|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 5, 2020 10:49:22 GMT
Much as watching the chandelier rise up is hugely thrilling, it doesn't half give the plot away, but i guess when you have invested so much into a prop you best make the most of it and not worry too much about the mechanics of the plot. Same with the blessed helicopter on Miss saigon. In the time line we are suddenly in a flashback, which confuses some of the audience who are not listening to every word, We've not had flashbacks before, but traditionally there's usually a big moment after the start of act two
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 5, 2020 11:23:37 GMT
We've been over the "brilliant original" semantics over and over and over - the marketing dept is there for the masses not for us, and to all intents and purposes it IS the brilliant original. Except the Brilliant Original was shut down and the investors were given their closing notices. At best it's a revival of the Brilliant Original, but the "original" has gone. I note that the press announcements call it an "opening", not a "re-opening". So Cameron was right when he said he had "permanently closed" the original production. I don't quite get this - aren't you saying it's going to look the same? In which case, won't it open looking like it needs to be updated? See, I totally get the excitement of having a return date for a much-loved show, and I understand that in a horrendous year, people want optimism. But this comment just seems to be a total denial of reality. It's not going to be "more spectacular than ever", just different. And for a lot of us, the differences suggest a scaling down, not a scaling up. I'd be delighted if it really was more spectacular than ever, but there is no evidence for this whatsoever, and everything we have to date is indicative of the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 5, 2020 11:28:41 GMT
Just seen that as well. Cameron - "It will be a 'new version' of the original" Andrew - "It will be the 'brilliant original'" It feels like they're both trolling us! I suspect when ALW says "brilliant original" what he really means is 'not Laurence Connor's version'. By his definition 'Brilliant Original' could mean the original London production and any variations thereof, rather than a completely different, re-designed, reimagined show. Yes, but unfortunately the terminology is causing heaps of confusion on social media, where there are hundreds of posts thanking the producers for bringing back the original (they genuinely believe all the old sets are going back in after a refurb). And it's not surprising because until this year (when Cameron's new tour started using it), the phrase "Brilliant Original" was not used for ANY production other than London. Even Broadway never used that term, because it's not the original West End production (and yet Broadway has more claim to that title than the UK 2020 tour). |
|
19,696 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 5, 2020 11:32:41 GMT
I suspect when ALW says "brilliant original" what he really means is 'not Laurence Connor's version'. By his definition 'Brilliant Original' could mean the original London production and any variations thereof, rather than a completely different, re-designed, reimagined show. Yes, but unfortunately the terminology is causing heaps of confusion on social media Doesn’t take much though, does it. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Dec 6, 2020 0:39:31 GMT
Yes, but unfortunately the terminology is causing heaps of confusion on social media, where there are hundreds of posts thanking the producers for bringing back the original (they genuinely believe all the old sets are going back in after a refurb). And it's not surprising because until this year (when Cameron's new tour started using it), the phrase "Brilliant Original" was not used for ANY production other than London. Even Broadway never used that term, because it's not the original West End production (and yet Broadway has more claim to that title than the UK 2020 tour). Broadway most definitely used the phrase Brilliant Original, as it should, because it stood along with London as the original productions. The dynamited through 60 feet of bedrock to make enough space for those candleabras to rise as they do in London. They altered the computer program that raised the candelabras because they did it too perfectly, unlike the wobbly Victorian mechanics in London. I challenge someone to find a compelling difference between the New York and London Brilliant Original productions. Another reason they used the Brilliant Original tagline was to differentiate between Broadway and the new tour, which was going around as the SPECTACULAR NEW production. The Brilliant Original used a white and blue scheme and the Spectacular New used a reddish orange and black scheme. Word around Broadway is that the original 1988 sets are still in place at the Majestic on Broadway, and nothing has been done to them......yet. Here's to hoping that Cameron never gets his cheap claws on the Brilliant Original Broadway production.    |
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 6, 2020 1:15:28 GMT
I am sure Harold a prince is literally doing cartwheels in his grave.
If Les Miserables is any reference to go by on the new production, then the future doesn’t look great.
However the Leicester version is a touring version the new London production is a permanent version. So I see the new production being based on the Leicester production, but made sumptuous for London, which will resemble something of the original version.
