1,057 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 13, 2021 16:00:43 GMT
I have less emotional attachment to Phantom than Les Miserables so I'm not frustrated by the original designs being replaced by a lesser version. More concerned by the reduced orchestra than the looks.
I'd sooner have those hulking big barricades replacing the titchy ones in the Sondheim Theatre. The original chandelier looks underwhelming after you watch videos of the Las Vegas chandelier in action, dropping like it should down over the audience's heads. Not that we'll ever have that in Her Majesty's
The only thing I would object to is the phantom appearing in the box with his magic wand to shoot sparks at the chandelier like in the 2012 tour. Would he still be appearing above the proscenium or is that gone as well?
But frankly 75% of the original look will remain in comparison to what Les Mis looks like now. Will miss the phantom appearing in the angel and hope the candelabras will still rise through the stage.
You know what actually stood out to me about the musical when I first saw it. It wasn't the chandelier or the the proscenium as fantastic as they were. It was the simplicity of a lot of the scenes like the dressing room or the manager's office against that black box design. Made the musical look very atmospheric, making me wonder whether the phantom is standing in the shadows
I like productions that are non literal that way. Which is why I would always prefer the original Les Mis. Minimalistic sets where the cast is left to fill in the scenes and your imagination fly.
Of course you need set pieces like the barricades that are integral to the plot, and I am at least glad there will still be a chandelier.
I'm sure a lot of us wanted was exact replicas of the original Les Mis and Phantom sets that would last for another few decades, but all Cameron had in mind was profit.
What I would argue is that whilst the music will come back the original run ended last year. Same for Les Mis. Yes, you could count the number of performances but after closing for more than a year and being replaced with a production that's not 100% what the creatives conceived back in 1986, should it claim its 35th centenary in September (if that happens)?
|
|
2,249 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by richey on Feb 13, 2021 16:07:28 GMT
Just been looking on youtube at videos which compare the fall of the chandelier in various productions- boy it falls pretty fast in some of them!
There is a video of a non-replica Polish production (won't post the link as it's not an official video so don't think it would be allowed on here)The design of the chandelier in that looks very similar to the one in the plans submitted to Westminster, and that one rises and falls in the style of the original so I'm still holding out hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Feb 13, 2021 17:22:44 GMT
I could not imagine going onto a forum full of devoted fans of a musical and telling them all that they are wrong to feel passionate about a piece of art. I wonder if some of these naysayers on this thread go up and down the thread titles and pick ones at random to come in and say "you're all weird and crazy for being devoted to a show. Get over it." Why not just leave the thread alone if this is not your cup of tea? I enjoyed the Lion King but I don't need to ever see it again and I wouldn't care if they changed anything in that show BUT that does not mean I would go find a Lion King musical thread, see all the devoted fans upset, and lecture them about how wrong they are. How awful! I sincerely hope some of you one day find a piece of art that does touch your soul in a way that Phantom has touch ours.
As for me, the original staging of Phantom has been something that's near and dear to my heart since I was 12 years old and it was the first professional theater I ever saw. Going back to see it over and over and over again, it never failed to bring me comfort, joy, and happiness. No matter WHAT went on in the world, you can be sure that tonight, on the West End and Broadway, that the chandelier would rise and fall, that the staging would remain the same, and that the special effects would NOT be updated. Take a look at this video for how today's young people, who were raised on overblown Hollywood special effects, react to Phantom's 1980's special effects:
And let's remember what was said in the New York Times review of the original production: "The show's most persuasive love story is Mr. Prince's and Ms. Bjornson's unabashed crush on theater itself, from footlights to dressing rooms, from flies to trap doors."
Sigh.
Still hoping against hope that this travesty never makes its way to 44th Street.
|
|
19,701 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 13, 2021 17:46:35 GMT
I could not imagine going onto a forum full of devoted fans of a musical and telling them all that they are wrong to feel passionate about a piece of art. I wonder if some of these naysayers on this thread go up and down the thread titles and pick ones at random to come in and say "you're all weird and crazy for being devoted to a show. Get over it." Why not just leave the thread alone if this is not your cup of tea? I enjoyed the Lion King but I don't need to ever see it again and I wouldn't care if they changed anything in that show BUT that does not mean I would go find a Lion King musical thread, see all the devoted fans upset, and lecture them about how wrong they are. How awful! I sincerely hope some of you one day find a piece of art that does touch your soul in a way that Phantom has touch ours. Because this is a discussion thread, not a fan thread. And you’ll see from the rest of the site that we’re more about discussion than fandom. That doesn’t preclude fans from posting their love for a show but everyone has to accept that other people may have different opinions. And apart from that I think the tone of this thread is hugely positive about the show,we’re just disagreeing in a respectful and friendly way about the chandelier. |
|
|
|
Post by jaybird89 on Feb 13, 2021 18:27:25 GMT
Just to add my two pennies worth I don’t think I’d be that upset about it not crashing and landing on the stage it’s always been seeing it rise that has been magical for me that would
Probably be what I miss.
