Slashdot Mirror
LOTR Jumps the Shark
eggoeater writes "The latest incarnation of The Lord of the Rings is here in the form of musical theater and, as reported by Yahoo News, the reviews are not good. The Toronto production puts less emphasis on plot, character, and music, and concentrates more on hi-tech theatrics. The production uses a 40-ton, computer controlled stage with 17 elevators and the cast of 55 goes through 500 costumes in the 3 hour performance. Despite this, the same critics say it will be a big money-maker."
It sounds to me that they're trying to cash in on the films, rather than make a fitting tribute to the books themselves...
Well, I saw some good critics here in Montreal so I guess it's not so bad.
well, when it jumps the Watcher in the Water, it'll have more than bad reviews to worry about
+1 fashionably cynical
Just in case anyone here doesn't know what that means.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_the_shark
Perhaps a better animal-based metaphor for stunts over plotlines would be "LOTR has slid down the trunk"
Jumping the Shark
"There And Back Again: Hobbits in Tights"
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Shouldn't it be... "LOTR Jumps the Watcher in the Water"?
Frodo Sings!!
Back in 1977, 1978 or so...around the time of the Bakshi film, they had a seven page "Lord Of The Rings Musical", noting that since the books had been made into everything else, a musical was inevitable. It's taken 30 years, but reality has outpaced satire. IIRC, it was entitled "The Ring And I".
And I bet the songs in the MAD version were better.
May the Eye of Sauron be forever upon these fools.
Peter Jackson had to cut huge chunks out of the trilogy to fit it into 10 hours or so of film. How much of the content could possibly be retained in a stage show that runs about a quarter as long, and made interesting and comprehensible to a general audience?
FRODO: Hi there, I'm Frodo.
GANDALF: Here, take this ring and chuck it.
FRODO: Okay!
BLACK RIDERS: Grrrr!
FRODO: *chuck*
CAST: Yay!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
It's been done before, and by no less than Leonard "Spock" Nimoy and a chorus of overly-wholesome '70s fly-girls
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Sounds an awful lot (with emphasis on "awful") like the original cartoon. Plus they made it a musical, which I suspect makes the entire production a painful affair.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
The Hobbit musical kicked ass! If they get the same guy...
the show based on J.R.R. Tolkien's epic trilogy drew only one standing ovation in more than three hours
Wow - it must have really sucked.
- Andrew
I meta-moderate because I care.
What is this obsession people have with turning every good book into a play/film/tv series etc? Some stuff just doesn't work when converted, and similarly, not every good film makes a good book.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
LOTR has been done in the theater many times before, as an animated series, as various movies and even as video games. ("War in Middle Earth" - [shudder]) Since the original books, the ONLY attempt to repackage the story that hasn't completely sucked was Peter Jackson's movie trilogy. So...this isn't so much "Jumping the Shark" as it is SNAFU.
Why is it so bad as a musical, most of what i remember from the books, that wasn't in the films, were the storytelling...through song and prose. And the summary doesn't mention that some critics, and the granddaughter of JRRT, support the musical and say it is closer to the books than the films.
I just started reading the book again, I think it must be the fifth time and it still sucks me in in no time. But seeing the picture with Gandalf singing while looking exactly like a Lotr-movie ripoff is too much.
Damn it, those Tolkien brohters were always rather strict on licensing, what made them change their mind this time? This looks awful and if someone would present me with a ticket for the show I'd cancel the friendship asap.
If the music is mediocre it will be forgotten soon, worst case would be if this would have a hit. Like the Bree scene or something. I would kill anybody humming it.
...despite enjoying the films as standalone lumps of entertainment think that the films jumped the shark first. Dwarf tossing, shield surfing, and various other things that annoy the picky fanboy in me. Don't get me wrong, I love the films, but... dwarf tossing? Seriously, dude!
Game dev and music blog
Maybe they need a stunt turkey to jump through a ring of fire between acts!
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Coderz 4 Life
Hmmm... what could it look like?