By now Harold Prince will be doing half tuck back flips in his grave.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 6, 2020 8:35:30 GMT
I’ve said it before probably, but I found the interior of the Majestic too light & airy to fully engage with Phantom on Broadway. It needs a certain environment to produce a really immersive experience, which is why I think the Manchester Opera House & Bristol Hippodrome worked for me as tour venues in a way that other auditoria did not. As long as Her Majestys is left in its knackered splendour & not overly modernised it will go a long way to staving off feelings of being messed with.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 6, 2020 10:52:09 GMT
Broadway most definitely used the phrase Brilliant Original, as it should, because it stood along with London as the original productions. The dynamited through 60 feet of bedrock to make enough space for those candleabras to rise as they do in London. They altered the computer program that raised the candelabras because they did it too perfectly, unlike the wobbly Victorian mechanics in London. I challenge someone to find a compelling difference between the New York and London Brilliant Original productions. Another reason they used the Brilliant Original tagline was to differentiate between Broadway and the new tour, which was going around as the SPECTACULAR NEW production. The Brilliant Original used a white and blue scheme and the Spectacular New used a reddish orange and black scheme. Word around Broadway is that the original 1988 sets are still in place at the Majestic on Broadway, and nothing has been done to them......yet. Here's to hoping that Cameron never gets his cheap claws on the Brilliant Original Broadway production. You're absolutely right - forgot about all that! And I do hope Broadway survives with that orchestra. It's even bigger than the West End's (2 extra players, I think). I believe US union rules prevent Cameron from doing exactly what he did in London, but I'm sure he'll find a way... ALW told Michael Riedel at the outbreak of the pandemic that there were "huge plans" to "rebrand and refresh" the show, so it may be that they feel they will have to scale it back in order for the show to run...particularly since over there, they have bigger houses to fill, the box office isn't quite as strong as it is here, and they have the Shuberts to pay for the theatre... |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 6, 2020 12:26:04 GMT
Also the mechanics in there were old, broken and very creaky. What had charm in 1986 just looked in huge need of an update in 2020. . I don't quite get this - aren't you saying it's going to look the same? In which case, won't it open looking like it needs to be updated? I think you're mixing what I'd refer to as a "visual update" with a "mechanical update". A visual update, as such, is a redesign of everything a show looks like - this is often referred to as a new production. A "mechanical update" as I termed it is updating the mechanics underneath what we can see to improve safety/efficiency. The language coming out of the theatre at the start of closure was the set was falling into disrepair/bits were in need of being replaced. That doesn't mean it would appear different to an audience, but it would be a new physical set. The fact the theatre is currently bare indicates it will physically be a new set. How closely it resembles the original whilst still being called the "Brilliant Original" is the subject of the debate at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 6, 2020 13:12:33 GMT
I don't quite get this - aren't you saying it's going to look the same? In which case, won't it open looking like it needs to be updated? I think you're mixing what I'd refer to as a "visual update" with a "mechanical update". A visual update, as such, is a redesign of everything a show looks like - this is often referred to as a new production. A "mechanical update" as I termed it is updating the mechanics underneath what we can see to improve safety/efficiency. The language coming out of the theatre at the start of closure was the set was falling into disrepair/bits were in need of being replaced. That doesn't mean it would appear different to an audience, but it would be a new physical set. The fact the theatre is currently bare indicates it will physically be a new set. How closely it resembles the original whilst still being called the "Brilliant Original" is the subject of the debate at the moment. I understand all of this, but I was confused by the phrase "What had had charm in 1986 just looked in huge need of an update in 2020". I interpreted that to mean something from the audience's perspective the show looked out of date. But the poster could have meant it seemed to be outdated from a mechanics point of view, but to me I don't see how the charm of using actual stagehands in 1986 is any less than the charm that would have in our mechanised age today. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Dec 7, 2020 12:41:57 GMT
What it really needs - in keeping with the renewed 'original'sets - is a renewed sense of the discoveries the original cast made. The rehearsal footage of Brightman/Crawford (in ordinary rehearsal clothes) make it clear a new drama is being explored, not recast recreated. It's a difficult thing to capture. It's ages since I saw Phantom in London, but a Resident Director with impeccable taste is needed (i.e respect for Hal Prince's vision and some talent of their own). Despite all our big talk of the Angel and Chandelier, what I remember is the sound of ripping velcro at the end when Meg removed the cloak from the chair! (How hard is it to get that right after decades?) Then she angled the mask to the audience in such a plonkingly obvious way, she might as well have said/sung "take a butchers at that mush". Similarly in latter performances of 'Cats' the smoke through the heavenly aperture was poured inartistically from side to side with all the grace of someone pouring Mr Muscle down the loo. Within a multi million pound show, it's taste that costs nothing.
|
|
2,248 posts
|
Post by richey on Dec 9, 2020 13:36:21 GMT
Did the chandelier rise in the latest tour version or is this an acknowledgement of the return of the original? / |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 9, 2020 13:45:14 GMT
Did the chandelier rise in the latest tour version or is this an acknowledgement of the return of the original? / From what I know, it didn't rise from the stage, but instead it was hump up and would lower down and shake. I've also heard that they were originally intending to have a chandelier that would be like the one in HMT, but for some reason they weren't able to do so, so they reused the one from the 2012 tour and they were planning to unveil the chandelier that they had intended in Manchester. As for this post, I'm not sure if this is an acknowledgment of the original's return or not. Maybe the chandelier will rise again like before, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by theatre241 on Dec 9, 2020 14:51:22 GMT
pricing has majorly changed in the upper circle, a ticket which was £25 in February is now £47.50!