I think I’m just gonna wait to see the show when it re opens and make my decisions. I of course have so much respect for the original design and direction but it’s also good to try new things.
|
|
3,448 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 13, 2021 19:11:50 GMT
I have to say, I'm dead excited about the sound design for the new production. They must have something even better in mind, to overhaul the previous digital set-up which had not long been in place and sounded superb. That, for me, is something that matters hugely. Clarity and balance. Whilst I do love a proper orchestra, I would hazard a guess that many people don't have such a finely tuned ear that they could confidently differentiate between a real instrument and a synthesised version. I thought the producers of "Prince of Egypt" did an excellent job to create such an epic sound, and am half-hoping that ALW and CM can bring the same attention to detail to POTO. My only other reservation is CM's habit of accelerating the tempo of the score on his "reimaginings". Les Mis is the obvious example, but it also happened with Oliver. I know he isn't conducting (!), but every time he brings a show back it seems shorter than the previous iteration as a result of edits and pace changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 13, 2021 20:02:53 GMT
You're being disingenuous. The producers of this show (after the Lion King, the second highest-grossing of all time) are not taking any financial risk with this show and have already recouped and then some. There is more than enough cash splashing about to use technology to replicate the original set design and effects. Talking about new technology is all well and good, but the point that is repeatedly missed is that they are downgrading the show, not updating it. If they want to upgrade it and make it better, then fine. If they want to keep it looking the same but with more efficient technology, then fine. But that's not what they're doing. "But that's not what they're doing." Sorry but – do we know the specifics of what they're doing? Aside from a planning application (addressed to Westminster Council rather than the public) has there been any evidence of what set is going IN – what's being built, whether or not it's the tour etc. All we've got is what detailing to expect around the proscenium. Honestly don't think we can complain through sustained conjecture until the day that it opens and people actually see the show – then they can say that it is a "downgrade" or whatever word people want to use. We've been through this again and again. This is not conjecture. Cameron Mackintosh has repeatedly stated (including interviews to the Mail and the Telegraph) that it is is the 2020 tour version going in. That opened briefly before the pandemic hit so we know what that looked like, and the designs featured in the planning application adhere to that production, not the original. People are upset because: (a) that design is understandable for a touring production in the 2020s when economics have changed, but not for the flagship original sit-down London venue; (b) that design represents a scaling down of the original design, and in no way represents any kind of improvement as a result of new technology (e.g. loss of Angel, smaller chandelier that is unlikely to swing out over the audience or collapse, fewer proscenium statues, drapes only covering the false 'internal' proscenium rather than the proscenium that used to cover the actual proscenium arch of the theatre); (c) this has all be done in a duplicitous manner, with RUG repeatedly (and falsely) claiming that nothing is changing at all (ALW said the production would be back "in its entirety", while Jessica Koravos said the designs would be "unchanged"); and (d) it is entirely unnecessary to do this. I am absolutely fine with modernising the technology they use to deliver the show, and even welcome upgrades that make the show more powerful. But this is a downscaling, not an upscaling. I totally understand that touring economics don't work in the same way they did in the 90s and early 2000s, so that the original production is no longer viable to tour. But this is the flagship London original. Cameron has replaced the originals of Miz and Poppins in the West End with versions designed for tour that were smaller and less powerful. He will be doing the same with Phantom, while simultaneously claiming that he is doing it to make it 'for the 21st century', which is simply not the case. It is all about money. This is why the original production itself was closed so that investors would be paid out and never again make a return on the show, and I would imagine Hal Prince's considerable (for directors) cut of the gross (which would have gone to his estate after his death) is also now non-applicable to the new production. Chucking away Björnson's favourite set piece and doing away with the proscenium sculptures that Hal Prince considered integral to his central metaphor is no way to treat this show. I would much rather, if they really don't want to run, to close it properly, wait, and then revive it, rather than continue this sham that it is the same as it always has been whilst charging more and reducing its quality. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 13, 2021 20:04:50 GMT
The blog of a superfan isn’t what I’d consider to be a reliable source of information on this. And you think the PR statements from RUG (which falsely claimed the 2020 tour would be an "exact replica" of what is seen at Her Majesty's and the Majestic) are? The person who wrote this knows what they're talking about. |
