Was replacing 'Mary Poppins' with 'Aladdin' a good choice?- Page 3

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 8:47am

Let's keep in mind that Disney would never be dumb enough to open Hunchback on Broadway as the tiny passion play wreck it currently is now. I'm sure it will be an entirely different and larger production if they do choose to bring it to Broadway. Aladdin seems to have legs but we won't know if it was a good choice until/if it recoups.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 9:08am

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.

[Sondheim_Disney1595]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 11:12am

Mary Poppins closed a DAY before Matilda started previews. Clearly they expected a drop in their ticket sales or had already experienced some. Closing Poppins was the right decision for the time.
Updated On: 1/24/15 at 11:12 AM

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 12:50pm

"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

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 1:05pm

It's not obnoxious and arrogant, really. Depends on what you mean by it and how you employ it.
First off, not all visitors are tourists.. Let's make that fact number 1.
But let's also be realistic, a lot of people going to long running shows buy the name, not the product. They're not going in to dissect the product. They are going to go to be entertained. That is absolutely fine. Many of them also come from places where theatre choices are few - I know I did - and even one haphazard, lazy, dusty production performed by a band of trained Broadway dancers, even as they sleep walk through it, having conversations about plans after the show on a live mic and roll their eyes through the eleven o'clock number is still likely to absolutely WOW them compared to what they have seen live before if, in fact, they are new seeing live, professional theatre.
I'm absolutely NOT being snarky, nor condescending. I am saying this as someone who loves the audience responding to the show I see equally as much as the show itself and even with shows I don't like, I am thrilled if it pulls someone in to see live theatre.
You are on a theatre chat board where you have been a member since 2011. You are NOT a Broadway tourist. You are NOT a naive theatre goer.. You have outlined how YOU make your theatre going choices, yes. But an uninformed audience member, who is readily forking over face value, if not more? Well... They are not making choices on the same criteria.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 1:55pm

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).

[Nateben2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 2:21pm

Unless they drop the choir, it will b difficult to enlarge the show and still make it profitable . . . what, was there something like 50 people on stage at the La Jolla Playhouse?

I think one thing Hunchback has going for it, besides a great score, is it is a story people know - non-English speaking audience members will know the basic story - which may help.

But, again, Disney has NEVER said this show, this production is aimed at Broadway.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 2:58pm

It would probably be in their best interest to use the base of the Berlin show and expand on that idea. I have a feeling that production is what people think of when they imagine Hunchback on Broadway.

"But, again, Disney has NEVER said this show, this production is aimed at Broadway."

Exactly. Like I said, no way would Disney bring that production to Broadway. I'm sure Disney DOES want to bring a Hunchback production to Broadway, but not until they know it can stand a chance with critics and audiences. Disney seems to be extra careful these days. At this current time, I don't believe that show would last 5 months on Broadway.

Updated On: 1/24/15 at 02:58 PM

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 4:31pm

When they announced that Mary Poppins they also announced that they were renovating the theatre then bringing in Aladdin. It was clear that that was the point the whole time. I'm pretty sure that MP wasn't being hugely profitable in its latter years. It was on its way out no matter what. Probably still had a couple of years left, but why not close it on a high note then wait for it to be a dead show.

Plus, Aladdin is selling like crazy. Tickets are a lot more expensive for Aladdin than for MP. Aladdin is a newer movie so younger kids like it more than Mary Poppins. It's definitely more of a spectacle.

In regards to the "tourist" conversation, a tourist is more someone who comes to New York to do other things and sees one Broadway show that they by in advance, or they try to get tickets to it the day of, so they really do go for the bigger name shows. I work for a ticket broker and our customers hardly ever ask for shows like Curious Incident and Disgraced. Lion King, Aladdin, and Wicked are asked about all of the time.


If Disney wants to bring Hunchback to Broadway, they'll want to wait until the Aladdin hype dies down. Three Broadway shows at once will definitely kill Hunchback. If they wanted a huge production, why would they have wasted their time at La Jolla? Either it's going to be the same production, or they'll wait a few years and have a different out of town tryout.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 5:29pm

I think it was smart to close MP when they did only because I do not think it would have lasted long against Matilda (they're both British family shows with some appeal to adults) and it was better to close on top rather than lose money like Schumacher predicted.

"Let's keep in mind that Disney would never be dumb enough to open Hunchback on Broadway as the tiny passion play wreck it currently is now. I'm sure it will be an entirely different and larger production if they do choose to bring it to Broadway. Aladdin seems to have legs but we won't know if it was a good choice until/if it recoups."

Disney would not have wasted their time at La Jolla to completely scrap the production. I saw the show in La Jolla, and personally I have never been more moved by a show. The only performances I saw in 2014 that topped this for me were La Mirada Theatre's "Floyd Collins" and DBA Hollywood's "For The Record: Baz Luhrmann." The performances (Michael Arden, Patrick Page, and Ciara Renee especially) were phenomenal and the score was as fantastic as ever. Sure, I grew up with the movie, but by the time the show opens on Broadway, most of my generation will be financially secure enough to afford tickets to a Broadway show and would choose Hunchback easily.

It may not have been the flashiest or family-friendly show that Disney has done, but I think that's the point. I went it wanting a huge visual production, but the La Jolla staging proved the story and music can stand on their own. The production was not perfect by any means, but they have the Paper Mill production to fix these issues (to me, they were minor adjustments that could really strengthen the show, not an overhaul). More importantly, after seeing with Newsies that not ever Disney broadway show needs to be a huge show, it is nice to see Disney going for a more of a prestige piece with heart as opposed to what Disney expects of them. I think it's smart. Disney's been gaining some respect with awards for "Newsies" and fantastic ticket sales for "Aladdin" after misses like "The Little Mermaid" and "Tarzan." If they play their cards right, "Hunchback" could be Disney's most well-regarded musical and become a big success to a more adult market.

But I digress.

I think "Aladdin" was a good choice to replace "Mary Poppins." Now, replacing "Beauty and the Beast" with "The Little Mermaid?" Not so much. I realize Disney thought they had a hit on their hands, and they could have, but it was so misguided and visually a mess that a great score and great Broadway debut for Sierra Boggess couldn't save it.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 7:15pm

^Though the reason Disney decided to close Beauty & the Beast was because they felt it would've been tricky having two Disney Princess competing on Broadway at the same time. Updated On: 1/24/15 at 07:15 PM

[Nateben2]

Posted: 1/24/15 at 8:27pm

Also, remember, Mary Poppins was not strictly a DISNEY show, and was co-produced by Cameron Mackintosh . . .