First we get the hobbit party (first 2 songs, "let there be friends" and "it's good to be a Hobbit"). Then the big key scene where Frodo gets the ring and has to leave (big ballade, "Why me?"). They leave and get hunted by the nazguls (a little ballet filler there), pick up Aragorn somehow (not a lot of time, just a brief song "Once a king's son").
Legolas and Gimli come into the fold at the king's court (no time for a long why the king is sick or whatnot, just a quick meeting and the big key ballade "Fellowship of the ring", whole ensemble including the nazguls dancing).
Then a quick battle at helm's deep, where Legolas and Gimli sing a duet instead of fighting and finally Frodo singing a duet with Gollum akin to the one between Jean Valjean and Javert in Les Miserables, "My precious".
Oh yeah, I can already see me watch this...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He would have been beaten all the armies by himself, not like Aragon who needs elves, dwarfs, wizards, and dead spirits....probably with just a snap of the hand or by banging against a giant gong. He would have just sent Richie Cunningham to drop the damn ring in the nearest middle earth dumpster while Postsie and Ralph Malph frolic in the woods. The one bad thing is that Fonzi probably would save Chachi and Joanie where as Aragon would kill them himself.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Lord of the Rings did not jump the shark. Let's be specific here... the Toronto playhouse's vision of LOTR is what is lacking here... JRR Tolkien wrote a masterpiece of literature, and any interpretation of that literature is what should be examined, not the literature itself.
I'd say "kill me now", but you just did.
--MarkusQ
My dear Sam, you cannot always be torn in two. You will have to be one and whole for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do. Your part in this story will go on. Please write produce a massive stage performance that noone will ever forget.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It doesn't exist! Nope! Never heard of that musical! I'm not listening! LALALALALA!
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Something "jumps the shark" when it reachs a peak that surpasses any other part of it. By definition: after Fonz jumped the shark nothing in the series would ever compare to that.
For that reason, you can't say something jumped the shark until it has run its course. You can point to a specific scene in Peter Jackson's LOTR movies and declare that it jumps the shark at that point (for me the jump the shark scene is "You shall not pass!"); but you can never say that any interpretation of LOTR has jumped the shark because we haven't seen all the interpretations yet.
As a fan since the 70s, I never thought about this until one of my elementary students pointed it out - if the eagles could snatch the heroes off the top of Mt. Doom after all this noise, why couldn't they have simply sent the eagles to drop in the ring? Stick around for the "7th Night Free!" promotion at the Prancing Pony and head home fat and happy.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
My first thought was "I'd never pay to see that!"
Then I re-read the line:
40-ton, computer controlled stage with 17 elevators and the cast of 55
My second thought was, "Hmmm. I wonder if they use MSWindows, on a wireless network?" It might be worth going to see after all.
-- MarkusQ
...I jumped your MOM's shark IN BED!
I was one of the lucky many who paid too much ($120 for dress circle) to see the preview season of the show back in February. I also had the pleasure of discussing the show with a master of The Lord of the Rings and all things Tolkien Prof John Browne at the University of Toronto. (He teaches a first year seminar on the trilogy.) Browne also saw the show. We agreed that the show was lacking in many departments, the weakest being Gandalf himself. With a voice similar to Frodo's, Gandalf didn't carry the same kind of wisdom and power he did in the movies or legend. Many scenes went on too long. The show has great potential, and if the proper corrections and modifications are made it will be amazing.
However, it should be noted, this performance simply cannot be enjoyed without partaking first in some of that famous pipeweed.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
It seems like they are trying to remake Peter Jackson's movies on the stage, as opposed to the books themselves. Now, I understand the financial incentive to do so, but why compete in a medium that's ill suited? It's like Peter Jackson trying to "out book" the book. Different mediums have different strengths and weaknesses. The special effects available in modern movies blows away most anything that could be done on a stage. Why not use the stage's natural strengths? Why not try a slightly more intimate version (no Sam and Frodo jokes). All that can happen is for this to be compared unfavorably to the movie as well as the book.