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 9, 2020 14:57:07 GMT
Did the chandelier rise in the latest tour version or is this an acknowledgement of the return of the original? / From what I know, it didn't rise from the stage, but instead it was hump up and would lower down and shake. I've also heard that they were originally intending to have a chandelier that would be like the one in HMT, but for some reason they weren't able to do so, so they reused the one from the 2012 tour and they were planning to unveil the chandelier that they had intended in Manchester. As for this post, I'm not sure if this is an acknowledgment of the original's return or not. Maybe the chandelier will rise again like before, who knows. Is this meant to be ‘hung up’? Otherwise I’m imagining 3 sweaty workmen lugging it up the stairs of HMT & chucking it off the balcony every night. |
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Dec 9, 2020 15:03:22 GMT
pricing has majorly changed in the upper circle, a ticket which was £25 in February is now £47.50! I've always found Her Majesty's to be expensive given the number of seats (in my price range) with a restricted view/leg room. Will be interesting if they make a change to a lot of the pricing! |
|
2,248 posts
|
Post by richey on Dec 9, 2020 16:25:50 GMT
From what I know, it didn't rise from the stage, but instead it was hump up and would lower down and shake. I've also heard that they were originally intending to have a chandelier that would be like the one in HMT, but for some reason they weren't able to do so, so they reused the one from the 2012 tour and they were planning to unveil the chandelier that they had intended in Manchester. As for this post, I'm not sure if this is an acknowledgment of the original's return or not. Maybe the chandelier will rise again like before, who knows. Is this meant to be ‘hung up’? Otherwise I’m imagining 3 sweaty workmen lugging it up the stairs of HMT & chucking it off the balcony every night. 3 sweaty workmen? Hmmm, Where do I get my ticket.... |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 9, 2020 16:36:21 GMT
Is this meant to be ‘hung up’? Otherwise I’m imagining 3 sweaty workmen lugging it up the stairs of HMT & chucking it off the balcony every night. 3 sweaty workmen? Hmmm, Where do I get my ticket.... We were clearly picturing different things... |
|
19,696 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 9, 2020 20:51:33 GMT
pricing has majorly changed in the upper circle, a ticket which was £25 in February is now £47.50! I've always found Her Majesty's to be expensive given the number of seats (in my price range) with a restricted view/leg room. Will be interesting if they make a change to a lot of the pricing! At the risk of repeating myself on this forum (it’s been a while since I recounted this so bear with) the first time I went to see POTO at Her Madge’s I thought I’d treat myself to a top price stalls seat. Special occasion etc. WoopieDoo. Upon arrival at my seat I found was unable to sit down in it. Literally, as I sat in the seat and my bum pushed the seat down, my knees jammed up against the seat in front. It wasn’t just short on legroom, I physically could not sit. I had to seek out a FOH and was put in a box which was ok, but not the bang on central under the chandelier view Id paid for. Ok, I’m 6’3 and a big man but even so this is a disgrace. Theatres need to accommodate modern audiences. |
|
5,832 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Dec 9, 2020 21:30:57 GMT
It’s one of the worst theatres for comfort and decent views.
|
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Dec 9, 2020 21:47:44 GMT
I'm 6'6", I survived it once but I doubt I'll ever go back without a refurb!
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 10, 2020 10:11:31 GMT
Did the chandelier rise in the latest tour version or is this an acknowledgement of the return of the original? / Personally I wouldn't put too much serious thought into the wording of that, as "rise" could mean both "diagonally, off the stage to the ceiling" (original) or "vertically, a couple metres up and down" (not the original). To me this is just empty jargon from the Phantom PR team for general-interest fans... |
|
2,248 posts
|
Post by richey on Dec 14, 2020 15:02:21 GMT
Does this mean they've now kept the original stage machinery? Interesting to see the proscenium without the sculptures. / |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 14, 2020 15:43:33 GMT
Does this mean they've now kept the original stage machinery? Interesting to see the proscenium without the sculptures. / Don't know how I feel about this. They're still being vague about whether or not the chandelier will rise, or if the angel will still be lowered up and down, if it will remain there at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2020 15:49:41 GMT
Does this mean they've now kept the original stage machinery? Interesting to see the proscenium without the sculptures. / Yes. All the original Victorian machinery (seen 1.17 onwards) is listed won't be removed without reasoning, alot of kerfuffle and planning application. They will just install the new production around it, which is what leads me to believe it wont be utilized and therefore the candelabras won't be rising up from the stage. Does this mean they've now kept the original stage machinery? Interesting to see the proscenium without the sculptures. Don't know how I feel about this. They're still being vague about whether or not the chandelier will rise, or if the angel will still be lowered up and down, if it will remain there at all. The Angel won't be lowered. They've made it clear the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse onstage during the Act1 finale. |
|
