LotR Musical coming to London in June 2007

[Alatar]

From Sky.com

Hobbits To Tread Boards
Updated: 05:59, Friday June 23, 2006

A musical version of JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings trilogy is to open at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, next year.

The stage version of the epic saga involving hobbits, dwarves and Orcs will replace the current show at the historic theatre, musical comedy The Producers.

The £25m adaptation of Tolkein's classic - the most expensive musical in history - will have its first night in London on June 19.

The play opened in Toronto, Canada, earlier this year to mixed reviews. It follows the multi-million dollar movie versions directed by New Zealand film-maker Peter Jackson.
Advertisement Advertisement

Matthew Warchus, director of the stage version, said: "We have not attempted to pull the novel towards the standard conventions of musical theatre, but rather to expand those conventions so that they will accommodate Tolkien's material.

"As a result, we will be presenting a hybrid of text, physical theatre, music and spectacle never previously seen on this scale.

"To read the novel is to experience the events of Middle Earth in the mind's eye. Only in the theatre are we actually plunged into the events as they happen."

The curtain will come down on The Producers, a stage version of the 1968 Mel Brooks film about a scam to make money from a musical flop, in January.

It will end after more than two years in which West End box office records were smashed.

The Lord of the Rings, first published in 1954 and 1955, has become one of the most popular works of non-fiction of the 20th century.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Lord of the Rings, first published in 1954 and 1955, has become one of the most popular works of non-fiction of the 20th century.

[MithLuin]

Yes - didn't you know that the Battle of Helm's Deep really happened?

(I'm not going to be able to find the link, but in doing a survey to prove how ignorant people are of history, a list of battles was given...and people were asked, "did these really happen?" About 6% thought the Battle of Helm's Deep was real )

That is cool that they've picked a date, though. It sounds as though JewelSong will get the chance to see this version of it .

I'm going to see the Toronto version next weekend - I can't wait!

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

The Lord of the Rings, first published in 1954 and 1955, has become one of the most popular works of non-fiction of the 20th century.

I KNEW it was real. Those homo floresiensis skeletons were obviuosly hobbits -- like they'd really be pygmy hominids or something. Finally, validation!

But more importantly . . .

London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

what about New York?

[axordil]

NY is not in the cards. American critics were particularly harsh on the production, which, even in its reworked state, is likely to find friendlier faces on the other side of the Atlantic. It will be going to Germany next, I understand.

[Primula Baggins]

Maybe as the show travels and is polished and refined, it will begin to seem more attractive to—whoever it is that decides these things for New York theatre? I'm abysmally ignorant of how it works.

If it turns out to be a hit in London, that would certainly be a plus.

From what I hear, if they get a new Gandalf, that one thing will improve it quite a bit.

[JewelSong]

Yes, Brent Carver's Gandalf was lacking, IMHO. But the rest of it was fabulous - I loved it! (Even though the stage malfunctioned during the preview show I saw and we weren't able to see the Battle of Helm's Deep at all!

I will definitely see it when it gets to London!

[Jude]

I thought this article might be of interest - written by Brian May, formerly of 70's rock group Queen!

Only a critic wouldn't be rocked by The Lord of the Rings

Brian May, Citizen Special

I was interested to read (in my inbox -- somebody always obliges) your critic Jamie Portman's vitriolic damnation of The Lord of the Rings ("The Lord of the Rings on stage was doomed from the beginning," July 3).

You might imagine that I, as a creator of the, according to Mr. Portman, "moronic" musical We Will Rock You, might have a down on the Tolkien show too; after all, its producers were trying very hard to edge us out of our beloved Dominion Theatre in London for most of the last year. The bid failed because of the continued enormous demand for our Queen Rock Theatrical, now in its fifth packed year, and the eventual commercial failure of LOTR in Toronto.

