'LORD OF THE RINGS' -London Production Closes!

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 3/14/08 at 6:07am

July 19th after 1 year.

Updated On: 3/14/08 at 06:07 AM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/14/08 at 6:20am

West End Board

[shh282]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 1:39am

will it make it to broadway- ever?

[fnyboi88]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 1:46am

Probably not.

[Eos]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 2:03am

They would have to scale it WAY down, and even then it probably wouldn't be worth the expense.
Too bad... it sure was purdy!

[Theatrical Landladies]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 2:25am

Do they need the theatre for LEGALLY BLONDE?

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 8:37am

rumours say LOTR is closing for Oliver. It's so sad cuz I actually really liked the show and scaling it down will proably take the only thing that's good about the show away - the spectacle.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/15/08 at 10:08am

The show has lost £13 million pounds (around $25 million)

[shh282]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 9:51am

It'd need one of the biggest on broadway- ie wicked or legally blonde or what was color purple

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 7:21pm

There isnt a theatre on Broadway that has the facilities behind the pros arch that Drury Lane has that will accomodate the show on the scale that is now on stage. The Hilton, The Gershwin- huge, yes, but not what Drury Lane has. After losses of almost $20m i doubt the producers would even dare to contemplate a Broadway production. Its costing $2m just to remove the show when it closes!
The London production has been a fiasco since day one.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/16/08 at 10:56pm

I still can't understand why this never took off. I saw it in Toronto and thought is was absolutely beautiful- music and all. It was only a matter of a few minor adjustments that needed to be made before it was a classic. It would do well toned down a bit and recast. That I will say was an issue- the actors just were a bit static; but the material was great.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 1:02pm

I saw Lord of the Rings in London a couple of weeks ago and it was WAY better than I ever expected. I was not a fan of the books or the films (I fell asleep in all three), but my boyfriend loves them. Keep in mind, we saw it the night I arrived in London after I hadn't slept in about 20 hours or so, and I was alert and riveted for the entire show. It does have its weaknesses, such as some of the costumes, which ranged from ingenious (the ents and those scary horse things) to absolute kitsch (Galadrial and her wedding reception centerpiece hat). The big battle scene didn't really work well and the fight choreography (and its execution) were rather embarassing.

BUT the strengths certainly outweigh the weaknesses and the show as a whole I found entirely entertaining and at times, breathtaking. The set design, including the tree roots and branches growing all over the proscenium out into the theatre and boxes, was beautiful. I loved the pre-show business with the hobbits catching fireflies leading up to the dance (not included in the cast recording). The choreography for Moon and the Fiddle was complicated and clever, reminiscent of some of Tommy Tune's works. The finale scene of the first act was one of the best special effects I've ever seen on stage. My jaw was on the floor the entire time. The performances were quite good, especially Gollum, whose character I never quite got the hang of, but as far as the story goes, I had a MUCH easier time following it in the musical.

I was really surprised this show didn't become a smash hit. It really had everything going for it, a beloved story, gorgeous music, spetacular staging, and a solid cast. With a bit of touch up here and there, I thought it was absolutely worthy of a Broadway production (I thought for sure it would fit in the Hilton, which seems MUCH larger than Drury Lane). It's a shame the show flopped so badly. It deserved much better. It's no Billy Elliott (fabulous), but it was worth every penny and every minute, which hasn't been said of many British musicals over the last decade or so.

[chrysler99]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 2:12pm

I saw LOTR in October. Despite low expectations and a half priced ticket, I was not impressed. Some of the effects were impressive, some of the score was good (more the undermusic and the enya-like Elfin songs; I hated most of the songs that were song), and somehow they managed to tell the general story of the trilogy in 3 hours. But I could not recommend it. I don't think that this has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere near Broadway. Vegas, maybe.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 2:26pm

The show has lost £13 million pounds (around $25 million)

Ouch, must be some kind of record.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 2:39pm

that is a staggering sum, but keep in mind it sounds even worse than it would have a few years ago b/c the dollar has gotten so weak ...