WTF? For a stage show (length must be less than 4 hrs), there are no more than 24 essential named roles. There are another perhaps 35 extra roles, no more than 15 of which are one stage at once, even in the battles.
Yeesh! Even in the three massive films, there were only ~100 credited parts. How in Feanor's name is that 500 costumes?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
...when Gandalf whapped Denethor with his staff.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
You may not be aware that one of the characters in the movie was played by Liv Tyler. This was done from a casting couch hovering directly over the shark. basically, this musical is the equivalent of the string quartet that Brahmsed it's way down with the Titanic.
go get it
...when they were finishing up with open rehearsals. Which basically means it's too late to change anything significant before opening, so you're pretty much seeing the show as it will play on opening night.
...Which makes sense, because live performance should be the reason why you go to see a musical in the first place.
Two word review: WAGNER LIVES.
I should stop there, but here we go. (Note: General notes about the show follow, but I've tried to avoid any spoilers.)
The show is a spectacle, to be sure. And they tried to get everything in there. They really, really tried.
The entire basic plot exposition, from Bilbo's birthday disappearance to Frodo's departure from the Shire with Sam in tow, took maybe five minutes. If I hadn't seen the movies, I would have been lost 1/8 of the way into the show.
Tom Bombadil was reduced to one line of dialogue from an Ent, spoken near the end of the show. If I hadn't read the books, I would have wondered who the hell Tom Bombadil was.
The stage itself is unbelievable. It makes the technical shenanigans of Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera look like three kids with a cardboard set in the backyard. People fly, Ents really are 20 feet tall, battle scenes look like battle scenes, and Shelob actually is a giant spider (not to give too much away). And there are plenty of little effects too, some occurring before the curtain even goes up. Amazing stuff.
But the characters and story are almost completely lost. In particular, Gandalf (Tony award winner Brent Carver) is written well but comes across as a waifish, almost goofy academic rather than a triumphant top-billed hero. Much more impressive is Saruman, triumphantly evil and menacing. I don't know much about musical theater, but I came away with the impression that the two actors should have switched roles.
As for the musical numbers, they are sometimes touching and sometimes bizarre. The music itself contains elements of several cultural styles, from Indian arias to Irish bar tunes. I guess the idea was that Middle Earth's music spawned all the currently known forms. That's kind of interesting, but unfortunately it is all for naught, as you won't remember a single theme by the end of the show. Sad.
IMHO the show is saved by a positively BRILLIANT performance from Gollum. Truly exceptional. It is nearly worth the admission price just to see a very talented actor (Michael Therriault) convincingly jump from Smeagol to Gollum and back before your very eyes. The effect is far more captivating than all the giant monsters, illusions, and spectacular set pieces on evidence throughout the rest of the show.
All in all, this show is much better than some of the deplorable crap to be writ large in Broadway fashion (Smokey Joe's Cafe; Bye Bye Birdie; Grease). I'd see this one again before I saw Phantom again, but perhaps not before Les Mis. It's actually not a bad show, particularly for people who don't like a "typical" Broadway productions.
But LOTR as a musical simply suffers from the fundamental inability of musical theater to match something like Tolkien's original work. You just can't get there from here. And in trying to do so, the show abandons what typically works on Broadway. You end up on a very strange and somewhat unexplored middle ground. (Middle Earth?)
I'm not sure what concrete changes they can make before trying to get to London and Broadway, but a couple of truly memorable tunes and a new Gandalf would be a great start.
Any opinions on exactly when....? ;-)
My wife and I are looking at taking a trip this summer, including the Toronto theatre district. At the moment, we're thinking of something at one of the Shaw Festival theatres near Niagara, and probably "Spamalot" in Toronto. We're also thinking of a few days in Toronto to see museums and sights, as well as the theatre. I'll probably hit your guest book for better contact, but I'm interested in anything you have to say about a trip to the city.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The LOTR books are still great, the movies are still great, and there could still be great things in the future, like the Hobbit movie. Someone just made some suckass LOTR musical. It's not going to ruin your childhood, so deal with it.
