I've never seen one of MTI's Junior musicals, but they're wildly popular with the schools and community groups around here.

Poking around MTI's website for other reasons today, I discovered they now offer:

*Broadway Jr. Collection - the pared-down musicals for junior high we've all started to see everywhere.

*Kids Collection - shows for K-6 kids; so far 3 Disney shows.

*School Editions - so far just Les Mis (!), a 2-hour version aimed at high schoolers.

*Theatre for Young Audiences - nothing yet, but will be pared-down musicals for adult performers, kid audiences.

So the question is: is this getting out of hand?  Good ideas?  Bad ideas?  Will this stuff whet childrens' appetites for the real thing, or will this further cut attention spans and make kids think the full-length shows are "boring"?  What's next, Oh, Calcutta for kindergardeners?  A Long Day's Journey Into Naptime?

Whattya think, all?

as a parent I think it is great that SOME of these shows have been paired down for high school drama clubs. If these kids do nothing but childrens theatre they will soon get bored and give it up altogether. Kids are more savvy than ever about this kind of stuff. Also they need to be prepared for the type of theatre they will encounter at the college level. It would be quite a shock to be doing kiddie theatre than jump in to college where they will encounter plays why beyond that. Before you scream at me let me also say that no 3rd graders should not be doing Mame, but they do need to do things that will fill the seats. in todays world where funding for the arts is being cut many, schools rely on tickets sales to do the next show. So is "Readers Digest" theatre ok? yes and no. Grade school and Jr High should stick to the kiddie theatre but high school kids should get to do the kinds of shows they want to do. If that means doing the Jr version of Les Miz(which by the way I have seen and it was the same as the orginal with some symplifed music) so be it. "A Long Days Journey into Naptime" sounds pretty funny!

One last note. Most parents will sit through anything their kid is in. As a parent is is kind of an insult to say we would not "want to". Besides it is up to the parent what is right for their kid. If it is alright for Dakota Fanning to be in movies like Hide and Seek and War of the worlds is it wrong for her to Kiss the 4th grade Aaron? Only her parents can decide.

This is exactly why I asked the question:  I really don't know how I feel about it.

Anybody else here remember Classics Illustrated?  I remember reading those, and thinking, "What the @#$%?"  (I didn't swear as a kid, but I actually thought in symbols like that. )  "This isn't like the movie at all!"  I specifically remember trying to figure out what the hell was going on in the CI version of Frankenstein.

So when I got a little older, I searched out the Shelley book.  Surprise!  CI had it right, and James Whale was the one who changed things around.   So reading this little goofy comic-book abridgement of the book got me to read the real thing.

On the other hand, there was this Bowdler guy . . . . and the movie version of Grease . . . change is not always good.

More thoughts, please, people.  I really am struggling with this.

On the other hand, what about the authors who have either participated or at least given permission? Into the Woods and LesMis would certainly require the permission of the authors, wouldn't they?

I'll be honest, I can't really see the harm in this type of revision. Something complicated is being made accessible without, one would hope, losing the essential meaning of the show. Now I've not read any of these, so I can't comment on the quality of the editing, but the idea of it doesn't offend me. If doing a cut down version of a name show attracts students (or others) who otherwise wouldn't be interested, seems to me the show has done its job.

Of course, a group attempting one of these abbreviated pieces would be obligated to make the general public aware that they would not be seeing the full-blown version... that would be less than ethical. Anyone expecting the full version would be disappointed (I know I would).

As for the artistic integrity of the production, I wonder what Victor Hugo would think about his book being turned into a musical?

On the other hand, what do I know about Art (LOL)... I work in community theater and to some of us, Art is the guy who locks up after the show.

I LOVE these - as a teacher in a high school - for me they are invaluable. 

One reason is because they come with a back up CD.  There's no way I can get an orchestra to play at my school so the CD is a God send!

And the kids get to keep the scripts so they can write all over them and take a million notes etc. -- great for a learning enviroment.

They are also very cheap comapred to the big shows (royalties etc.)

