is far too SMALL of a show to fill the theatre.

As far as people not understanding WHY there needed to be such a large amount of time between Poppins and Aladdin, it is really quite simple. The specialized alterations to the structure of each of those shows requires a little of time... To disassemble one, restore it to structurally sound - and where visible to the audience, visually suitable - and THEN to make the necessary structural alterations for the following show. In shows of that size, very often some of the scenery you see flown in may be attached to the structural steel of the building, not the theatrical fly system... Extra catwalks and access stairs may need to be built into the actual building. The stage floor may require extensive repair and alteration before a show deck is installed due to trap doors and the like... Rooms may need to be erected or deconstructed below the stage. In some cases, they may have to dig down into the Manhattan rock below the basement - as Billy Elliot had to do at the Imperial.

The New Am is Disney's first choice for their flagship shows now because they pay $1 in rent every year... Thanks, NYC. All other Disney shows have been in Nederlander Houses, because that his who Disney has a working relationship with. They own 9 Broadway houses of widely varying sizes. Disney's options there, without assuming control of most of the Nederlander real estate, is limited. Their current situation is perfect for all parties and no one wants to ruin that. NOTHING ran in the Minskoff for long until Lion King. The two parties are doing each other a favor, so they are both being respectful of the others' interests. Compare that to Jujamcyn... Somehow, Jordan Roth had the amazing instinct to find a handful of long running, highly successful, Tony award winning musicals that now fill ALL of the Jujamcyn houses except the St. James. On one hand, that is fantastic and a wonderful financial boon, but only having one house - and a MASSIVE one at that - to place on the market does not keep them very active in the pool of new shows.

Updated On: 1/24/15 at 01:12 AM

With all due respect, you did not understand what someone meant by Hunchback not fitting into the New Amsterdam until it was more explicitly stated.
For tourists, excellent production values do not equate big, though that allows one marketing marketing opportunity. For tourists, the expectation of excellent production values lies in the brand name.. Whether it be the title of the show, the star or in Disney's case, the company. Kinky Boots is not large or crazily elaborate and tourists love it. Chicago is a concert staging and is in disgustingly shabby shape and tourists walk out if there every day and hail the production values as "wonderful."
Aladdin is a very different animal. Disney wanted to see of the material worked, then continued investing more money and conceived a Broadway staging. Hunchback is the exact opposite, it already had a headline making, large scale production that was a hit and they have since made a choice to tell a very different story in the production. They won't suddenly say "time for Broadway, let's build a full scale recreation of Notre Dame to make it environmental."
If they think Hunchback can succeed, not will come in. Simple as that. And it will be the same production, adapted to suit the space. If they want to improve the show, they can start by casting a Quasimodo who has an equally beautiful voice but who can actually ACT and not just chew scenery... And better yet, hire an Esmeralda who is more interesting than a wet rag sitting on a table and who won't earn them bad press with unjustified diva behavior and poor treatment of those in service positions around her while she is getting the attention that comes along with being the star of a new show.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame a lot of people (myself included) find to be a very underrated Disney movie. I can agree that in its current stage incarnation, it would be a tough sell. But if they open in the spring, it would be a safe bet as they would likely hold out until Tony Nominations.

I agree about Kinky Boots being a hit with tourists (the novelty and winning to Tony didn't hurt) but it certainly benefits by being in a smallish theater. In spite of the splashy costumes for the angels, it's a pretty intimate kind of show and would be lost and gobbled up in theaters too big. Matching the show to the theater is half the battle (and one too often lost).

To go back to the topic, Mary Poppins was a much better show that Aladdin (though I personally had more fun at Aladdin), you get to the point that so many tourists - people - have seen it and they are looking for something new. Not everyone is nuts like me who sees things over and over. And even though they of course needed time to renovate the theater, there is something beneficial about going out on top instead of petering away..

I know nothing about Hunchback so I can't comment...it was not my fav Disney movie and I am not sure how much I would be looking forward to it or not.

"Chicago is a concert staging and is in disgustingly shabby shape and tourists walk out if there every day and hail the production values as "wonderful." "

Regarding this and similar comments made in this thread:

It is quite obnoxious and arrogant to talk as if 'tourists' are some sort of mentally-deficient, alternative species of sub-human who don't understand the complexities of real theatre the way that New Yorkers do. As a tourist who regularly sees a fair number of shows on and off-Broadway and many more at home (a habit, by the way, that is made much more affordable to me by not having to pay New York rent!), i can confirm that there is nothing about the Broadway production of Chicago that i found particularly high-quality, least of all its production values.

Like any other person, from New York or elsewhere, I choose which shows to see according to my interests, not according to which show i think will have the splashiest production. It is downright bizarre that so many people would assume that they, a local, see theatre for reasons of artistic merit but non-locals see it for some completely different, illogical reason. Tourists see shows for all the same variety of reasons that locals do: love of the genre (musicals, comedies, dramas, etc.), admiration of the work of various composers, lyricists, book-writers, playwrights, singers, and actors, resonance of the themes of certain shows with themes that we grapple with in our lives, etc.

Tourists are people, just like New Yorkers are. We just happen to pay less rent, on average. :)

Updated On: 1/24/15 at 12:50 PM

I mentioned tourists and used the term loosely... and I didn't mean anything by the term other than the definition of who they are..people who don't live in NY and probably don't have an opportunity to see many shows on Broadway. If I were in that situation, I would probably go try to see something that I heard a lot about.

It's not saying that I as a Manhattan-ite would not enjoy the same shows but I have the opportunity to see things that I don't really know that much about or are not very popular. If I were only here once in a while..I might not take that chance. I would find shows that are popular and shows that I know something about...and a lot of people know about Disney (and I am a sucker for Disney myself).