West End vs. Touring Shows

[Deleted]

I always used to be very pro West End shows however now I have found that there are so many touring shows that are just as good as West End shows ie Mary Poppins.

Just looking at my local theatre's website, there are loads of shows I'd love to see when they go there!

Of course, West End shows can be more advanced set wise, but does anyone prefer touring shows?

[Deleted]

I don't think touring shows will ever replace the West End for me, as I'm a big fan of plays (particularly Shakespeare) and my local theatre is a big fan of musicals (the more crowd-pleasing the better), but there is a LOT to be said for a short journey home and being able to go on a school night without having to seriously think about what you'll be doing at work the next day.

At the end of the day, good theatre is good theatre, and if they want to bring it to my local rather than dragging me to the West End, then I am ALL FOR IT.

[CG on the loose]

I see a lot of regional (and fringe) theatre, both local and touring productions and there are many real gems - and living in the Midlands there are a huge selection of venues within an hour or so's drive, offering very varied programmes. But I do *generally* (though certainly not always!) find that the budgets afforded to West End productions are reflected in all aspects of what you see and hear on stage. And, of course, in the ticket prices!

[Deleted]

Well I live in London now so pretty spoiled by London's glitzy West End but it didn't always used to be so. Oh no. Back when I was younger (but still as hot I should add) and my hairline was a *teeny* bit lower I relied upon a tour to see the majority of theatre so will always have fond memories of the likes of Marti Webb in 'Evita', Helena Blackman and Dave Willetts in 'South Pacific', the out of town tryout of 'Mary Poppins' and, of course, 'Fame - The Musical'. Actually you can scrap 'Fame The Musical' but I still have fond memories of the others.

Heading to London for a show like 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang', 'Doctor Doolittle' and Denise Van Outen in 'Chicago' was always a real goosebumpy thrill and as much as I can pretty much see what I want and when I want, there isn't necessarily that same buzz as there was then and I slightly miss that. Granted that buzz could have been entirely down to a heady mix of Malibu & Pineapple and various over the counter flu remedies but I'd like to think it was because of the theatre. So I have a nostalgic view of a tour and so while I'd naturally go for London's glitzy West End purely for choice, variety and convenience there's always a place in my heart to see the likes of Nigel Havers and a woman from 'Howards Way' attempting a touch of Oscar Wilde for the provinces.

[shady23]

Alot of this is to do with cast. I much prefer the touring cast of guys and dolls to the London cast for example. Although tours often have a lot of Z Listers and so called "names" to sell them as many tours have struggled of late.

I live in Newcastle and most of the productions that visit here or Sunderland Empire (two huge venues in the region) are productions that keep coming around and around and around.... although it is nice to see productions locally I would never justify travelling down to London to see.

[trapdoor]

I find it depends on the producers behind it. The West End run of Hairspray (and it's subsequent first tour) was amazing, whereas it's last outing was so scaled down and cheap it insulted the show. Likewise with Evita in the West End, whilst not my favourite show it looked great at the Adelphi but like Poundland on the road. Producers like Cameron don't stint on throwing money on touring sets and keeping production values, but that's a rare thing sadly.

[BurlyBeaR]

Jul 7, 2016 9:30:12 GMT trapdoor said:

I find it depends on the producers behind it. The West End run of Hairspray (and it's subsequent first tour) was amazing, whereas it's last outing was so scaled down and cheap it insulted the show. Likewise with Evita in the West End, whilst not my favourite show it looked great at the Adelphi but like Poundland on the road. Producers like Cameron don't stint on throwing money on touring sets and keeping production values, but that's a rare thing sadly.

Let's not make Cameron into some sort of Saint. His touring shows cost around £70 for a premium seat. That latest Hairspray tour was about £40.

Also to call it Poundland is a little harsh. The performances were way better than the first tour apart from that of Michael Ball.

[ShoesForRent]

Jul 7, 2016 9:30:12 GMT trapdoor said:

I find it depends on the producers behind it. The West End run of Hairspray (and it's subsequent first tour) was amazing, whereas it's last outing was so scaled down and cheap it insulted the show. Likewise with Evita in the West End, whilst not my favourite show it looked great at the Adelphi but like Poundland on the road. Producers like Cameron don't stint on throwing money on touring sets and keeping production values, but that's a rare thing sadly.

Sadly even Cameron is scaling down these days- what with the super watered down Phantom tour in the UK and now in the US-  an embarassment to those wonderful set and costume designs. Same for the 25th anniversary tour of Les Mis compared to the original tour.

It's just not the same financial situation it was- to tour, what with this economy anyway.

[BurlyBeaR]

I thought the 25 Tour of Les Mis was as good as the original. Different but as good. It sped along at a fair old lick too, not a bad thing!

[ShoesForRent]

Jul 7, 2016 11:22:45 GMT BurlyBeaR said:

I thought the 25 Tour of Les Mis was as good as the original. Different but as good. It sped along at a fair old lick too, not a bad thing!

It was definetly cheaper to produce though- but had a better go at it than Phantom. I wish they'd just redirect Phantom in a way that would have been cheaper to tour, rather than redo it but with cheap (and cheap looking) sets and costumes. Les Mis had the right idea in that way.

EDIT: or redesign, rather than redirect. Or both!

[Phantom of London]

Mmmmm, I am doing a mini tour at the moment, so far saw King Lear in Bristol, Guys and Doll and Billy Elliot in Cardiff and just about to see Present Laughter in Bath, I was looking at Bimingham, Liverpoo, Leeds, Sheffield, Leicesterl and Manchester, but there seems nothing to be there at the moment, at least in Machester it is easy to hop over to Leeds and Liverpool fro an afternoon show, if I go travelling I want to see 2 shows in a day to make it worth its while. So on the road it is hit and miss.