We did Into the Woods Jr. last year.  It's basically just the first act of the show.  It was perfect because I had the talent to do the show but we hadn't the time to rehearse the whole show.

When we do them we treat them like the 'real thing' as much as we can.  I know that one could even do them as a musical review type thing (no sets, just risers etc.) But we just do it as a shorter version of the big show.

Also they are advertised as 'Jr.' shows.  

I love 'em, love 'em, love 'em!

The previous views are quite interesting, but I must agree with not doing the pared down versions.  In fact, I have a hard time even thinking about having my group do a well-known show.  I want my kids to be able to develop their talents and shine on stage in a play that is at the right level.  If we did The Sound of Music, no matter how good my Maria is, the mind of the audience will always be comparing her performance to Julie Andrews in the movie or someone else on stage.  I don't want their accomplishments belittled, so I don't do them.

I agree, that except with child prodigy's, most children (including high schoolers) do not have a voice developed enough to pull off a well-known musical.  If they have the ability, then the musical director doesn't have enough time teaching the kids phrasing and dynamics as well as acting during the song.  The few high school shows I've seen of well-known plays have left a bittersweet taste in my mouth.

If you're looking for musicals that are just right for middle and high school (and even community theatre), try the PIONEER DRAMA SERVICE website.  They even have rehearsal and performance CDs if you have a hard time finding a rehearsal pianist or orchestra.

Very interesting discussion!  I agree with emro - depends on the musical!

There are certain subjects, musical or non musical, that are appropriate for production by young casts.  There are others that are not, because of the subject matter, or that the student actors would have a hard time pulling off.  It is often difficult to figure out which is which.

For example, the only convincing production of "South Pacific" that I have seen (including the movie versions) was a high school musical, with a 16 year old moving me to tears during "Some Enchanted Evening".  On the other hand, I haven't seen a community or high school production of "Fiddler on the Roof" that has transported to me to another time or place or made me forget that intermission wasn't far off.

The answer to almost any question is "it depends".  We are doing "Wizard of Oz" as a junior production next spring, but we are doing the full RSC version because we have the cast and the technical capabilities to do it (or so we think).  But we have looked at several of the MTI junior productions (especially Disney) for our very young children, and have done a couple of the Hal Leonard packaged musicals with them because of the production assistance the packaging provides.

I thought I'd drag this thread up because I find out something very interesting and at the same time a bit disturbing.

After the success of Les Mis: Schools Edition, MTI are looking at releasing Rent: Schools Edition. A workshopping of the schools edition happened just a few weeks ago, and if MTI do decide to publish it, it will most likely be released in the next two years. Apparently the schools edition eliminates the swearing and sexual and drug references.

But am I the only person who - one - can't see why you'd do Rent if you didn't have the drug references (Mimi's character would really become redundant) and - two - am just disturbed at the idea of teenagers doing this show? I'm not sure how cut back it is, but surely there'd be some moral dilemmas at the idea of two girls playing lesbians, and two boys playing gays and transvestites?

Don't get me wrong - I love the show. It just seems ... weird and inappropriate to release a schools edition. 

What?  Rent without drug references or swearing?  Okay, here goes . . .

Mark:  My bohemian lifestyle causes me angst.  Plus, I'm broke.

Roger:  Mine also.  Plus, I'm not leaving the apartment, because of something in my past which I can't mention in this version.

Tom:  Hi, I have returned from Boston, where having an actual job and money made me miss the angst and brokeness of your bohemian lifestyles.

Mark:  Hi Coll . . .

Tom:  Don't call me that.  My first and last name together constitute a drug reference.

Mark:  Sorry.

Angel:  Hi, I'm a highly sympathetic street musician who is dying from a hangnail.

Roger:  Where'd you get all that money?

Angel:  By helping an old lady across the street.  Let's all go to my Hangnail Support Group.

Roger:  My angst is too great.  I will stay here.  (The others leave)

Mimi:  Hi, do you have any C batteries?

Roger:  What happened to your candle?

Mimi:  No fire in front of the kiddies.

