-
August 6th, 2006, 02:39 AM
#1
Lord of the Rings Stage Play
Hey Hey,
For those of you purists out there.... don't go see the stage play... Cutting it down to 3.5 hours and incorporating song didn't do the original justice...
That being said... If you're just looking to be entertained, or just like the story behind LotR... check it out... at 130/seat it's worth the ticket price (Then again... I got my tickets half price or I never would have gone)...
The acting was awesome... even though we saw the matinee which meant (for the most part) that the understudies were on stage... Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin were all amazingly played.... Gandolf was great and Aragorn... I thought it was Viggo Mortensen at first.
I suppose the way I went in was also part of the problem... Having seen Shakespeare at Stratford and the Medevial Times dinner theatre... I expected the sword play to be like that... very realistic and expertly rehearsed with real blades. Instead they were using plastic blades and for the most part removed the fight scenes.... Some of the flys were amazing but the technical stuff at a theatre prolly amuses me more than others as I used to work at one..
The songs were good.... but again I wasn't going for a musical...
The ending was partially what made it all worthwhile... although it was overall quite good.
Just thought I'd pass that on..
Peace
HT
-
August 6th, 2006, 07:42 PM
#2
The idea of a LOTR stage play sounds horrible in general to me to be honest.
-
August 6th, 2006, 11:41 PM
#3
Cutting it down to 3.5 hours and incorporating song didn't do the original justice...
Point taken, it is amazing that it was done at all?................a bit like War and Peace? I actually saw the Russian version of that............... it lasted 12 hours IIRC.
They would have to have modified it pretty heavily?
-
August 6th, 2006, 11:49 PM
#4
Originally posted here by nihil
Point taken, it is amazing that it was done at all?................a bit like War and Peace? I actually saw the Russian version of that............... it lasted 12 hours IIRC.
They would have to have modified it pretty heavily?
I think the idea should be if you can't do it right, don't do it at all... I was just looking at the "What's On" Section of the paper to find something for the gf and I to do tomorrow (it's a holiday) and they had it listed.... next to it to author of the column had... It's dull... If you're looking for something with emotion don't go see it... the set overshadows the actors.... That's pretty bad when that's written next to the "advertisement" for what's happening this week... At 27 million I think they could have done a little better.
Peace,
HT
-
August 7th, 2006, 01:26 PM
#5
It actually sounds pretty cool to me. The point of theatre is the experience? I would enjoy it, if only because it's something I've never done before. I'll watch out for it!
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
-
August 7th, 2006, 07:45 PM
#6
Terrible battle scenes, campy visual effects, terriffic acting....sounds like the anthiesis of the movie. Maybe if I went to the stage play I'd be laughing at the fake sword instead of the fake emotion/acting I laughed at in the theatre.
\"Greatness only comes at great risk.\" ~ Personal/Generic
-
August 8th, 2006, 12:17 AM
#7
After 30 plus yrs of reading the books and watching the animated version a dozen times, then to watch the stunning trilogy on the big screen, I don't know if I could sit through 3 1/2 hours of a staged version....would most likely be either dissapointed or amused, that they would try to put this epic on stage....
Also being a Tolkein nut, I would probably critisize it for leaving stuff out...
Oh well if they can make a play about "cats" and run for a million years, why not LOTR...
PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...
"When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
Claude Swanson
-
August 8th, 2006, 11:42 AM
#8
Hmmm,
Oh well if they can make a play about "cats" and run for a million years, why not LOTR...
Well, then it boils down to T.S.Elliot versus J.R.Tolkien?
"Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats"..............yes, I do have first editions (signed, even!)
Against "The Hobbit" and the "Lord of the Rings"
And what about "Starlight Express"?
-
August 8th, 2006, 12:27 PM
#9
I would be more like Dalek. I was already disappointed that even in the extended versions of LOTR they didnt do the scouring of the shire but then they did do the best job possiable in the films so i'm not going to complain. I'm not even sure if the stage version will make it to here so I guess i will decide if it does.
\"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
\"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)
-
August 8th, 2006, 01:52 PM
#10
Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmm,
Against "The Hobbit" and the "Lord of the Rings"
Now a play about "The Hobbit's" may not be that bad, I had to take that as required reading in grade school in the UK, can't remember the exact level or grade....(memory is lagging Lol..)
Cats versus Fairies.....(trying to visualise....hhmmm pussy's and fairies... )
PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...
"When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
Claude Swanson
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|