Why did Tarzan Close?

[Nicholas Clar]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:12pm

I looked at the grosses and It did pretty well in my opinion. If is closed why isn't Marry Poppins...

[Dre2387]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:21pm

you mean why hasn't Mary Poppins?

and did you see the show?

Updated On: 12/13/08 at 05:21 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:23pm

I would suspect advanced sales were not that good. Word of mouth wasn't that great.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:28pm

Yes, to my understanding word of mouth wasn't too good, and it turned me off to it entirely believe it or not. Apparently, the swinging from "tree" to "tree" looked extremely cheezy and the tricks/cords/whatnot were easily visible, or so told everyone who told me about it!

[James885]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:33pm

It closed because the advance dried up due to horrible word of mouth. I saw the show and thought the opening was fantastic, but the whole thing went downhill after the first 5-10 minutes. Visually, it was one of the ugliest shows I've seen IMHO. I'd even put it below The Little Mermaid. At least Mermaid has a memorable and tuneful score, unlike Tarzan.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:36pm

I really enjoyed Mermaid. I didn't see Tarzan. By the time I decided to see just how bad everyone was saying it was, It was closed by the time I got back to NYC.

Updated On: 12/13/08 at 05:36 PM

[jayclay]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:41pm

It was just sooooooooo boring after the opening scene. I felt terrible for all of the little kids there who had to sit through it.

[lakezurich]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 5:48pm

A few things I did not like:

1. The new songs Phil Collins wrote were horrendous!

2. The British DO NOT sing with a British accent

3. If you want a "jungle feel" for songs you don't need pounding drums for EVERY every single one of them.

Updated On: 12/13/08 at 05:48 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 6:11pm

The story I heard (and have no real way to back up, but it wouldn't surprise me for it to be true):

Tarzan was actually turning a slight profit. They were slowly encorporated changes from the Dutch production, and by the end of the year it would have been an almost totally different show.

Then, it was announced that the London "Poppins" would be closing. And that the US "Beauty" would be. Then, "Mermaid" started to bleed money during rehearsals, and since they didn't want to close "Poppins" on Broadway AND London, and canceling "Mermaid" wouldn't have made any sense (to them at least), "Tarzan" got the ax. Remember how fast it shuttered? We got the announcement about a month before it did.

Again, I don't have a source to back it up, this is just the stuff I heard about it.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 7:49pm

Apparently, the swinging from "tree" to "tree" looked extremely cheezy and the tricks/cords/whatnot were easily visible, or so told everyone who told me about it!

The cords were supposed to be easily visible. They were bungee cords that represented the vines. It's not like Peter Pan where the wires are thinner and you try to hide them. They set out to make the bungee jumping a sort of metaphor for vine swinging. Obviously, it didn't work for everyone, but there was never an attempt to hide them.

[minicko88]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:07pm

Ok I saw Tarzan on Broadway, so I can tell you why i think...

The show itself to me was fantastic. Phil Collins did an excellent job and the cast was the best thing about the show! Josh Strickland was shockingly great! And I LOVE SHULER HENSLEY!!!! The special effects were cool at times, but sometimes over the top... I thought the new songs were good... especially "No other Way!" I thought it was better than beauty and the beast and mary poppins.... I think it closed, because it was the least known about. I think everyone knows that the lion king is fantastic and mary poppins had just gotten there. I think they wanted to invest more of their money into another chance at a tony, so they got rid of this show for the little mermaid... But i loved it personally.... i think people are way to harsh on it!

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:34pm

I think they wanted to invest more of their money into another chance at a tony, so they got rid of this show for the little mermaid...

Ha ha ha, classic!

[minicko88]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:37pm

Ya that worked out real well huh? haha

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:42pm

> Again, I don't have a source to back it up, this is just the stuff I heard about it.

no ... THAT's classic!

husk, bubby: YOU HAVE A SOURCE!!! it may not be reliable ... or identifiable (either of which you probably should note). but, unless you're schizophrenic (i.e., one of your personalities is revealing these things to another), SOMEONE TOLD YOU THIS. s/he's your source.

so dish ...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:48pm

TARZAN was never turning a profit. And they made little to no changes while the show was on Broadway. (I've heard that second hand.)
Also the workshop was held in South America and was extremely expensive as was the show's running cost.
The crew contained a whole set of flying experts.
They were throwing money away hand over fist at the Rodgers with all kinds of things like ice machines and a private lounge for Phil Collins and his friends.
Face it, Bad planning and an inexperienced director sank that boat good.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 8:57pm

Since The Little Mermaid sold out every one of its preview performances, I highly doubt that it "bleeding money" was part of the closing of Tarzan.

