Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: After paying already high admissions to the theme parks, duckling, my sisters and I really don't believe the average Disney guest is going to want to have to pay anything extra to see a stage show that SHOULD be included in the base price admission. It would seem too much like price gouging. ORGOCH: Yeah--the plan they got right now works just fine. No need ta go muckin' it up.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins The Aladdin show was a Broadway quality show, just a little shorter. I'd like them to bring the Mary Poppins musical.
Originally Posted By stagemomx3 I love Mary Poppins, but a friend of mine that saw the show in London said the story wasn't very good.
Originally Posted By irishfan ^^ Blasphemy! Mary is the best musical I have seen in years! The storyline is slightly different to the movie, but much more faithful to the original books. Hey, they could literally just do the "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" scene from the show in the Hyperion and I'd be happy, it's that good! The show highlght in my eyes. Anyway, hasn't it been confirmed in another post that Aladdin isn't going anywhere?
Originally Posted By leemac You won't ever see a Disney Theatricals show inside the parks. It would set a dangerous precedent. Why pay $100 for a ticket when it is free at DCA? I can't ever seeing Tom Schumacher allowing one of his shows to be performed at any park whether it be the full production or an abridged version (like Wicked at Universal Studios Japan).
Originally Posted By stagemomx3 It was just recast and will be back October 1st? As for Mary Poppins my friend didn't like the part where Mary leaves and another nanny comes. He said the story was choppy and didn't make much sense. I haven't seen it so I don't know. I would love to see a musical review of Disney songs done in the Hyperon!
Originally Posted By irishfan >>As for Mary Poppins my friend didn't like the part where Mary leaves and another nanny comes.<< It's a key part of the story, and I love it when Mary makes her return, it's such a joyful moment, during "Lets Go Fly a Kite".
Originally Posted By xrayvision >>I can't ever seeing Tom Schumacher allowing one of his shows to be performed at any park whether it be the full production or an abridged version (like Wicked at Universal Studios Japan).<< That concept would make perfect sense..if Lion King wasn't currently playing onstage at three Disney resorts (the Paris LKing is quite good), BATB and pre-broadway's Little Mermaid weren't playing at WDW Disney Studios and Tarzan didn't have a pre-broadway sampling run at DLP. Even Hunchback played at DRL and WDW before a professional stage production opened in Germany. Disney's in-park live entertainment productions are being used to both test market future stage shows as well as be used to cash in on the brand success of animation features that have translated well on stage as proven thru current live Broadway productions (i.e., Broadways Lion King's success cueing the artistic direction of DLP's Lion King stage production).
Originally Posted By pleddy36 Hate3 to say it, but you'll NEVER see Mary Poppins performed in a Disney Park. They dont have the rights to do it. The only reason they are involved with the London and Broadway production is that everyone knows the songs Disney used in the movie, and without those songs people wouldnt see it. So Disney had to be involved since they have the right to the songs. And having grown up in NYC and spending many years seeing Broadway shows, Aladdin was not Broadway "quality". I was able to sit through it once, and that was more then enough for me.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ That isn't quite the case. Disney owned the rights to make a movie out of Mary Poppins but Cameron Mackintosh owned the rights to make it into a musical. Cameron thought it just wouldn't be right to make the musical without the involvement of Disney. So it morphed into a co-production.
Originally Posted By leemac <<That concept would make perfect sense..if Lion King wasn't currently playing onstage at three Disney resorts (the Paris LKing is quite good), BATB and pre-broadway's Little Mermaid weren't playing at WDW Disney Studios and Tarzan didn't have a pre-broadway sampling run at DLP.>> I've no idea how you can see a similarity between any of that park fare and the Broadway version. None whatsoever. Tarzan at the Richard Rodgers is nothing like Tarzan Rocks or Tarzan: The Encounter.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Disney's in-park live entertainment productions are being used to both test market future stage shows as well as be used to cash in on the brand success of animation features that have translated well on stage as proven thru current live Broadway productions (i.e., Broadways Lion King's success cueing the artistic direction of DLP's Lion King stage production).>> Again that just isn't the case. There is no collaboration whatsoever between Disney Theatrical and DCE. Not one iota. If DCE creates a show that has Broadway potential it is up to them to either convince Theatrical it has a chance or do it themselves. They don't even fall into the same Disney business unit as Theatricals is part of the Studios.