But I feel differently. I actually doubt if your Mr. Portman has ever staged a show of any significance himself, so I must discount his opinions as worthless; I would pause only to say that his one-dimensional nastiness about a team of people who have obviously put their heart and soul into a monumental show saddens me greatly. Or perhaps I ought to be sad that a major newspaper should give him column inches.

We, as Queen and Paul Rodgers, recently visited Toronto, one of our long-time favourite cities, a few months ago -- to play a very memorable (to us) return concert, after an absence of many years.

Because of our interest in The Lord of the Rings as producers and writers, we took the trouble to visit the show. As someone who has now spent a significant portion of his life lovingly tending a show of our own making in the theatre, I have to tell you all that in my opinion The Lord of the Rings is potentially one of the great theatrical events ever. Yes, the Toronto show had its weaknesses -- we thought that much of the casting was unsuitable, and we felt uncomfortable with a lot of the music, but every show has wrinkles which need ironing out along the way (ours included).

Having said this, let me say as loud as I can: The concept of the show is daring, the choreography is superb -- I mean superb -- the costumes are fabulous, the special effects stunning, and the sets and the way they dovetail into the action are nothing short of stupendous.

I have never seen anything like it -- ever. The script may have problems, but in my opinion nothing that could not be sorted by applying a bit of blue pencil, and, really, we know the story, right?

This is not a venture that was "artistically doomed from the start" -- a severe challenge, perhaps, but one which was all but met in the first outing, in my book. Anyone who came out of that theatre not feeling that they got their money's worth must have been very jaded, or a theatre critic (ah -- maybe both).

I can see no reason why this extravaganza, revisited and polished in the light of recent experience could not be a smash in London. I hope someone looks carefully at their running costs, because the West End can be treacherous over short periods, but this show has to be seen.

Of course there is a tiny irony in the fact that a brand new Canadian version of our We Will Rock You is now planned to open next year in the very theatre made available by the departure of The Lord of the Rings. But there will be no crowing.

We plan to come and personally work with the cream of Canadian talent -- for every WWRY is written on a new canvas, tailored to the way Rock and Roll has lived and evolved in that territory.

No, we will not be overconfident. We will go in with a healthy respect for all that has gone before, and a firm belief that we will strike the right chord with Toronto.

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

So the music isn't all that great, the script needs work, and the cast wasn't so great, but it's still one of the best shows ever?

How does that work?

(We Will Rock You was a painful experience. May seems to have applied the same criteria to his own show, which explains a lot.)

[MithLuin]

If you see the show, you would understand - the stage.

The stage moves all over the place and does what it needs to do. The story-telling is there, visually, in the seamless choreography.

Physically, they are spot-on.

He's suggesting that verbally and musically, they could afford to polish a bit.

It really is a very good (and very fair) review, though I would credit the casting a bit more strongly than he does - they were cool too!

Pic
I'm on the far left; Aragorn is on the far right. The guy in the middle is Gimli (the other guy is a hobbit, Robin Smallburrow, I think).

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

I'll take your word for it (as I'm probably never going to get to see it myself). The way it was worded made it sound like the show was all effects, and that never usually amounts to much.

Cool photo!

[Hachimitsu]

I thought it was excellent!!!! I am a bit saddened they will be changing things.

[Alatar]

From what I've heard/read about it I can see definite room for improvement. I listened to an audio bootleg of the first act and was staggered to find that despite the huge amount of comression of storyline and the frantic pace required for exposition westill had a 5 or 6 minute Song and Dance section in the Prancing Pony. While I understand that the intention of the writers was to only use song only where it would be realistic within the story it still boggles the mind that 5 minutes of potential narrative would be wasted on "The dish ran away with the spoon".

Many musicals are reworked to their benefit. The final version of Jekyll and Hyde is far superior to the touring production, as is the final version of Chess. I think you'd be shocked at how little of the original Les Miserables survived to the final product.

[MithLuin]

The difference in the London Les Mis and the NY Les Mis is fairly minor (though not non-existent). That is the level of "tweaking" I am familiar with. What was different about the original?