I was tempted to see Watership Down in the Watermill in Newbury, but decided by the time I had to pay out for another night in a hotel it wasn't worth it, so will see so heading back in London this evening and see something instead.

In London you have a plethora of choice and very easy to see 2 shows in a day of amazing shows. The quality of production and cast wise tends to be better in London. They they build that set specifically for that theatre, the sound design is perfected for that theatre, the lighted has been finely calibrated for that theatre and the cast don't have to live in hotels and can be with their families every night, this is a big minus for touring shows.

[Deleted]

I disagree about the Phantom tour, I thought it was spectacular. Even though I haven't seen the original production I think the new sets looked better than images I've seen of the London version. And I'm pretty sure they used the original costumes anyway? Although harsh as it may sound I'm not that keen on Mackintosh's decision to get Laurence Connor to direct everything he revives lately.

But overall I agree, there seems to be better stuff touring at the moment than what is in the West End (or even some stuff that is both touring AND in the West End). I think apart from School of Rock opening later this year, there seems to be nothing for me that makes me want go straight away to see it, rather than just "hmm I think I'll wait until that comes round". If anything, there's probably more stuff in London that I'd rather see that's off-West End i.e. the National, Old Vic, Open Air. Having said all that, there will always be something exciting about going to London to see a show.

[ShoesForRent]

This is what i meant by watered down costumes (I'll let you guess which side is the tour and which is the original):

      


    


    

 


And so on and so on... and yet they have the nerve to say they've "kept Bjørnson's designs".
The sets looks very plastic in the new tour. Granted, in the original they do have a certain "dusty look" that keeps getting worse with the years- the two originals need a wipe down. But the designs are brilliant.

And the new direction... well it's odd to say the least.

[Deleted]

Jul 7, 2016 9:30:12 GMT trapdoor said:

I find it depends on the producers behind it. The West End run of Hairspray (and it's subsequent first tour) was amazing, whereas it's last outing was so scaled down and cheap it insulted the show. Likewise with Evita in the West End, whilst not my favourite show it looked great at the Adelphi but like Poundland on the road. Producers like Cameron don't stint on throwing money on touring sets and keeping production values, but that's a rare thing sadly.

Regarding the recent tour of Hairspray, I think that's because Leicester Curve had bought the rights to the original show and the producers of the UK tour wanted to change the set but couldn't. I know they didn't like the set as I know one of the producers quite well 

[Phantom of London]

Jul 7, 2016 15:10:14 GMT @theatremonkey said:

Jul 7, 2016 13:20:36 GMT Phantom of London said:

The quality of production and cast wise tends to be better in London. They they build that set specifically for that theatre, the sound design is perfected for that theatre, the lighted has been finely calibrated for that theatre

It can be quite noticeable when a production has "come in" from pre-London tryouts that if they keep the same set etc, it isn't up to the same standards as something that began life in the West End. Even, dare I say, sometimes an incoming show can 'feel' quite different too.

I saw Billy Elliot in Cardiff last night, first time I have seen the tour.

As a theatre fan, it is thrilling to see how they adapt the set for the tour, I didn't expect the Millenium Centre to diiga big hole in the middle of the stage for Billie's bedroom to appear out of, so I enjoy how they substitute this. For example in the Swan Lake scene relies on a lot of dry ice and in the Victoria Palace - you had nozzles heads that popped out of the stage, this allowed the stage to be flooded with dry ice and looked like a lake, in Cardiff they couldn't replicate this, but there was dry ice but very little, the effect was lost.

[Michael]

Jul 7, 2016 13:47:44 GMT ShoesForRent said:

This is what i meant by watered down costumes (I'll let you guess which side is the tour and which is the original)

I know! I know! The original is on the right, right?

[Deleted]

That's the thing about touring shows, you can't really compare them to West End shows. West End shows usually have a bigger set because they are in the same theatre so can use more automation, lifts in the stage etc so when they go on tour following London, they can't replicate the exact set and this upsets people who have seen both versions. I also think touring shows seem to have more "names" in them than West End shows, i dont know why?

I've always preferred West End shows but touring shows are really good too

[ShoesForRent]

Jul 7, 2016 16:48:46 GMT @george22 said:

That's the thing about touring shows, you can't really compare them to West End shows. West End shows usually have a bigger set because they are in the same theatre so can use more automation, lifts in the stage etc so when they go on tour following London, they can't replicate the exact set and this upsets people who have seen both versions. I also think touring shows seem to have more "names" in them than West End shows, i dont know why?

I've always preferred West End shows but touring shows are really good too

Re: more "names" on tour- because they are a harder sell. A show in the W/E is partially sold to people who came to see a SHOW on the W/E- to spend a night in the theatre (well at least it used to be). Whereas on the road, in order to get (most) people to spend a night in the theatre, they need to recognise a name or two of who they are seeing. Some shows can sell on the show's name alone on tour too of course, but some simply can't.

[Phantom of London]

Where as pointed out that because London has the population and tourists to support long running shows, so London can be more flamboyant with sets and costumes.

However London theatres are old and creaky and mouse invested, on the road theatres like Manchester Lowry, Leicester Curve and Cardiff Millenium Centre (which I was at for the first time last night) knocks spots off anything we have in London comfort wise, no theatre are like those in town.

[steve10086]

Jul 7, 2016 17:08:18 GMT Phantom of London said:

However London theatres are old and creaky and mouse invested....

You can't blame the mice for that! They invest as much as they can, but they are on a limited budget.