People make mistakes, and people need to make a living. Heck, and if rich and/or powerful people like Rick 'Destroyer Of Worlds' Berman can get away with doing what they love, even if they aren't always good at it, more power to them. Like the rest of us are always at the top of our game. Just because Lucas made some substandard Star Wars movies doesn't mean the original two are any less great (c'mon, tell me you didn't see it coming with the Ewoks and the Christmas special). Just because the Matrix trilogy turned into some bad sci-fi philoso-babble tranvestite leather filled CGI wonderara doesn't make the original Matrix any less of a fantastic movie.
Your childhood is intact. Stop the drama queen act.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Not only are you painfully pedantic, you are also wrong. Something is said to have "jumped the shark" when you realize it has reached its peak, and it's all downhill from there. The Fonz jumping a shark was not the high point of the show; it was the moment when fans realized that the series' best episodes were in the past, and the inevitable march toward mediocrity was underway.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Just in case anyone here doesn't know what that means.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Whore
And do "Bored Of The RIngs" - there are parts of that that still make me laugh hard enough to be asked to leave the building. IIRC there's a few song and dance-able moments in it.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
WTF?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
The latest incarnation of The Lord of the Rings is here in the form of musical theater...
Stop! That's all you needed to say. Crappiness is guaranteed any time you inject the words "musical theater" into a sentence.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Don't forget everybodies favourite cross-over:
Holy cow, why was this modded troll? None of the LOTR movies were in any way good movies. CGI wankfests, sure, but otherwise they had paper thin characters in a ham-fisted adaptation of some fantasy books that were never really that good to begin with.
Damn nerds. Just buy the videogame and leave movies to people who appreciate cinema.
I'm not a theatre buff by any stretch of the word, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I realize that not everybody lives close enough to Toronto to go see the play, but then you shouldn't criticize it if you haven't seen it. Yes the play's story feels a bit rushed, but what do you expect condensing three 500 page books into a 3 1/2 hour musical? Does the play do justice to Tolkien's original works? Yes.
My *only* complaint about it is that the costumes/sets/characters seem to be heavily influenced by the movies. I couldn't tell you whether they did that because the movies are more readily identifiable, or because the movies did such an excellent job of portraying the characters.
Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
I read the EW review yesterday, and it sounds awesome. I never go to musicals or opera hardly, but I'd go see this. Unfortunately, it's not going to come to New York for at least 18 months.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I live in Ottawa and I've never been to the Toronto theatre -- Mama Mia, Lion King, Phantom -- never saw any of it.
*This* on the other hand, sounds kinda cool. I might go some weekend soon.
boxlight
Saw the LOTR musical on Wednesday...
It wasn't *bad*
Which is really the best I can say about it.
It may be that I'm just not a "musical" kind of guy.
Here's my take
I wasn't impressed by the songs,
I thought nearly all of the costumes were pretty weak,
Some set pieces were really bad (Bag End was a wicker slinky).
The special effects were overdone, leading to a completely frantic feeling for the entire production,
They rushed through important plot points, and lingered over fluff,
Gandalf looked like a thirty year old, 110lb guy in a fake beard, and was far too weak for the role,
The "Scouring of the Shire" was rushed to the point where they should have left it out,
Arowyn kept showing up and singing at the strangest times,
The dancing trees were a little too minimalist to come across,
What the HELL did Galadriel have on her head, Cthulu?.
But...
Saurman was an excellent actor, and I dug his costume/makeup,
The high-tech stage was kind of nifty, and only slightly overused,
I think Gollum will be very good once the amphetamines wear off... the scene where he is fighting with himself was great,
The Black Rider's costumes were awesome,
I liked the stage vines creeping out towards you, it is a neat effect,
the pre-show firefly scenes were amusing,
The first 5 minutes of the Prancing Pony song were great, then it started to drag as they repeated it over and over again,
Gimli was well acted, as was Sam.
If I've not listed it above I've either forgotten about it, or found it thoroughly mediocre.