They don't sing "the dish ran away with the spoon" . And while I certainly see your point, that is the one scene that the audience raves about - so they'd be pretty foolish to cut it. Trim it, perhaps....but not cut it. And aside from being pointless...this would be the only time in the entire show that Frodo puts the Ring on his finger and disappears - so it is a significant scene!

The show has closed in Toronto now

But if you go to their website (www.lotr.com), they have some of the info up for London now . Auditions for hobbits begin Sept. 18th. "Previews" are May 9th - June 19th (Opening Night). The most expensive tickets are £60.

And none of these sympols are scripty L's!
{|☼►~⌂Çü}|pqåâäΩ╙╒█▀αßΣπΓστ↨ΦΩδ∞φε∩±≥≤⌡÷≈°∙≡·√ⁿ²■ⁿ ☺☻♥·♦♣♠•◘○♂♀♪♦☼►◄↕‼¶▬↨♫↓→←∟↔▲▼!#$%&'()*+789:;<=>>3?ÅÉæÆôöòûù(alt-919)ÖÜ¢£

Ah, there it is! Alt-924

[Alatar]

The difference in the London Les Mis and the NY Les Mis is fairly minor (though not non-existent). That is the level of "tweaking" I am familiar with. What was different about the original?

The original contains none of the "songs". If you listen to les Miserables with only the narrative sections, you would have a fair representation of the original simply translated into english. You would not be hearing Bring Him Home, I Dreamed a Dream, Stars, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables etc. The original French production was almost entirely narrative driven.

Regarding the Bree scene in the musical. I am not suggesting that it should be removed, merely that 5 minutes of singing a country folk song is a dreadful waste of time in a show that has such a huge story to tell. If the music were narrative, or added in some way to the story it would be justifiable, but as described (and based on my audio recording) its simply fluff.

(I'm well aware of the pivotal nature of the scene. I simply suggest that there are far better ways to present it.)


Thanks for the links. Looking now.

[Lurker]

I watched the Toronto show and I agree with the critics. This is the first time in my life I wanted to leave the theatre before the curtain fell on Act II. Honestly, I became restless when they started dancing during the fight scene, what the heck was that. It last like 10 mins. I think!!!! In fact, the people seated beside us left and said this is not worth the two hours we drove. I swear!!!

I doubt Broadway is going to pick this up cause only Tolkien fans appreciated it here in North America. I've taken non-Tolkien fans (friends of ours) and one of my friends left during Act II and stayed at the lobby. He said he would rather have his teeth pulled than watch it.

I think it's just way too long that it is so dragging, people get restless with the different plots they had to follow. My wife commented there were too many actors on an already crowded stage at one point it's hard on the eyes sometimes. I agree with her, Les Miz had lots of actors, too, but it doesn't seem like it's too overpowering on stage. Special effects doesn't do it for me, either. The acting was good, it's the script that has a problem.

This is the worst theatre show I watched. I'm not recommending it.

[Alatar]

London Cast announced. Thank God they didn't bring in Brent Carver!

Rings musical unveils London cast

The cast of the London production of the blockbuster Lord of the Rings musical has been announced.

Laura Michelle Kelly, who won an Oliver Award playing the title role in Mary Poppins, will play the powerful elf queen Galadriel.

Shakespearean actor Malcolm Storry will take the role of magician Gandalf.

The £13m musical, which premiered to mixed reviews in Toronto, Canada, is due to open at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane on 19 June.

West End veteran Jerome Pradon will play Aragorn while Rosalie Craig, who has appeared in the BBC's productions of My Family and Other Animals and Casanova, will play Arwen.

James Loye, Peter Howe and Michael Therriault will reprise the roles of Frodo, Sam and Gollum from the Canadian production.

The show closed three months early in Toronto and is expected to be adapted for its London outing.

Building the £1m set, which uses a series of pneumatic lifts, will mean the theatre has to be closed for four months.