[impintern]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 2:39pm

With women over 40 years old making up over half of the purchase decision-making in the performing arts, it isn't surprising that LORD OF THE RINGS didn't translate into box office success. The films appealed mainly to males between the ages of late teens to early 50s. That demographic isn't known to plunk down the big bucks at the theatre.

If you have a show that appeals to the ladies, you're more likely to have a box office success. Look at MAMMA MIA! - it markets itself as a feel-good, fun cross-generational show set to the music of ABBA, featuring a wedding, and set in an exotic setting.

LORD OF THE RINGS doesn't have that same kind of appeal that sets the box office on fire. Maybe middling box office appeal, but that's about it...

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 3:26pm

the acting was the worst I've ever seen, on a professional stage.

the music reminded me of celtic irish + Enya. very strange overall.

75% of the show relies on the physical production (special effects). it would never work on Broadway.

it's like why Schwartz never brought CHILDREN OF EDEN to Broadway... just too many people and too much technical/scenic effects. the budget would have been a little crazyyy.

[JRybka]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 3:27pm

Maybe they will be smart and record it for DVD like they did some other mega musicals....

Oh and didn't Metropolis lose like a bazillion dollars in the 80s when it opened....?

(I'm exagerating....of course)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 4:26pm

75% of the show relies on the physical production (special effects). it would never work on Broadway.

HA! I guess you weren't around in the 80s? And considering the long runs shows like Cats and Starlight Express enjoyed in the West End, both of which relied VERY heavily on the physical production as does Phantom of the Opera, I expected the show to do quite well, especially in London. But I did not see anything in Lord of the Rings that was so much worse than any number of Broadway shows that it would automatically be discounted for a Broadway production. If anything, it wouldn't work in Vegas simply because it is too long.

the music reminded me of celtic irish + Enya. very strange overall.

How is that strange? The genre has long been associated with Celtic folklore, symbology and music. I think the strangest aspect is that the composers are not known for Celtic music at all (A.R. Rahman and Värttinä).

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 5:15pm

Mister Matt - CATS did not have the same type of special effects as LOTR. did I say 75%? I meant 95%

STARLIGHT EXPRESS. one of the worst musicals I have ever seen and heard. still stands out as the most horrific night at the theatre, for me. there weren't really special effects in that.... just crappy costumes, a light show, and a rollerskating track.

I don't think Broadway Producers would take on such a crazy show with a huge budget, since the material is average (at best). They're much more open to that stuff in London. I suppose. It wouldn't go well over here in the states. Hence why it won't make the jump across the bond.

[NDR]

Posted: 4/9/08 at 5:53pm

Chrysler99: I agree that Vegas may be the only US market that could sustain the show.

[chrysler99]

Posted: 4/10/08 at 12:49am

MisterMatt raises a good point. the show is waaaay too long for Vegas. they would be smart to film the show. maybe they can make back a few quid against those millions of lost pounds. ouch.

[Tag]

Posted: 4/10/08 at 1:10am

The Toronto production also lost around the same amount of money. (Actually more if you consider the prep, research & technical tryouts)

As far as moving it into a Broadway theatre, (not likely after 2 major flops) they would need a theatre with a stage that is almost completely trapped. There are 4 revolves and 17 elevators that make up the show deck. When it ran in Toronto, The Princess of Wales Theatre had to undergo major renovations to the stage to accommodate the show.

I really loved the Toronto production. Not being a LOTR fan (of the books or films) worked to my advantage because I really had to expectations story-wise.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 10:09am

TooDarnHot - Physical production does not mean just special effects. And yes, both Cats and Starlight Express relied almost as much on physical production (sets, lighting, costumes and visual effects) as Lord of the Rings.

While I don't think it would ever open on Broadway, I do believe it would probably have a more successful run, especially if marketed well to tourists. But some scenes do need to be reworked.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 10:39am

I saw the show in January. I was visually impressed but the "music" was awkward for 90% of the show. My problem was i saw tha mat. of Cabaret that day and then the Evening of Lord of The Rings. And i remember sitting there at Intermission talking about how brilliant Cabaret was instead of talking about Lord of the Rings.