Support Group People:  Will I lose my dignity?  Of course not.

Roger:  Is that a donkey you brought in with you?

Mimi:  Yep.  They say I have the best ass below Fourteenth Street.

Roger:  Think we'll get away with that one?

Mimi:  No.

Maureen:  The cow jumped over the moon.

Tom:  I love you, Maureen.

Angel:  I thought you loved me.

Tom:  Not in this version.

Angel:  Okay, then, I love Joanne.

Joanne:  I love you, Angel.

Roger:  I love you, Mimi.

Mimi:  I love you, Roger.

Mark:  I love myself.

Tom:  I hate you, Maureen.

Maureen:  I hate you, Tom.

Roger:  I hate you, Mimi.

Mimi:  I hate you, Roger.

Mark:  I hate myself.

(Angel dies of his hangnail)

Everybody except Mark:  Now that Angel is dead, I love you all again.

Mark:  Not me.

(Mimi almost dies of prickly heat)

Mark:  Okay, if Mimi's going to almost die, I love you all.

(All hug)

Angel:  Hey, guys, I didn't really die either.

All: Yay!  (They hug again)

All sing:  Five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes

              In which nothing bad happens

              not really.

(Curtain.)

I think Junior musicals are great. My small youth theater recently did "Honk! Jr.". This was good because it came with a backing track. My theater can not pay an orchestra and it couldn't even fit one in the theater anyway! The royalties were also cheaper, which is very good. It was advertised as Honk! Jr. It was a great show.

Les Mis : School Edition? That wouldn't work in my community. But in other places, I'm sure it would be fine. Rent : School Edition? I think that's going a little too far. Okay, a lot too far.

Ellen

Music Theatre International are now apparently also releasing High School Musical (the recent Disney movie-musical) as a junior show, to be released this fall. Should be interesting to see how that one fairs.

So that would make it High School Musical: The Junior High School Musical?

To reiterate and expand on Topper's previous post in this thread - most of you disgruntled purists are missing the point.  If the new trend of more approachable/doable musicals ultimately exposes more folks to the theatre at a younger age, how can that be a bad thing?

Sometimes I think we take our art/avocation way too seriously.  The goal with this new genre (and yes, it is a new genre of sorts) is to make the medium more available/accessible to the masses.  Are some overly worried that this will somehow diminish the art itself?  Perhaps, but we need to get over it.  We can't complain on the one hand about the diminishing pool of patrons/participants and then on the other have elitist attitudes that contribute towards further alienation.

I'm all for the new genre and thanks for the RH info.  I only knew about the MTI Broadway Jr. offerings.

Some of us Disgruntled purists are more worried that the subject matter of the shows is right for the age group preforming them. I still don't think a jr high school kid can relate to a piece like Les Miz. can they really reach the leval they need to play Jean Val Jean? I've meet many talanted young actors but at that age can they do "Bring him home" and convay even a little bit of what is going on in that monent. I think I would rather see new works for young actors that deal with subjects they can relate to.

I see your point but, Sorry I just don't like it.

I absolutely agree with the point on being rather selective with which works are "transformed".  Most Broadway musicals would not be suited to performance by younger actors (the previous poster was kidding about "Rent" being adapted wasn't he?  Yikes!)

Anyway, for a very small theatre like ours in a very rural community it's a relief to be able to have access to these very producable musicals and, I unashamedly admit, they are cash cows.  But that just frees us up to do other more interesting (from an actor's perspective) productions without having to constantly worry about the bottom line.  It also helps the younger people have good theatre experiences and get bitten by the "bug" so that later on we can shepherd a few really talented ones on through to bigger and better things.

I'm 14 and now stage managing Bugsy Malone Jr. for the local CT in Topeka, Kansas. I personally think that the Junior shows are wonderful the're kept short so actors don't loose thier focus... and the music is made for their range. We have producted almost all of the Junior shows and we were one of the first theatre academies to produce Les Mis School Edition and are going to be doing G2K Oklahoma from RNH next spring.