[MithLuin]

I am sooooo going to see this this summer!! (I hope)

<drools>

They got Gollum back - awesomeness. He was far and away the best. It takes forever to get the poor actor into his makeup, though, so he ends up just hanging out in the theater by himself all day between shows. If he keeps that up, he's going to become Gollum, poor guy.... Sam also got rave reviews, but the show I saw was with his understudy, I think.

I liked Frodo alright...I'm not sure what I expected from him, but his growth is...interesting. The musical has him start out as a rather simple hobbit, and only grow in his awareness of the larger world after Lórien. At least he does grow, though! My first impression was mixed, but how he turns out seems fine. I would have liked to see another interpretation of the role, but am pleased they got him back. Now, if they can just get less dumpy costumes for the poor hobbitses....

I am curious to see what they will change. There are two scenes in the musical that rival "Osgiliath" or "Steward-whacking." Meaning, changes with further implications. One, is that Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli decide to visit Théoden after Boromir's death - they just abandon Merry and Pippin to their fate! Of course it all works out fine, but still, that has disturbing implications. Tweaking that line might be helpful.

The other is the Tower of Cirith Ungol. Here, both Gollum and Frodo are taken captive, and Sam has to save them both. Gollum suggests to Sam, use the Ring and get us out. That....well, it works, but it doesn't seem...right. (I know Sam shouldn't be able to use the Ring in Mordor, but the geography is very vague on stage - that's not what bothered me.)

I mean, I doubt stuff like that will be changed. But I'm sure some scenes will be trimmed (it is long!) and we'll lose the Dead Marshes. We've already combined the battle of the Pelennor with the Black Gate and merged the characters of Théoden and Éomer. They aren't adverse to doing those sorts of things....

Just so long as their new Legolas can sing, it will be wonderful

[Alatar]

Latest news. 40 minurtes cut! Only time will tell.

The director of a revamped "The Lord of the Rings" musical went to J.R.R. Tolkien's grave to seek the author's posthumous blessing for staging the cult classic -- and he apologised in case the writer disapproved.
ADVERTISEMENT

"That was a magical moment," director Matthew Warchus told reporters on Thursday when presenting to the press the 50-strong cast of what is being billed as the most expensive musical ever staged in London.

"I visited his grave in Oxford to apologise and get his seal of approval. I apologised in case he didn't like the idea of a stage show," the director said.

The musical, extensively reworked and cut by 40 minutes after its world premiere in Toronto received some damning reviews, opens in London in June where it faces tough competition from a string of hit musicals.

As actors playing deadly orcs skipped, bounded and somersaulted across London's historic Theatre Royal Drury Lane, Warchus called the three-hour spectacular "a mixture of Shakespeare and Cirque du Soleil."

The Toronto show, which took four years to bring to the stage, was applauded by critics for its gymnastic orcs and menacing dark riders but they confessed to getting lost in the tangled plots of Tolkien's Middle Earth.

So the producers went back to the drawing board.

"The differences are wholesale. I would call this a world premiere because it is so different," Warchus said. "The trouble in Toronto was that we were getting too much of the story on stage. Toronto was the stepping stone."

The show cost 12.5 million pounds to stage in Canada and another 12.5 million pounds to put on in London, producer Kevin Wallace said. "It is the most expensive musical ever staged in London's West End," he added.

London theatres enjoyed a record year in 2006, fuelled by hit musicals like "The Sound of Music" and Monty Python's "Spamalot".

But Wallace was confident he could fill the 2,000-seat theatre. "Thank God the West End is booming at the moment. It has had its best year ever. We want to contribute to that success."

Among the stars are Laura Michelle Kelly, who won an Olivier theatre award for her stage portrayal of Mary Poppins and returns to play Galadriel. "After taking a year off, I realised I really missed being on stage," she said.

[Inanna]

"The trouble in Toronto was that we were getting too much of the story on stage