|
19,701 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 13, 2021 20:42:39 GMT
The blog of a superfan isn’t what I’d consider to be a reliable source of information on this. And you think the PR statements from RUG (which falsely claimed the 2020 tour would be an "exact replica" of what is seen at Her Majesty's and the Majestic) are? The person who wrote this knows what they're talking about. can I ask please, what needs to happen to the return of POTO to make you happy? |
|
1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Feb 13, 2021 21:15:37 GMT
And you think the PR statements from RUG (which falsely claimed the 2020 tour would be an "exact replica" of what is seen at Her Majesty's and the Majestic) are? The person who wrote this knows what they're talking about. can I ask please, what needs to happen to the return of POTO to make you happy? I’m intrigued too. Rightly or wrongly the exact same show isn’t coming back. So in a choice of a tour based version or no Phantom what should it be? |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 13, 2021 21:22:24 GMT
scarpia can I ask please, what needs to happen to the return of POTO to make you happy? I’m intrigued too. Rightly or wrongly the exact same show isn’t coming back. So in a choice of a tour based version or no Phantom what should it be? I'd be a lot more generous if they didn't just lie about what they're doing. Both ALW and RUG have publicly stated the exact show was coming back, even though it's not. Personally I agree with Hal Prince: a revival should equal or surpass the original. The downscaled tour does neither. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 21:26:50 GMT
I’m intrigued too. Rightly or wrongly the exact same show isn’t coming back. So in a choice of a tour based version or no Phantom what should it be? I'd be a lot more generous if they didn't just lie about what they're doing. Both ALW and RUG have publicly stated the exact show was coming back, even though it's not. Personally I agree with Hal Prince: a revival should equal or surpass the original. The downscaled tour does neither. Do you reckon you'll go out of interest?! |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 14, 2021 5:43:18 GMT
It is obvious that the mere dangling of the will it / won't it chandelier "carrot" is making many people bite. It will rise, it will fall, and those who seek reassurance that they are getting the original and best will be satisfied. Personally, I'd love to see an effect that showcases the best of 2021 technology and immersive/experiential theatre. The twee effects of the 80's can hopefully rest in peace - wouldn't it be great to see better pyro and effects than those naff pops and lightning bolts that made Phantom look positively camp towards the end of its glorious run... (Not that there is anything wrong with positively camp - I'd just like to see the creative team given the licence to go a bit nuts and reinvigorate a really great show, without the whiff of Cameron's cost control.) What greater gift to the West End (and the world) than a properly reworked masterpiece fit for 2021? And if there aren't Phantom facemasks for the Covid era then I'll be mightily miffed! Fingers crossed for 5 June - does anybody think it will reopen on that day? Have to strongly disagree here, but I think updating Phantom in the ways like you suggested above would be the worst thing that could happen to the production, artistically and culturally- in fact, the more posters here casually remark "...let's face it, most people who go and see the show won't see any difference...", "...hated the chandelier anyway, it was getting real slow and the 80s special effects are boring...", the more I’m inclined to advocate for preserving Every Single Aspect of the original London production, full orchestra and creaky Victorian stage machinery included. I'd sooner they close the whole thing for good than cheapen it from the inside year by year in the name of “modernising”. Phantom is the epitome of a spectacular mega-musical of its time, purposefully designed around historic stage technology and lushly orchestrated to make the best of the proper orchestra available at the time- the whole package (performers, story, music, set and effects) was singular and impressive to 80s audiences when it first opened, and the very 80s extravagance is what’s kept audiences coming back for 34 years. It hasn’t got less popular over time because it was no longer novel, and people don’t return again and again to see how it’s adapted to yearly-changing tastes. In fact, everyone here attests to going back regularly ( then complains about its age, almost like an afterthought… ALW and Cammack thank you for your continued patronage despite your grumbling…) So why is everyone so reluctant to celebrate Phantom as the glorious 80s spectacle it is, period-accurate camp effects and all? (Camp is not a bad thing, but cheap is, and I’ve seen Killian on the funny horse on tour. Sure one can experiment a bit with tours, but that kind of thing has no place in this show in the West End.) This is a three-decade-old work of theatre that has made its name by being what it is, not some fairground ride that needs to entice kids by being shiny, nor a superhero movie that needs to outdo every predecessor with more CGI and explosions. You don’t visit a grand old stately home to admire how many rooms they’ve stripped “those sculptures were a b**** to maintain anyway”, or praise its owners for having half a wing replaced for cheap “because frankly the old house was falling apart”? Before anyone yells again, "but this is show business! Won't you think of the monies!"