Unrelated to the show, the seats were horrible, Westjet's cheapest has significantly more leg room, maybe that's just up in the balcony, but I was pretty sore by the time it was all over.
All and all, I'd say that if you get free tickets, by all means go. Otherwise, let them polish it up for a while.
Music theatre meets über-geekoid fantasy...truly this is a sign that:
1) our entertainment standards have hit an all-time low
2) the crab people have infiltrated us yet again
3) someone made a goat sacrifice unto the alter of Andrew Lloyd Weber
4) Broadway musicals are on a new campaign to offend the nerd community
5) the producers of "Starlight Express" won the lottery and it's burning a hole in the pocket
6) Catdevnull has a T-Shirt that reads: Not A Big Fan of Musical Theatre or LOTR
I'm sure it's a lovely production--I'd just prefer not to be within 100,000,000 miles of it.
IMHO
YMMV
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
This is Karma Whoring
SharkJumper
The Boston Globe gave an overall favorable review ... especially if you are a LOTR fan... the casual fan may be put off by the length and missing information (opposing forces)
Boston Globe Review
"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated"
Oh, come on. LOTR jumped the shark when that idiot Peter Jackson decided to butcher it in an attempt to get filthy rich (possibly earlier than that, too, given the animated movies from the 70s, but I don't think those were mainstream enough to really count).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Take with a grain of salt, as I'm a fan, and it was a late preview (2 weeks ago).
It's not really a musical. There *are* some musical numbers, but it's not a constant thing - "The Sound of Music" this isn't. Some of the songs don't quite feel at home in the peice, but others, like Galadriel's number in Lothlorien are pretty impressive.
Also - they do actually cover all 3 books. This means that a lot of stuff gets cut or re-worked; g'bye Tom Bombadil (again). the walk through Mordor is also drastically reduced. Shelob is still there, though. And the Balrog is done well. I also liked the stage versions Orcs better theen the movie.
The acting was solid, although I (and the people I saw it with) were all dissappointed with Gandlaf.
Overall, I'll give it 3/5. It's definitely a different telling of the tale and visually stunning. The story is still there and it's interesting to see what they've done with it.
If you're in Toronto, it's worth checking out. If you're a fan-boi, though, you'll probalby be calling it a waste of money.
I hope it includes a performance of the chilling “Where There's A Whip, There's A Way.”
Join Tor today!
Despire the link URL, trust me, this is not a link to porn.
Meh.
I want this in high quality on DVD!
Meh.
"Life isn't about making money."
You're right. It's about making a shitload of money!
Despite this, the same critics say it will be a big money-maker.
So? Most of Slashdot is in agreement that the Star Wars prequels were giant flaming piles of crap, but they were some of the highest grossing movies in years.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
I'm getting pretty disgusted with modern theatre. I remember thinking while watching the The Lion King when they came to Los Angeles, "this is all spectacle -- there's no friggin' PLOT." And dare I say it, Phantom of the Opera wasn't much better (and I saw it with Michael Crawford).
Is it too much to ask to have, oh I dunno, maybe a STORY when I go to the theatre? Shakespeare is rolling in his grave at the self-important state of the stage. It's all about the performers instead of the performance.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I was listening to a morning radio program out of Toronto last Friday and a stage critic described the play like this:
"It's Shakespeare meets Cirque du Soleil while Enya sings Wagner."
I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-A to chimpanzee,
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me!
Oh my god, I was wrong!
It was Earth, all along!
You've finally made a monkey,
[ Yes we've finally made a monkey, ]
Yes you've finally made a monkey out of me!
I love you, Dr. Zaius!
Man, you have a second career! That's basically the structure of all the musicals I've seen. Write the play and you'll make more $$$ than you ever could in software!
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
the books were of songs. htey sing like every other page. don't believe me? listen to the audio books version.
And you know, that's probably a good thing. When an artist produces work that can't make money, that's just one way of saying that nobody wants to own it very badly (or at all).
