Will Beauty Really Close?- Page 4

[lancerpanz]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:56pm

Another argument one can make is that Disney won't have to totally rebuild the stage for Mermaid since it's already basically trapped everywhere from Titanic.

My one big complaint about Beauty and the Beast has always been Steve Blanchard, and his awful called-in performances.

I don't think Disney has the guts to close one of its mainstream shows such as Tarzan so quickly, their head is too high in the clouds for that

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:11pm

What I also don't get is how come it was a big deal when beauty moved theatres, but not that big a deal when lion king moved

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:13pm

Because, Beauty downsized the show to fit into the Lunt. Lion King remained exactly the same.

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:14pm

Beauty didn't make that big a change though..

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:16pm

Beauty and the Beast made huge changes. They went from a standard Broadway set to a touring company set.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:38pm

"I heard that they are testing a new version of TARZAN in Germany, if that proves to be more successful, then they will close TARZAN, re-vamp it, re-open it"

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet...has anyone else heard this? I don't think something like this has ever been done before, but if Disney insist on not closing Tarzan for a while, it seems like a smart move (and I think it would be great for them to turn Tarzan in to the same caliber show as the other Disney musicals). Could this really possibly be happening??

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:38pm

"Wouldn't moving a show to a third theater make it more of a "laughing stock" than it is worth? It already gets mocked from the first move. "

Lot of shows over the years have moved to a different theatre, sometimes more than once. Check out the IMBD for information.

What's you hangup with things moving?

[MotorTink]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:39pm

I never realized so many shows have moved. You learn things everyday.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:41pm

THE LION KING has certainly changed, don't believe everything you read.

And the Lunt is not still "trapped" from the TITANIC.
Who told you that?

Craig has the best point, there is just not another theatre available, DISNEY owns the Amsterdam, and they are in bed with the Nederlanders, but even though they fix up the Theatres they move into, they are not the automatic "hit" they once were.

So the choices were few.
Updated On: 3/19/07 at 10:41 PM

[ErikInTheCity]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:48pm

What I find odd is that Disney had a call for all roles in Beauty and the Beast just a couple of weeks ago. It could have been their required call, but I still found it odd.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:51pm

"I heard that they are testing a new version of TARZAN in Germany, if that proves to be more successful, then they will close TARZAN, re-vamp it, re-open it"

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet...has anyone else heard this? I don't think something like this has ever been done before...

Umm... The Scarlet Pimpernel.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:04am

I personally think that the one thing that killed Tarzan from the get go was no out of town try out just jumping to the real deal. Also, Disney only made the move of TLK into the Minskoff because CM wanted the new amserdam and because diseny has been sleeping with the nderlanders since TLK's LA productiion ( the pantages is owend by the nderlander) they were happy to work with them again. In fact, if memory serves I think that the two are right now in talks to get disney to uy the minskoff.

Also, I saw the lion king a few times over the yeras and a couple were at the new amsterdam and once at the minskoff. They show is the same they have changed nothing. BTAB on the other hand had to change because as someone said bout LB taking advantage of the fact that they were in the palace beauty did the same thing.

And, It would be a dumb move in terms of money for diensy to close and then re open tarzan. the reason is that tarzan is not a huge money maker on broadway nd to close it and re do it and then re open it on broadway would just lose tarzan money.

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:12am

"BTAB on the other hand had to change because as someone said bout LB taking advantage of the fact that they were in the palace beauty did the same thing. "

Could someone translate the above for me?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:20am

Pride Rock is completely different than it was at the New Amsterdam.
And the the band members in the boxes no longer exist.
It is very different, and cheaper.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:22am

Tom, I believe he means:

BATB had to change after moving to the Lunt, because as Legally Blonde is using the full advantage of the Palace's size, so did BATB, so thay had to downsize.

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:26am

though its clear in numbers that Beauty is no weekly sell out like Wicked or shows with high volumes...it HAS done really well for itself considering how long its run.

Many people, caught up in their own delusional worlds seem to forget that Wicked, tho very popular hasn't even run for 5 years. Beauty has had over 10 years on Broadway...Thats amazing.Take into consideration that Milestone Shows in Broadway history had lesser (origional) runs.

Oklahoma-5 Years &
The Sound of music-3.5 for examples.

Beauty is still a great show and continues to thrill first time Broadway go-ers, Disney fans, Broadway fans, and families. (and all in between). I see Beauty's closing as sort of a Seinfeld, Friends, and Frasier farewell....Go out while you're on top. If you do that, you can immortalize your success. Its when you go out when you're FORCED off broadway that you become the "laughing stock".

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:28am

But, NYC, keep in mind that in Oklahoma!'s time, 5 years was the equivalent to Beauty's run. That was a run even equal to that of Phantom today. Plays and musicals just didn't run as long as they do today.

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:30am

Thanks for the translation.

I had heard that BATB downsized when it moved to the Lunt-Fontanne but I thought it was an economics decesion and not because the Palace stage was bigger. The Palace was constructed for vaudeville, not musical theatre. The first time I saw BATB from 2nd row center, I thought the sets looked extremely cramped on the Palace stage.

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:43am

I have to disagree with ya Wizard. Yes, it may be easier to travel for theatre go-ers these days (as opposed to the 1940s when oklahoma was running). BUT I think that may be over shooting to say that Oklahomas run was equiv. to Phantoms....maybe we could compromise on a show?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:47am

Well, in the dyas of Oklahoma!, 6 months was considered a good run. So, maybe comparing its run to Phantom was over-shooting, but, i think Oklahoma!'s run is at LEAST the equal of BATB.

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:52am

It isn't necesarily that travel is easier nowadays. It's that the population has grown so and more European travelers are coming to the States than there were during Oklahoma's run. It's the population increase and the well-heeled teenager that see a show 49 times that has increased the length of runs. Really good shows don't run much longer than Oklahoma! or My Fair Lady or West Side Story. Perhaps that says something about today's product.

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:58am

Except A Chorus Line :)

[NS]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 4:52am

In reply to the poster who mentioned Beautys lack of success in the UK. The original show was pulled in London even though it was making money (I dont know why), but the first UK tour of the broadway/west end version was a success. Its the recent UK Productions tour that is naff and not as popular as its not a patch on the original version. The original UK tour was slightly scaled down as it didnt have the Champaigne corks fully on stage firing. Otherwise it all seemed very high quality.

Im just not sure myself if Legally Blonde will be a success, big theatre to fill and a very bland score from the clips ive seen on broadway.com.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 9:54am

Beauty and the beast was loosing money in the UK NS

And the uk tours (the naff ones) are not selling at all(manchester it sold to about 50 percent)

Ive seen the LB show NS and don't worry it isnt bland in the slightest x

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:27pm

Winston89, take a course in spelling. You need it.

"Pride Rock is completely different than it was at the New Amsterdam."

Explain to me.

"In reply to the poster who mentioned Beautys lack of success in the UK. The original show was pulled in London even though it was making money (I dont know why), but the first UK tour of the broadway/west end version was a success. Its the recent UK Productions tour that is naff and not as popular as its not a patch on the original version. The original UK tour was slightly scaled down as it didnt have the Champaigne corks fully on stage firing. Otherwise it all seemed very high quality."

Hmmm...Wasn't it a London hit and was prematurley closed?