X-S Tech I think you have a valid point regarding "Feed the Birds" - to me personally that as the one big disappointment in the show. In the movie it is just so touching, so basic and calm, so magical that it would have been hard to recreate something similar on stage. But what they did in the end just doesn't work for me at all. I think they could have done better in that point. I have to point out though, that other guests (who were with me) actually enjoyed that song pretty much in its staging. Maybe as Disney fans we also connect to much to it due to Walt's love for it and the numerous very, very laid back recordings made of it, that go much further than even the OST version.
Rearding your question what I referred to when I said that Beauty and the Beast as stage musical was a bit "theme park like" - I did not want to devalue the show and I actually enjoyed it very much. The creative team and the casts which I have seen over the time always worked hard and presented great results. But for me the show at times was just too slick. Theme park productions often tend to try to overdue a bit in areas like sets and costuming as far as Disney goes. It just tries to be as perfect a resembling of a movie set as possible. And I think Beauty and the Beast does the same. The sets are seamless, have incredible depth and detail and go to length incredible. While I applaud that to some extent it also takes something away that I always connected with stage productions, whether plays, musicals, opera, ... The magic of imagination. Something that both The Lion King and Mary Poppins have plenty of. Even when Mary Poppins uses an impressive huge set with incredible detail for the multi-level house interior, it is still clearly visible as a set. At points segments of the house move onto stage in plain sight from different directions. At other times clearly theatrical means are used to create a set like backdrop paintings standing in for what could be three dimensional set pieces. While in the first moment looking maybe cheaper this also to me breathes some kind of "stage magic" - something that Beauty and the Beast overcoated with its near perfect sets. As much as I enjoy these "near perfect" productions, I also love to be enthralled by the old style theatrical magic, that just sprinkles some extra Disney magic into the show occassionally. That is by the way also why I think the flying effect for Mary works so perfectly. When she first flies it is just a standard on stage flying trick as you have seen it numerous times ... but then Disney comes in. And thanks to being more old style / laid back for the rest of the show that one moment is so way more impressive than say the transformation of the Beast, since in Beauty and the Beast they already have tried to wow you "too often".
In a theme park show which runs a 20 or 25 minute block only you can wow your audience every two minutes with a new effect (a new set piece, a magic floating, a new costume, fireworks, ...) and each effect has tremendous success since you still only get to see like 10 or 12 effects. With Beauty and the Beast I at some point had the impression they went for something similar, something new spectacular every few minutes. It does work as far as it creates a great overall show toroughly enjoyable, even loveable. But effect number 120 just doesn't get you as thrilled anymore as effect number 2 since you have seen so many (even if different) ones. Mary on the other hand with its selected few effects wows you even more with the effects since they stand really out of the "ordinary".
Yours
Dirk