- it is my belief that Phantom is one of the few shows that can afford not to change for changes' sake, and every sign shows that the Brilliant Original is being value-engineered to the detriment of its artistic integrity. Counting on tourists to not notice the corruption of Hal and Maria’s vision- hardly a principled or intelligent way to judge and discuss a work of theatre? Least of all to run it? Historicism is a big part of this musical, it is obvious the original production as it is holds its value (judging from the ever-popular replica World Tour, and the relative flop of the 2012 restaged production) and by taking away bit by bit of what’s essential to the original production- specific parts of choreography/direction that heavily involve major set pieces- the producers are steering the show away from how it was originally intended; they cannot pretend to sell it as the Brilliant Original, and we cannot pretend to see this as an actual improvement to the show. Personally I go to see Phantom again and again for the 80s grandeur of it all, and to see how well performers transport us back in time, not to be wowed by some slick cutting-edge display of projection mapping and rock-concert pyros shoehorned into an approximation of the Palais Garnier… I for one mourn the patina and “material culture” of sorts that is lost by resetting the show and chucking out its history so Mr Mackintosh can get more value out of his shiny new tour set… Of course, this being a public discussion forum, everyone’s welcome to agree to disagree- obviously our values and tastes run fundamentally different! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2021 8:50:23 GMT
So why is everyone so reluctant to celebrate Phantom as the glorious 80s spectacle it is, period-accurate camp effects and all? Oh that's about as simple as it gets- it is because some of us understand that the theatre industry is a business, something that the nostalgic mega-fans all seem to completely ignore. Like it or not, nostalgia isn't cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 14, 2021 9:23:18 GMT
So why is everyone so reluctant to celebrate Phantom as the glorious 80s spectacle it is, period-accurate camp effects and all? Oh that's about as simple as it gets- it is because some of us understand that the theatre industry is a business, something that the nostalgic mega-fans all seem to completely ignore. Like it or not, nostalgia isn't cheap. Exactly, which is why it all boils down to a choice between 1) maintaining artistic integrity and closing the show if running it fully-fledged becomes financially unsustainable, or 2) running a formerly wonderful production into the ground by watering it down and cheapening the whole affair into a cut-price Disney attraction. As a nostalgic fan, I'd vastly prefer the former  |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 14, 2021 9:44:14 GMT
^That said above, many seem to ignore the fact that it *is* possible to streamline and modernise sets and props without having to remove entire pieces of it or completely change the way things move... an invisible, full refurbishment would be totally acceptable to me, unfortunately Cammack's heavy-handed approach never seems to allow for that consideration at all.
Of course theatre's a business- everything's a business! But money-making and nostalgia don't always have to be mutually exclusive. Except when it comes to royalties, I suppose. Then it's nothing but pure greed there.
|
|
|
|
Post by originalconceptlive on Feb 14, 2021 11:36:59 GMT
If they do replace the chandelier, it would be fun if they auctioned off the old one - maybe even "in pieces" - for charity or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 14, 2021 11:39:45 GMT
^That said above, many seem to ignore the fact that it *is* possible to streamline and modernise sets and props without having to remove entire pieces of it or completely change the way things move... an invisible, full refurbishment would be totally acceptable to me, unfortunately Cammack's heavy-handed approach never seems to allow for that consideration at all. Indeed - this is part of the issues with the 'we should use new technology' argument. No-one is saying they are against this (although personally I am sad about the loss of manual labour this will entail at a time when so many are out of work) but it is simply being used as a smokescreen to disguise the downscaling. Use of new technology and effects should surely lead to an upscaling of the design, as in Vegas in 2006 (which fortunately had zilch to do with Cameron and only closed because he pulled the licence). At least people are now accepting there will be changes to the set, which until very recently all the 'CM can do no wrong' crowd were denying. |
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Feb 14, 2021 11:43:11 GMT
^That said above, many seem to ignore the fact that it *is* possible to streamline and modernise sets and props without having to remove entire pieces of it or completely change the way things move... an invisible, full refurbishment would be totally acceptable to me, unfortunately Cammack's heavy-handed approach never seems to allow for that consideration at all. Indeed - this is part of the issues with the 'we should use new technology' argument. No-one is saying they are against this (although personally I am sad about the loss of manual labour this will entail at a time when so many are out of work) but it is simply being used as a smokescreen to disguise the downscaling. Use of new technology and effects should surely lead to an upscaling of the design, as in Vegas in 2006 (which fortunately had zilch to do with Cameron and only closed because he pulled the licence). At least people are now accepting there will be changes to the set, which until very recently all the 'CM can do no wrong' crowd were denying. CM closed the Vegas production?!? |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 14, 2021 11:50:45 GMT
