Should Disney stop producing musicals?

[JoshTodos]

thoughts?

[rosscoe(au)]

Yes 

apart from a brand new Hunchback that is closer to the original German production 

[EllieRose2]

Yep. Because Disney hates money more than anything.

[BwayLB]

No because some movies maybe fun to be as musicals

[Gizmo6]

No I don't think they should but they have never really replicated the magic of the Lion King. 

All subsequent productions have been carbon copies, more or less, of the cartoons. 

Lion King shows audiences are capable of more imagination than often given credit for. 

I never saw The Little Mermaid but it probably was the one I was most excited about but everything about it was awful from the characterisations to the design. 

Like take Matilda and the bravery the RSC showed in cross gender casting Trunchbull, Ursula without doubt should have been cross gender casting but Disney aren't that brave. 

I haven't seen Frozen but from the performances I've seen they haven't done anything new. I think this is the success of Phantom, every time you see the chandelier rise and the stage transform into the lair you feel you're seeing something truly extraordinary and magical even after 30 odd years. 

I would have felt like this at Aladdin but it was too pantomime and once you sat up a level it revealed all the magic. 

[kade.ivy]

No, but they should rethink their approaches and priorities. I echo Gizmo and say that their theatermakers should trust their audiences more. Lion King is a success because it’s different and decidedly not the cartoon onstage.

I’d love to have seen what Julie Taymor did with Pinocchio, or Alex Timbers with Frozen. Though I don’t hate Grandage’s interpretation (he was hired for a job), it’s clear Disney went for synergy rather than art.

[missthemountains]

Yes. But it'll never happen.

[dramamama611]

Who cares?  They are going to do what they want, and if I don't want to see what they produce, I won't.  Doesn't matter to me one bit.

[trpguyy]

Nah, the Beauty and the Beast revival will be glorious

[Scarlet Leigh]

No. People crap on Disney a lot but they have honestly done a lot of good for Broadway. Their shows might not be the best anymore but they are a fantastic gateway for many children into theatre. I mean really... how many people on this board that are in their like early 30s or their 20s can raise a hand and admit that one of if not their first Broadway show was Beauty and the Beast or Lion King? *Raises hand* Parents want to take their kids to a show, but don't know what to take them to? What's the safe bet for a small child's first Broadway musical? Something Disney, duh.

[adamgreer]

Why? Any producer would kill to have the track record Disney has in terms of producing hit shows that turn a profit:

Beauty and the Beast- hit
The Lion King- hit
Aida- hit
Tarzan- flop (though a massive hit overseas)
Mary Poppins- hit
The Little Mermaid- flop
Newsies- hit
Aladdin- hit
Frozen- undetermined, but likely hit

To say nothing of the massively popular Disney Jr. catalogue that they license.

[RippedMan]

I wish they'd re-tool Hunchback as I think it's a glorious score and show, and should be seen by more people. 

But I do wish they'd take some creative risks. But again, Aladdin is a terrible, terrible show, and yet it is raking it in. So whatever. 

I'd love to have seen what Timbers did with Frozen though. 

[UncleCharlie]

The tension on executive row at Disney is palpable as they await the final consensus of this thread.

[JudyDenmark]

Gizmo6 said: "Like take Matilda and the bravery the RSC showed in cross gender casting Trunchbull, Ursula without doubt should have been cross gender casting but Disney aren't that brave."

To be fair, Rafiki is played by a woman. 

Personally, I'm all for Disney continuing to produce, given the strength of their catalog... still praying for Hercules to come to the stage!... but I do wish they'd take more risks. 

[Kad]

I'd rather Disney than deep-pocketed, self-absorbed producers who put up destined-to-fail, ill-conceived shows and then keep them running for months while bleeding cash.

[nealb1]

No - why should Disney stop producing musicals?  Actors, musicians, crew, box office and theatre staff are being employed, and millions of people all over the world are going to the theatre, spending money and pumping money into the local economy.  

Disney is a business - an extremely successful business.  

[AADA81]

I remember when discussing theater meant Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Rogers & Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein .... now, it's Disney cartoons.

But no, Disney has a right to produce shows and make money.  It gives many professionals work, attracts audiences and maybe a young person here and there will become interested in theater in general, not just in Disney properties.

[Call_me_jorge]

Do I want Disney to stop producing musicals? No, but I do want them to start producing more plays. If peter and the Starcatcher is any indicator they can really succeed with producing more straight plays.

