Beauty and the Beast transfer... why did it switch theaters?

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 7:21pm

just wondering... was the transfer from the Palace to the Lunt Fontanne needed? was it really a better theater for that show? was it losing money? i must admit that when i saw the show in video previews and pics at te Palace it just looked so beautiful and grand, and when i saw it on broadway i felt like i watching the national tour version of a stripped down set. I still loved the show but it felt a little less magical then i had hoped.

[candydog2]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 7:24pm

I think they moved it so that AIDA could take the palace.

[jagfkb]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 7:56pm

Actually, the move was for two reasons:

First, it was to make way for Aida, since the Lunt wouldn't fit Aida's sets.

However, the show was also playing about half filled houses while at the Palace, and once the show transfered, the experience became much more intimate, as well as improving weekly numbers immensley.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:27pm

so it only lasted this long because of the transfer?

[winston89]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:35pm

I wouldn't say that. I think that it would have lasted pretty long in the Palace. I also think that the show closed becuse Disney yet again needed room for another show and that show was Mermaid. Beauty was selling well enough to keep going for a good long while with or without it closing.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:38pm

Sort of off-topic...Beauty and the Beast had a nice, healthy run, but I am disappointed that it closed in favor of Little Mermaid. I am a huge Little Mermaid fan and thought the stage version was mediocre. I know a lot of people don't like Disney shows, but if I had to pick one over the other for the Lunt, I'd pick Beauty.

[morosco]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:43pm

When they moved to the Lunt Fontanne the set was reduced. I want to go as far to say that at the Lunt Fontanne they used the scenery from the National tour but I can't remember for sure.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:43pm

I agree with Winston89. It really only closed because Disney wanted it for The Little Mermaid..Disneypractically owns (correct me if I'm wrong!) the Lunt. I have to say though putting it in the Lunt was better for me, the Palace seemed too big for this show. It's a shame it had to end it's run, but I don't think they wanted to transfer theatres again, and I doubt that Disney wanted the Richard Rodgers (where Tarzan had set up an immediate closure) for TLM, so Bye-Bye-Beauty. I have to say that it's the only Disney show (besides MP) that not only that I liked alot altogether(haven't seen TLM) but kept me in the mindframe that I was seeing a BROADWAY MUSICAL, and not let's see how spectacular we can make this look and spend millions and millions of dollars.

For the record, it definitely would have been open for a couple more years, had Disney not put it's close on. Oh well .

[Smaxie]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:51pm

>Disney practically owns (correct me if I'm wrong!) the Lunt.<

Disney does not own the Lunt. It is owned and operated by the Nederlander Organization.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:57pm

I thought Beauty and the Beast was exciting and breathtaking at the Palace. I saw it years later at the Lunt and felt that it was almost comical how cramped the stage felt, and that Be Our Guest was just plain silly.

[Angel of Music2]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:24pm

Sorry if this is a stupid question. I'm not as all knowing as you all, but... I thought that Beauty and the Beast was altogether over. So did it close or did it just switch to a different theatre?

[winston89]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:40pm

Beauty and the beast is done on Broadway now that it closed at the Lunt. There were no talks of moving it from The Lunt to another theatre. It only closed to make room for little mermaid. When people on here were talking about it moving theares they ment that during the run the show switched theatres.

And morosco, Beauty did use the sets from the then recently finished national tour when the show came to the Lunt.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:52pm

">Disney practically owns (correct me if I'm wrong!) the Lunt.<

Disney does not own the Lunt. It is owned and operated by the Nederlander Organization. "

Nono I'm sorry I know that :)! I just meant it seems as if Disney has "control" over it/SOME say. As in, they will pick what goes in should they get rid of TLM. Sounds ridiculous but it seems to me that that's the deal!

[Angel of Music2]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 12:25am

Oh. Ha! Thanks Winston89.

[winston89]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 1:19am

Philly the only theatre Disney owns is the New Amsterdam. However, Disney has done great business with the Nederlanders over the years. All of their shows that weren't at the New Amsterdam were at Nederlander houses. Even The Lion King in LA played at The Pantages which is owned by the Nederlanders. Even in London as well with their production of Beauty and the Beast at the Dominion which is part owned by the Nederlanders (half owned by the Nederlanders the other half live nation)

It is like Cameron Mackintosh's mega musicals were always in Shubert houses The Phantom of the opera (The Majestic) Les Miserables both the original (Original The Broadway, Imperial and the revival the Broadhurst) Cats (Winter Garden) and Miss Saigon (The Broadway) were all in Shubert theatres. Some producers do great business with particular theatre owners and thus wouldn't dare of putting any of their shows in another theatre.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 1:24am

Actually, the New Amsterdam is owned by the city of New York. Disney only has a lease on it.

[BWayJunkie]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 1:39am

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 01:39 AM

[gypsy4]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 2:06am

I miss Beauty.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 2:08am

Disney does not own the Minskoff, the Nederlanders do.

Disney also doesn't own the New Amsterdam, but their lease with the City of New York is for 99 years.

[BWayJunkie]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 3:17am

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 03:17 AM

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 3:35am

so then let's assume AIDA could've gone to another theater... would Beauty and the Beast closed much sooner?

[winston89]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 4:14am

No. Let's just say for arguments sake that Aida could have fit into the Lunt and they put it there instead of Beauty. I think Beauty if it were still at the palace would have stayed open on its own accord at least until around the same time that the show at he lunt closed. But, keep in mind that at the palace it wouldn't have been forced out like it was in the Lunt.

And, in regards to Tarzan and Beauty announcing a closing at the same time. The sets for Beauty (I am talking about the sets at the Lunt which were fresh off the tour) were WAY to big to fit into the Richard Rodgers. The Richard Rodgers has a very small backstage area. So, even if they just closed Tarzan there was no physical way that they could have had both Beauty and Mermaid running at the same time. The Lunt can house larger sets then the Richard Rodgers can. Beauty had and little mermaid has a large set. There would have been nothing either show could have done to fit in the Rodgers.


BWayJunkie, I think you might have thought that Disney leased The Minskoff from The Nederlanders because a while ago there were talks of the Nederlanders selling the Minskoff to Disney since Disney paid to fix up the place and because they realized that The Lion King isn't going anywhere anytime soon. However, this never came to be.

As for the ownership of The New Amsterdam. I was wrong to have said that Disney ownes it. But, I thought it was owned by The New 42nd St Project. Is that technically the city or its own little group?

Updated On: 7/8/08 at 04:14 AM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 9:49am

When Beauty moved from the Palace to the Lunt to make way for Aida, in addition to switching sets which were a bit less grand than the originals, the show actually closed for 6 weeks.

When a show remains closed for 6 weeks and then returns, the Equity contracts are nullified. The production is deemed "new" under Equity rules. Disney was able to eliminate two chorus jobs from the weekly payroll. Who knows how many backstage jobs were able to be eliminated with a smaller set.

Scarlet Pimpernel also did this between 2.0 and 3.0. Wicked shut down for 6 weeks after the San Fran tryout and was able to avoid paying off actors who they decided to replace. There may be others that did the tryout+6 week break sleight of hand.

[JRybka]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 9:58am

Some believe that Beauty should return and I saw why not....
It is such a fun show and it is classic in the sense that it is not geared for boys or girls.. it is geared to both.
As much as I loved and adored TLM, it is all for the girls.

[BWayJunkie]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 1:25pm

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 01:25 PM