I can think of hundreds of modern examples of works that are both commercial AND artistic successes. I count the movie version of LOTR amongst them. Granted, a lot of schlock gets produced along the way, but that has always been the case - with the passage of time, the schlock and crassly commercial fades into the background, giving the illusion of "the good old days".
And would it be +1 or -1?
Just jumped the shark.
> Especially given Shakespeare's dominance in English literature, it's
> not surprising that "realism" has become a kind of critical gold
> standard for all forms of literature.
I might be missing your point, but I'm not quite sure why you're linking Shakespeare with realism, considering he predated it as a theatrical movement by some 250 years or so.
> Cultural snobs who would never be so provincial to require painting
> to be representational, will nonetheless require that stories be
> representational to be "interesting".
This is less true than it used to be--in theater, at least. Tony Kushner's Angels In America is only realistic in fits and starts, and Suzan-Lori Parks (a Pulitzer Prize winner) writes plays that are positively Brechtian.
I think the film trilogy actually doomed the musical to some extent. Adapting the books is a remarkably difficult task, and as you note, the standard result is a mess. While there are many here who will decry the movies as debauchery of the books the reality is that, all things considered, they were remarkably well done, highly entertaining films. Against the background of such a successful adaptation anything short of a miracle of a musical was always going to look poor - the reality is that the films simply set the bar of expectation far too high and there was no way that a musical could live up to it. I suggest that had the films never been made, the musical, while not getting rave reviews, would have been hailed as a remarkable achievement and generally gotten far more positive reviews than it has.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I can hear it now:
Fantasy-y - Triple Feature
Saruman will build some creatures
See ring-wraiths battle for the Ring of Power
A great battle rages between two towers
At the late night, triple feature, picture show
oh oh oh oh
At the late night, triple feature, picture show
oh oh oh oh
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
Nope. Ishtar.
... came about 2 hours into the last movie. I just couldn't take it any more. That damn melodramitic music, war drums playing, for HOURS ON END! Just stick the ring in the mountian so i can go home please.
When i was a kid I read the book and loved it. It was deep and required patiance to read. Something to think about. But now that Golum and Frodo's mug is on every lunch box, slurpee cup, action figure, and fry container from here to Hong Kong I want to deny ever reading the book in the first place.
one does not simply float into showbiz
twentynine.us
His version of the Rings is about 14 hours, broken into four plays. The music is very good. A few parts of the opera could use editing (possibly drop #2 Seigfreid). A few parts are iconic classics like the ride of the Valkaries. A proper staging of the rings quadology costs milions and is infrequently done.
I wonder if you take the best of each opera and collapse it into four 45 minute acts?
Or merger Wagner's music with Toklein's story?
It sounds like the LOTR musical merely fails to reach the full heights it grasps for, ending dwarfed by Jackson's cinematic masterpiece, but not by the earlier animated cinematic "efforts". You'd have to pay me to go and see the LOTR musical... but you couldn't pay me enough to sit through the Hobbit.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
If I want to show one musical, it has to be Terrance and Phillip "Asses of Fire".
Would give anything for "Shut your fucking face uncle fuckaaaaaaaaa"...
Most of the character change in LoTR occurs by the council at Rivendell
what about gimli and legolas progressing from a racial hatred to a deep friendship? or frodo steadily falling to the power of the ring? merry and pippin slowly maturing? is that not characters developing over the course of the story?
I saw this in previews last week. I got what they were tring to do, but they failed. The trilogy does not lend itself to this medium at all, and although I had hoped that they would find a creative way around it, they didn't. Here is my summary: -Gandalf had no presence...wrong actor -The editing was uneven, and heavily favored the earlier stuff (much more fotr than rotk) -Gollum was brilliant. It's a great showcase character and the dude just nailed it. -The music was incongruous and not particularly interesting. -Effects were a little better than so so...they were able to make 6 orcs seem like a battle with constant motion of stage and actors. -Possibly really great for kids -The night I went, the whole production stopped due to some glitch with either stage or actor. It was very very forgettable and certainly not worth the price of admission. Maybe it's a little over-done now.