Originally Posted By Kayoss <<<<>>As for Mary Poppins my friend didn't like the part where Mary leaves and another nanny comes.<< It's a key part of the story, and I love it when Mary makes her return, it's such a joyful moment, during "Lets Go Fly a Kite". >>>> Oh c'mon, the new "Brimstone and Trecle" song is the only new number that truly sounds like a deleted song from the Mary Poppins film. I liked the 'mean' nanny... However, I could totally do without the other new numbers.... overall "Mary Poppins" won me over with the sheer imagination in the sets. It's a technical wonder. They dearly need to put back the "I Love To Laugh" sequence.... even if retooled... Could they pull this off at DCA? Not without ruining the show. Just much too expensive. Beauty and the Beast has the best score of the modern Disney musicals IMO, so I certainly don't mind if it's back. Beauty is much better then the bombastic Aladdin style IMO, but I guess it's a matter of taste
Originally Posted By leemac <<Oh c'mon, the new "Brimstone and Trecle" song is the only new number that truly sounds like a deleted song from the Mary Poppins film. I liked the 'mean' nanny... >> I'm surprised to hear anyone say that. I thought that the new songs and the expanded Sherman Brother numbers were exquisite and fit perfectly. Anything can Happen is a flawless conclusion to the musical. IMO it has the emotional intensity of anything else in the show including Feed the Birds. The extensions to Super... and Step in Time are incredible. Different strokes I guess....
Originally Posted By Kayoss <<I'm surprised to hear anyone say that. I thought that the new songs and the expanded Sherman Brother numbers were exquisite and fit perfectly. Anything can Happen is a flawless conclusion to the musical. IMO it has the emotional intensity of anything else in the show including Feed the Birds. The extensions to Super... and Step in Time are incredible. Different strokes I guess....>>> Oh I loved the show! Don't get me wrong! I'm really grasping at straws to be critical! I agree that the extensions to the classic songs really work... but the entirely new numbers (minus the kitch of the Brimstone number, which strangely seems to fit) like the song the mother sings... they just seems really sub-par next to the 'practically perfect' songs from the film. Mary Poppins has an amazing string of just perfect songs... and it's SOOOOOOOOO well known.... you have to look at it from that perspective. Adding numbers is fine but watching the show, I got an overwhelming sinking feeling that (in this case) Disney was so respectful of the Sherman Brothers work that (upon turning these new songs in) they just put them in rather the reject and/or tweak them. Remember, the Sherman Brothers used to go through 50-60 songs for a project. Disney had insane quality standards. Even if you think the new songs work, I can't possibly imagine anyone saying they're anywhere near the songwriting level of "Feed the Birds", "A Spoonfull of Sugar" or ANY of the other songs from the original film. The new songs feel generic, 'broadway-esc', and forced. It's only more apparent when the old songs come up and the emotion EXPLODES to see the contrast. Honestly, there should never be a point where you're wanting new a song to end to hear an old one. I really think they should replace a couple of them, and I think the Sherman Brothers can do it... they just need someone who can deliver constructive critism to get some songs written that reach the level of quality that their previous work so perfectly matched the material.
Originally Posted By Kayoss And, although it IS your opinion (art is subjective, of course) I must sheepishly bring up that the finale (ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN reprise) does use a lot of notes from "FLY A KITE" and "FEED THE BIRDS" to make that reprise sound a lot better then it is.
Originally Posted By pleddy36 Leemac, Do me a favor and shoot me an e-mail at Belstudios@aol.com. Seems you and I both follow the same things, and I had a question for you about Mary Poppins. Paul Pleddy36
Originally Posted By 45YearsofMagic Leemac, you know that the Sherman Brothers had nothing to do with the new music in the show right? They were written by the composing team from Honk. Just thought you should know that crappy songs like "Being Mrs. Banks" didn't flow from the pens of the Shermans.
Originally Posted By irishfan >>Just thought you should know that crappy songs like "Being Mrs. Banks" didn't flow from the pens of the Shermans.<< What one person sees as crappy, another views as quite moving. It should also probably be noted that the lyrics to pretty much all the sherman songs have been changed quite a bit in the musical. If you take "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' as an example, the chorus remains the same, but the lyrics in the verses are nothing like the movie version.