[Dave28282]

I just wish they would stop making shows of the animated classics.

The wonderful fluidity and magic of animation is what makes them work, no unnecessary songs, a 35 piece orchestra, normal sized animals, better than life movement, elegance, etc.

The stage versions have none of this. It looks like a sack of potatoes on a stage.

They should focus on different projects.

[Mister Matt]

I remember when discussing theater meant Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Rogers & Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein .... now, it's Disney cartoons.

How patronizing and reductive.  August Wilson, Edward Albee, Sam Shepard, Tony Kushner, Tom Stoppard, Sarah Ruhl, Paula Vogel, Wendy Wasserstein, David Ives, Christopher Durang, Brian Friel, John Guare, Terrance McNally, Stephen Sondheim, Kander and Ebb, Kopit and Yeston, Ahrens and Flaherty, Cy Coleman, Stephen Schwartz, Andrew Lloyd Webber, William Finn, Jonathan Larson, Elton John, Schoenberg and Boublil, Jason Robert Brown, Adam Guettel, Michael John LaChiusa, David Yazbeck, Shaiman and Wittman, Robert Lopez, David Henry Hwang, Richard Greenberg, Nora Ephron, Harvey Fierstein, John Leguizamo, John Patrick Shanley, Yasmina Reza, Michael Frayn, David Hare, Jeanine Tesori, Lin Manuel Miranda, Martin McDonagh, Alfred Uhry, Tracy Letts, Conor McPherson, Pasek and Paul, Kitt and Yorkey...AND Disney cartoons.  Is it always "or"?  Is it never "and"?

"Discussing theatre" means discussing theatre and "theatre" has never been about only one thing.  Stepping into the wayback machine is only indicative of nostalgia.  Like every other art form, theatre grows and evolves.  Musical theatre adapted comic strips with Li'l Abner in 1956 and films in 1957 with Hazel Flagg (there may have been others earlier, but those are the ones I can think of at the moment).  "Cartoons", as an art form, have also evolved and grown, so the notion that the adaptation of animated films as live theatrical works half a century past the peak of the Golden Age really doesn't seem so ridiculous.

[Brian07663NJ]

No...let the audiences make the decision to attend or not.

[Kad]

Broadway started as low to middle-brow spectacle and entertainment. It remains such.

(it's also worth noting that a lot, even most, of the plays of Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller aren't particularly good. It's not all Streetcar and Salesman).

[ghostlight2]

The opening announcement of FROZEN not only asks people to turn off their phones, and kindly reminds them not to sing along, but thanks and welcomes the kids attending a Broadway show for the first time and expresses the wish that it is a begining of a lifetime of attending theater.

I'm not their audience, but I'm pro-Disney all the way. 

Also, what Mister Matt said. 

[kelsey1389]

ghostlight2 said: "The opening announcement of FROZEN not only asks people to turn off their phones, and kindly reminds them not to sing along, but thanks and welcomes the kids attending a Broadway show for the first time and expresses the wish that it is a begining of a lifetime of attending theater.

I'm not their audience, but I'm pro-Disney all the way.

Also, what Mister Matt said."

 

AGREED. I sat next to a 5 year old girl in a Princess Anna costume when I saw Frozen, and I was keeping half an eye on her to make sure she didn't fall out of her booster seat (her dad was not paying attention to her, but that's besides the point). When Caissie Levy was busting out "Let It Go" her eyes were GLUED to the stage and I have NEVER seen someone so excited about theatre. That show was probably life-changing for her. Disney shows help give kids and families a gateway to theatre. I normally help the woman I babysit for help pick out shows for her kids (ages 10 and 12). They started with The Lion King, then worked through Aladdin and Frozen. And now that the kids understand how theatre "works" (the ettiequte, the style) they're starting to see Phantom, and Wicked, and they're seeing MFL next week because they learned to love theatre through those first few Disney shows.

 

[JennH]

Just echoing what many have already said. I love Disney musicals, but I need them to start take more risks again. They can afford it. I find it sad that they haven't had a show that has matched the artistic AND financial success of Lion King. Besides the two flops of theirs (we know what they are), everything they've done has been a hit, mostly in terms of finance. People WILL come just on title alone, so I honestly cannot for the life of me, figure why they can't be creative and artistic at the same time. If they have a built in audience, why can't they just make their shows good while they're at it? They really don't have an excuse for not doing so.