Last summer I saw a production of the parody, Fellowship!. It parodies the movie, and uses all the usual musical theater tropes. There's the big 4+part act I closing song, moments where the action stops and characters step out of place to sing (Gimli and Legolas have a duet in Moria where they start to think, maybe this elf/dwarf isn't so bad after all). Arwen and Aragorn sing karaoke in Rivendell.
It looks like the tour's done, but if they start one up again, it's worth seeing.
If you liked the parent post, you may want to check out some of his other posts.
-- MarkusQ
LOTR jumped the shark the day Peter Jackson turned hi attention its way.
I saw the show back in February while it was still 'beta'. They had a computer glitch kill the sound causing the performers to quickly scurry off the set while they corrected the bug during one of the fight scenes. It wasn't bad though the musical was quite long.
-
ShawnX.
Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
OMG LMAO
c _id=4805
http://forum.bastarddomain.com/showtopic.php?topi
It comes from the old "Happy Days" shows. Happy Days was beginning to lose audience. Instead of dying gracefully at top or near the top like other TV comedies such as Seidfeld or I Love Lucy, Happy Days wanted to keep on going. They had a season cliff hanger where Fonzie does a water ski jump over shark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
I did my own take on this in comics form - based in part off a Slashdot comment last year. Enjoy Tragic Lad Theatre: What's Opera
--- No Boom? No Boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow.
I hate small, uncomfortable seats. I suppose no theater can afford to make them big and comfortable (like a living room chair), but if I ever build a theater (or a jazz club), I know what my priorities are!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
I like to reserve standing ovations for truely exceptional performances (how conservative, I know).
So I kinda feel like a jerk sitting down while everyone around me is wildy applauding. I might even sit and clap quite vigorously, and that doesn't mean the performance was at all bad. I just want to preserve the "sanctity" of the standing ovation.
My message: stay seated unless it was exceptionally excellent.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Well, there's a shocker. A musical version of Lord of the Rings might not be good?
Queen of Light took her bow,
And then she turned to go.
The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom,
And walked the night alone.
Dance in the dark of night,
Sing to the morning light.
The dark Lord rides in force tonight,
And time will tell us all.
Throw down your plow and hoe,
Rest not to lock your homes.
Side by side we wait the might,
Of the darkest of them all.
I hear the horses' thunder down in the valley below.
I'm waiting for the angels of Avalon,
Waiting for the eastern glow.
The apples of the valley hold,
The seeds of happiness.
The ground is rich from tender care,
Repay do not forget.
Dance in the dark of night,
Ssing to the morning light.
The apples turn to brown and black,
The tyrant's face is red.
Oh the war is common cry,
Pick up you swords and fly.
The sky is filled with good and bad,
That mortals never know.
Oh well the night is long the beads of time pass slow.
Tired eyes on the sunrise,
Waiting for the eastern glow.
The pain of war cannot exceed,
The woe of aftermath.
The drums will shake the castle wall,
The ring wraiths ride in black.
Sing as you raise your bow,
Shoot straighter than before.
No comfort has the fire at night,
That lights the face so cold.
Dance in the dark of night,
Sing to the morning light.
The magic runes are writ in gold,
To bring the balance back.
At last the sun is shining,
The clouds of blue roll by.
With flames from the dragon of darkness,
The sunlight blinds his eyes.
... in a pre-world premiere. Here's my take on it.
If you don't enjoy theater, LOTR and haven't read the books, don't go see it. There are so many shortcuts that the story can only make sense if you've read the book.
The shortcuts they took are bold and interresting. They didn't change the story for the sake of changing like Jackson did. I though the changes were interresting.
The first act is amazing and covers the beginning of the book to the end of Moria (the Balrog was cleverly done and the end of that act if the strongest scene in the play, with Helm's Deep and the Prancing Pony). I don't remember how the second act ended, but they do have the scourging of the shire, which I thought was nice.