And, as the OP states, the show was never actually doing poor business. Look at the grosses. Plenty of 700-800K weeks near the end.

Personally, I think they closed it for a number of reasons. First, they realized it would probably be better to close, retool and reopen with changes from foreign productions on tour, where it could make a bigger profit and separate itself from the bad reviews and bad buzz. Secondly, I think Disney did not want to oversaturate the Great White Way with Disney and cause all the shows to suffer financially, and with Mary Poppins and Mermaid about to open, it was the best time. Third, box office was running at an average of 600K-700K a week, not bad for most Broadway but not the blockbuster Disney expected. It probably hit its nut every week but wasn't making too much profit, and since it was not going to recoup in the near future...

Not a terrible show...I would have liked to see the retooled version in Atlanta.
Updated On: 12/13/08 at 08:57 PM

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 12/13/08 at 11:09pm

I feel confident in writing that Tarzan closed because it was losing money on a regular basis and there was little advance. I'm not sure what grosses people are looking at, but the grosses I see for 2007 tell me the show was in serious trouble at the box office.

I'd guess that the weekly nut was about 600K. Of the 27 weeks it ran in 2007, it was under 500K seven times, and it was under 600K but over 500K another seven times. Even after the closing was announced, when some shows get back up to near capacity, it wasn't grossing a whole lot above its likely nut.

Even in 2006, it had weeks when it grossed under 600K.

Disney saw that continuing to run was going to mean losing lots of money. The folks in charge wisely decided to cut their losses and close.

[Poppy]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 12:22am

The retooled version never opened in Atlanta. In fact, the whole tour was cancelled. Go to the Fox Theater, Atlanta, GA site. There is a notice posted.

Updated On: 12/14/08 at 12:22 AM

[lakezurich]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 12:56am

We know, that's old news.

[Weez]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:00am

2. The British DO NOT sing with a British accent

We don't? Since when? :P

[gypsy4]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 10:47am

Why hasn't mary poppins?

Mary Poppins is 5 times better than Tarzan. by the end of it's run it wasn't really making money. I can see that the OP is a big fan of Tarzan.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:50am

" feel confident in writing that Tarzan closed because it was losing money on a regular basis and there was little advance. I'm not sure what grosses people are looking at, but the grosses I see for 2007 tell me the show was in serious trouble at the box office."

Nope. Not at all. Though it was hardly the sell-out Disney expected, it wasn't losing money either. It closed because Mermaid's costs were exploding, and its profit margin was too small to justify keeping it open. But it wasn't losing money. If it weren't for an investor throwing more money at Mermaid, there was a possibility of it closing out of town.

[jennamajig]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 12:35pm

Never saw Tarzan. My friend and I considered it one of time we were in the city and it was still open, but the folks at TKTS warned us that the first 10 minutes were awesome and it went downhill from there. One said it was the first show he left a intermission.

But I remember the rush line for that show was always full each time we passed it, which was pretty much every day as we were staying at the Paramount hotel at the time. Was curious for $20, but glad I rushed Company instead as I was inches from Raul singing "Being Alive."

I never got the impression that show was losing tons of money though. Not the money train that Lion King is and Beauty was, but enough to break even. But Disney doesn't just want to break even. Plus Mermaid was supposed to be coming and it could have split the audience so Tarzan wouldn't be breaking even...it would be losing $$. Either way, it wasn't the success Disney had hoped it would be. Not everything the Mouse touches can turn to gold (or even be quality).

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 3:09pm

"Nope. Not at all. Though it was hardly the sell-out Disney expected, it wasn't losing money either. It closed because Mermaid's costs were exploding, and its profit margin was too small to justify keeping it open. But it wasn't losing money. If it weren't for an investor throwing more money at Mermaid, there was a possibility of it closing out of town."

So you're saying that the weekly nut for Tarzan was under 500K? Seems unlikely to me. I mean, you may know what you're talking about on this, but what you're saying seems unlikely.

In any case, we can agree that it closed because it wasn't doing good enough business. Whether it was actually losing money or barely getting by, the grosses were not good enough for Disney to justify continuing to run it.

[logan0215]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 3:31pm

I saw it in previews (4/29 comes to mind as the possible date)

I think the better question is:

Why did it ever open?

The thumping "drum and beat" bass was enought to make me want to leave @ intermission, but I'm a sucker for a comp and try to make a habit of not leaving shows.

I especially loved that they booked a theater with a mezzanine overhang that made the aerial scenes (of which made up about 40-60% of the show) impossible to see from the orchestra.