See, for me, Chicago on stage was pretty poor. Loved the songs, loved the choreography, but the staging was so minimal as to be nothing. Just people on chairs around the stage getting up, singing a song, sitting down again, with nothing to break it up in terms of scenery other than lighting effects.
When I saw that, in the late 1990s revival, I said that if they took the action out of the club setting and brought in locations then the film (which had been announced) would be so much better and what Chicago should have been...and then they did it like that. Rob Marshall cleverly kept the club setting but allowed the action to bounce back and forth, a terrific masterstroke that retained the intention of the show while making a true "film" adaptation (as opposed to just filming the show, which the more recent The Producers essentially did and lost a lot of the life from it in the process).
That's the trick...like adapting a book, you wouldn't just film someone reading the pages out to you, or even just a limited cast read-through. With a stage production, and especially a big musical, you wouldn't just take a camera to the theater and film the stage, and audiences shouldn't just expect the same...the whole point of film is that it can take you to places that those other mediums can't (otherwise, what's the point of making a film version in the first place?).
Conversely, the magic of The Lion King on stage is because it *isn't* the film! Both have their own ways and means, but they shouldn't be the same thing.
BTW...after all that, here's hoping you're an authentic new member here - welcome to the boards!