The problem with the play comes in the 3rd act when events are a bit rushed. The scene at Mount Doom between Frodo, Sam and Golum is confusing and definitely not as epic as in the book or the movie. There are some weird art direction in the third act that I didn't like at all, but that's me.
As for the music, I enjoyed it. I'm not a native english speaker (french from Quebec), so singing is difficult for me to follow somehow. Speaking was no problem though, go figure. Anyway, the point was, even though I didn't understand most of the singing, it did sound nice and fit musically with the emotion that needed to be conveyed. This is not a Chicago or The Producers type of musical. It's classical music with lyrics basically. Not opera (that would have been wicked!), but definitely listenable. I'm definitely getting the score when it comes out.
But the best thing about the play is that it didn't try to immitate the movies, it was it's own thing. The music, costumes and acting were all different from the movie. And the actor's rendition of Gollum was really good. Gandalf felt weak tough, as if he were an winy old man, not a leading figure like he was in the movie.
I'd say that if the show was as good in the 2nd and 3rd act as in the first one, then I would have had gotten way more than what I paid for (125$). But the seriously lacking 3rd act wasn't worth the money I paid. I can't put a price on what it should have been, but hey, those were like 15th row tickets (as expensive as front row IIRC), I really enjoyed it and I didn't feel robbed. When it starts touring worldwide and comes to Montreal, I'll definitely go and see it with friends again.
WTF, I've watched the entire thing many time and I don't think any of them changed their clothes until the ending. I'm sure they were all pretty darn ripe.
Springtime for Sauron?
These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-175201796 2119496176&q=hobbits+isengard&pl=true
My point is this: Commercialism and artistic merit are not in conflict, and never have been. I've never bought the argument that artists are "above it all", that money somehow degrades art.
Quite the opposite - an artist who disdains commercialism completely is probably not going to produce anything anyone will want. Commercial success does not guarantee artistic success, but it does not preclude it either.
Notice I actually managed to completed the "Subject" line this time.
I've seen it too, on Saturday. I was thinking the same thing about Gandalf - He's a very well respected actor, who has had a lot of big parts. However, I don't know if he might be sick or something, as his performance was not good. He couldn't seem to control his voice, or control the stage. If it is something like brochitis or larygitis or something, I could understand, I just don't know.
Michael Therriault, however, who played Gollum, was absolutely amazing. I've seen him in some other stuff at the Stratford Shakespear festival, and he is truly great. The problem that I noticed was that the scenes with Frodo, Sam and Gollum were spectacular, but there was nothing drawing the viewer to the other half of the story.
This really is based on the books more than the movies. However, what really got me was that if you don't know the story in the books, it is really hard to follow the action on stage. They have also combined the battles at Gondor and at the Black Gate, and eliminated several characters. Those are the prices you pay for cutting 3 long books into 3.5 hours (with 25 minutes of intermission)
Overall, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't stupendous. They were pretty close. A few more tweaks, it will be a great show.
-s
When will that hackneyed expression die?
That made me laugh out loud.
Hey, maybe you should write the next LOTR musical. No doubt you'd do better than these bozos did.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Gimli: I never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf.
Legolas: I feel a song coming on.
I've seen the musical, anyone with an open mind will enjoy it. The piece captures the essence, if not all the details, of the books. The musical numbers are reasonably well done and blend in to the show. The technical wizardry that some people complain about is used to good effect to enhance the performance.
Overall it was good, though there were a few flaws I noticed. I thought the musical number at the Prancing Pony was a little bit longer than necessary, but otherwise the show was quite good. They didn't use the pithy "I am... NO MAN" line to explain why the ringwraith leader could suddenly be killed, and they glossed over many parts of the books. But they had to, no one wants to sit for 12 hours for a musical.
Some of the reviewers are clearly newbs who don't even know what the Lord of the Rings is. It was in dire need of editing? The story was incomprehensible? Morons. The play's good, I recommend any non-fanatical fan see it if they get the chance. Fanatics... Just don't go. You'll happier never knowing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical