Was there a lot of Anticipation to Bring BATB to Broadway?

[broadway guy]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:55am

As we were talking about HUNCHBACK coming to broadway yesterday I was also wondering what the anticipation was like to bring BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to Broadway? What did the Broadway community think about having Disney mount a show at the palace? I'm not sure what Broadway and Disney's relationship was like at the time but I have heard many say that when the BATB film came out it was the best musical of that year ( except it was a film).

Did expectations get so high that people thought there is no way way the stage could capture the magic on film?

Were people surpised that they casted an unknown making her broadway debut as the lead?

I also wonder if sometimes shows work or don't work because of the time and place in which they open. For example: Did BATB do better in the 90's cause it was a Big grand gothic like musical that people were accustomed to seing because of PHANTOM and LES MIS? Would BATB be as successful now if the show opened last year in a time on broadway where we don't really have BIG Soaring Epic shows like we use to have in the 80's and 90's?

Thoughts?

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 10:51am

I believe the community was excited for BATB, Frank Rich called the movie the best musical of 1991 in an article for the Times.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:11am

"Did expectations get so high that people thought there is no way way the stage could capture the magic on film? "

Mostly no. There was chatter at the time, but Broadway fans weren't exactly clamoring. It is my understanding Disney moved slowly with the idea and went at it as if it was a one-off. The NYTimes famously praised the music, but again Disney wasn't known for legit theatre. Also film-to-musical wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now.

The perception of the public was that this show would have Disney-style walk-arounds and it was not to be taken seriously.

In the original treatment (which I've read), the enchanted characters were puppets. The Imagineering department worked out all the details including the horse and such. The approach at that time was total theme-park.

I believe it was Michael Eisner that nixed that and requested the project move in a different more legit direction. Once this approach was taken the show began to take real shape.

"Were people surpised that they casted an unknown making her broadway debut as the lead?"

No not at all. It was more of a surprise Disney was doing "legit" theatre.

" Did BATB do better in the 90's cause it was a Big grand gothic like musical that people were accustomed to seing because of PHANTOM and LES MIS?"

Well it sort of falls in with that genre, so it wasn't like the Lion King opened and was a radical change. At the same time, it was a game changer bringing in entire families and merchandise.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:20am

with all the new projects Disney has going on now, I highly doubt we'll see BATB back any time soon.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:29am

Also after Beauty they purchased the New Am and did a King David concert. That was a pretty minor event, but at this point there was public talk of the Disneyfying Time Square. It was announced that the Lion King was coming. That did create buzz but not the good kind. No one could wrap their heads around what was in the works.

While Beauty was considered legit, the enchanted objects, glitz and crowds were still considered theme-park by critics. So the idea of the Lion King just sounded absurd. Nobody it coming.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:46am

The answer is no, there was not a lot of anticipation.

People thought it was going to be like a theme park show or an ice show. They didn't like the idea of "Disneyfying" Broadway.

Even the most positive Broadway fans were skeptical if they weren't downright negative about it.

When the show had it's out-of-town run in Texas, that's when a VERY mild buzz began. It was never much, though.

Even after it opened in NY, people didn't think the show would run long. It was considered more of a novelty. And it was considered a children's show.

Little did they know, it was the beginning of a major change in Broadway and in Time Square.

Updated On: 6/13/13 at 11:46 AM

[DEClarke]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 5:57pm

When the show had it's out-of-town run in Texas, that's when a VERY mild buzz began. It was never much, though.

It didn't get much buzz down here in Houston either. I remember seeing it and being blown away because I loved the movie. I was in like 3rd grade when TUTS did its out-of-town tryout.

I also remember it was the kids who loved it. The adults were kind of like, "Well, that was nice." Audiences in Houston have been much more enthusiastic when seeing THE LION KING as it has toured through three times than they ever were for BATB.

I guess the biggest drawback is that BATB and THE LION KING still rank as spectacle. I don't think theatre aficionados cling to either piece as legit theatre. They tell good stories that you can take the whole family to. You're kind of guaranteed that you'll get your moneys worth (as long as the cast isn't just marking like they did when I saw THE LION KING on Broadway last summer).