![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last night, I went to a panel discussion hosted by ScriptLab on the fate of the musical theatre in Canada. (Yes, K. prompted me to go.) It was interesting to hear others share her passion, although slightly discouraging about getting work produced in Canada. I was impressed that Richard Ouzounian does project an honest passion for the arts. I also realized how little I truly know if I'm to get more involved in the arts community. Although I don't actually want to write musicals -- mainly because I would suck at it, although sucking has never stopped shows that have made it to the Tonys and Dora awards -- I think there is a lot of crossover with the stuff I do want to create. I'm curious about seeing the embryonic musicals in the Saturday afternoon session.
Oh, and I was about six inches from Colm Feore at one point, but lacked the courage to tell him how much I enjoy his work. (I was probably near others that I respect too, but actors are so much easier to recognize.)
Of course, mention was made of the Lord of the Rings musical and why it failed. (Although it's not truly Canadian -- I'm not sure I'd peg it as British though, something as corporate as that is truly multi-national.) I think it comes down to what K. always says about unsuccessful shows "It failed because it sucked!" And it did.
The Lord of the Rings musical lacked any kind of vision - it was a mishmash of scenes without any unifying idea. All spectacle, but no point. I think the closest it came was with the theme of magic disappearing from the world but the token inclusion of the Scouring of the Shire and its magical deus ex machina didn't help that. (The Scouring is actually one of my favourite parts of the book, but I suspect it was added here only to market the production as having things which the films did not.)
Also, Brent Carver is a fine actor, but was a lousy Gandalf. For the first 15 minutes, I was convinced that he had been replaced by an understudy.
I do think that a good LOTR musical could be made, but I think it would need someone with real vision to bring it about. Someone who just wouldn't make it a Coles Notes (or Cliff Notes) of the books. The musical had to understandable cut a lot from the book, but I'd be tempted to cut even more, that way one could spend some time investing meaning in what remained.
It will be interesting to see if the show can be turned around for the London premiere. It's interesting that it will be substantially altered when on the day the Toronto cancellation was announced the producers said that it was really a London show all along, and that Torontonians were just too dumb to appreciate it. If that's the case, why revamp? Oh .. wait, maybe they were just lying at the press conferences. Slagging off our city just to save their own sorry artistic reputations.
Speaking of corporate, non-visionary productions involving hobbits - Peter Jackson has announced that he won't be involved with the Hobbit film or the other LOTR prequel, due to his lawsuit with New Line. http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html
You know, eventually I would like to see someone else's vision of Middle Earth. Someone who read the books and came up with different ideas from Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens could make a very good version of the Hobbit and LOTR. But not now. Not from New Line. Anyone who is hired now would just be a replacement for Peter Jackson, mostly bound to somewhat copy his vision. And perhaps a filmmaker out to be the next Peter Jackson. The musical was created by people just looking to cash in on the success of the films, and look what happened. I wouldn't like to see a Hobbit produced under similar circumstances.
That said, the name currently rumoured -- Sam Raimi -- is certainly a lot more encouraging than most Hollywood hacks. But does Raimi have the same passion for Hobbits that he does for Spider-Man?
Of course, it may well be that a week from now, Peter Jackson may be back on this project.
Oh, and finally ... a very big Happy Birthday to Doctor Who, which is turning 43 today. I began my celebrations today by watching both versions (unaired pilot and the reshot version which aired on Nov. 23, 1963) of "An Unearthly Child". While some of the early Dr. Whos don't hold up that well - this one does. It's tense, mysterious and interesting. Actually, the first three stories on the "Doctor Who: The Beginning" DVD set all hold up reasonably well. Tonight, I'll continue my geek-athon by watching the Origins documentary on that DVD, and also watching the Series 2 (aka Season 28) finale "Doomsday" where Rose Tyler is... Ooops, best not spoil that one. (g)
Allen
Oh, and I was about six inches from Colm Feore at one point, but lacked the courage to tell him how much I enjoy his work. (I was probably near others that I respect too, but actors are so much easier to recognize.)
Of course, mention was made of the Lord of the Rings musical and why it failed. (Although it's not truly Canadian -- I'm not sure I'd peg it as British though, something as corporate as that is truly multi-national.) I think it comes down to what K. always says about unsuccessful shows "It failed because it sucked!" And it did.
The Lord of the Rings musical lacked any kind of vision - it was a mishmash of scenes without any unifying idea. All spectacle, but no point. I think the closest it came was with the theme of magic disappearing from the world but the token inclusion of the Scouring of the Shire and its magical deus ex machina didn't help that. (The Scouring is actually one of my favourite parts of the book, but I suspect it was added here only to market the production as having things which the films did not.)
Also, Brent Carver is a fine actor, but was a lousy Gandalf. For the first 15 minutes, I was convinced that he had been replaced by an understudy.
I do think that a good LOTR musical could be made, but I think it would need someone with real vision to bring it about. Someone who just wouldn't make it a Coles Notes (or Cliff Notes) of the books. The musical had to understandable cut a lot from the book, but I'd be tempted to cut even more, that way one could spend some time investing meaning in what remained.
It will be interesting to see if the show can be turned around for the London premiere. It's interesting that it will be substantially altered when on the day the Toronto cancellation was announced the producers said that it was really a London show all along, and that Torontonians were just too dumb to appreciate it. If that's the case, why revamp? Oh .. wait, maybe they were just lying at the press conferences. Slagging off our city just to save their own sorry artistic reputations.
Speaking of corporate, non-visionary productions involving hobbits - Peter Jackson has announced that he won't be involved with the Hobbit film or the other LOTR prequel, due to his lawsuit with New Line. http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html
You know, eventually I would like to see someone else's vision of Middle Earth. Someone who read the books and came up with different ideas from Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens could make a very good version of the Hobbit and LOTR. But not now. Not from New Line. Anyone who is hired now would just be a replacement for Peter Jackson, mostly bound to somewhat copy his vision. And perhaps a filmmaker out to be the next Peter Jackson. The musical was created by people just looking to cash in on the success of the films, and look what happened. I wouldn't like to see a Hobbit produced under similar circumstances.
That said, the name currently rumoured -- Sam Raimi -- is certainly a lot more encouraging than most Hollywood hacks. But does Raimi have the same passion for Hobbits that he does for Spider-Man?
Of course, it may well be that a week from now, Peter Jackson may be back on this project.
Oh, and finally ... a very big Happy Birthday to Doctor Who, which is turning 43 today. I began my celebrations today by watching both versions (unaired pilot and the reshot version which aired on Nov. 23, 1963) of "An Unearthly Child". While some of the early Dr. Whos don't hold up that well - this one does. It's tense, mysterious and interesting. Actually, the first three stories on the "Doctor Who: The Beginning" DVD set all hold up reasonably well. Tonight, I'll continue my geek-athon by watching the Origins documentary on that DVD, and also watching the Series 2 (aka Season 28) finale "Doomsday" where Rose Tyler is... Ooops, best not spoil that one. (g)
Allen
