I guess I have to jump in on this, now, don't I?
There is a raw emotionalism that can be a factor in enjoying a show. Sometimes the technical aspects don't need to come together as they necessarily should in order for a show to be enjoyable to most people. For example, take The Little Mermaid show in WDW. Technically, it's OK. The lip synching drives me crazy, and some of the effects could be a little better (though some are indeed spectacular). There's very little unique or ultimately creative in it - yet we go EVERY time we go to WDW because the show is just raw entertainment. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. As snobbish as I am for myself (and by extension Caitie) about theater, I do think there's value in that. That's why Mamma Mia has run as long as it has. There's nothing to it, but damn it, it's entertaining as hell.
Stephen Sondheim has said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that theater has changed drastically in the last couple of decades because the prices have gone up so much. It used to be sufficient to see a show with great songs, great story, and great character. Now, because we pay so much, we want to see our money on stage. In fact, that's why every show you see on Broadway now gets a standing ovation. People drop, even at a discount, 70 + dollars a ticket, plus transportation, dinner, and sometimes a baby sitter, and you're looking at 300+ for a night at the theater. For that, it better be a good show!
(To put this into perspective, when Fiddler on the Roof opened in 1964 a ticket to the show cost $9.50. When it closed some seven years later, it still cost $9.50 a ticket. Granted, with inflation that could still be a lot then, but when you compare it to the figures I gave above, you can see why people expect to be blown away by the theatrical experience now!).
The problem with The Little Mermaid, for me, was that I didn't feel like the money spent was on stage. As Caitie said, Sherie Renee Scott and Norm Lewis are phenomenal performers, two of my favorites really. The trouble I had was the new songs were pretty subpar, ESPECIALLY when compared to the originals from the movie. Sierra Bogges, who played Ariel, was good. She wasn't great. Wheelies for movement and set pieces that looked more like abstract art were more distracting to me than anything else. In fact, one of the biggest problems, in retrospect, is that for me the show just wasn't that memorable, again especially compared to the movie. I've seen a lot of shows in my theater going career, and unfortunately Little Mermaid just wasn't one of the ones that stuck with me.
The NY critics felt much the same way I did. Combine the critical drubbing the show got with the simple fact that 70+ dollars is a LOT of money to drop on a kids' show that just isn't as good as The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast (which I think was still running at the time - I could be wrong about that), and it's not particularly surprising the show closed early.
I have not seen Lion King on Broadway (I know, I know) though I have seen bootlegs of it and it looks VERY impressive. I did see Beauty and the Beast and thought it was spectacularly well done - and even more importantly, the added songs are excellent. They were built off themes you can hear in the original movie's score, and so sound exactly like they fit in with the show. The Little Mermaid's songs didn't do that - they FELT shoe-horned in.
Don't even get me going on how terrible Tarzan was....
__________________
Zipadeedoodah -- yeah, man