Indeed - this is part of the issues with the 'we should use new technology' argument. No-one is saying they are against this (although personally I am sad about the loss of manual labour this will entail at a time when so many are out of work) but it is simply being used as a smokescreen to disguise the downscaling. Use of new technology and effects should surely lead to an upscaling of the design, as in Vegas in 2006 (which fortunately had zilch to do with Cameron and only closed because he pulled the licence). At least people are now accepting there will be changes to the set, which until very recently all the 'CM can do no wrong' crowd were denying. CM closed the Vegas production?!? He effectively did so by pulling the licence. It could have run another 2-3 years (probably not more), but CM has the rights to the show in the US and Canada, but sometimes by prior agreement agrees to pass on those rights to a third party (for example, he had the rights to produce the Toronto production but ended up giving the licence to Garth Drabinsky because he was too busy with Saigon and putting up Miz around the world globally, so ALW pressured him to give the rights to someone who had the time to do it since he wanted the show rolled out quickly worldwide). So that's what happened with Vegas - he had nothing to do with that production whatsoever. But then the time came for CM to roll out that terrible Laurence Connor production in the US, and clearly he did not want two competing productions in Nevada or in that region (especially as he was also using the unintentionally-ironic 'Spectacular' tagline himself). So the licence was pulled, and Vegas closed. |
|
19,701 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 14, 2021 12:04:29 GMT
The Vegas production was only 95 minutes long. It seems to get a lot of love despite the fact that it was butchered to the extent that it couldn’t really be the same show. The chandelier looked pretty spectacular though.
|
|
2,249 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by richey on Feb 14, 2021 12:13:32 GMT
The Vegas production was only 95 minutes long. It seems to get a lot of love despite the fact that it was butchered to the extent that it couldn’t really be the same show. The chandelier looked pretty spectacular though. I was watching a video of the overture in Vegas yesterday. The chandelier assembling was definitely spectacular but it did put me in mind of something out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind |
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Feb 14, 2021 12:17:02 GMT
CM closed the Vegas production?!? He effectively did so by pulling the licence. It could have run another 2-3 years (probably not more), but CM has the rights to the show in the US and Canada, but sometimes by prior agreement agrees to pass on those rights to a third party (for example, he had the rights to produce the Toronto production but ended up giving the licence to Garth Drabinsky because he was too busy with Saigon and putting up Miz around the world globally, so ALW pressured him to give the rights to someone who had the time to do it since he wanted the show rolled out quickly worldwide). So that's what happened with Vegas - he had nothing to do with that production whatsoever. But then the time came for CM to roll out that terrible Laurence Connor production in the US, and clearly he did not want two competing productions in Nevada or in that region (especially as he was also using the unintentionally-ironic 'Spectacular' tagline himself). So the licence was pulled, and Vegas closed. I used to like CM. It gets less and less all the time now  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2021 12:19:45 GMT
Although I am pro the updates and am excited to see what is unveiled at Her Majesty's, I do understand people's loyal attachment to the original.
I was the same with Starlight Express. But that has been chopped and changed like nothing on earth over the years so guess I am just used to shows changing and developing. I think Phantom is unusual that it remained totally unchanged for so long.
I am excited and intrigued to experience the whole new show though - literally keeping EVERYTHING crossed - in June!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2021 12:24:28 GMT
I have to say, I'm dead excited about the sound design for the new production. They must have something even better in mind, to overhaul the previous digital set-up which had not long been in place and sounded superb. That, for me, is something that matters hugely. Clarity and balance. Whilst I do love a proper orchestra, I would hazard a guess that many people don't have such a finely tuned ear that they could confidently differentiate between a real instrument and a synthesised version. Great point. Sound, for obvious reasons, is SO important in a musical and we often forget to mention it when we're talking about the visuals. Totally agree about clarity and balance. And these days you can make something sumptuous mixing real instruments and synthesised sound. The 'new' (11 years old!) Les Mis orchestrations I think sound sensational. And much better than the "real" sound by the time it had been cut back leaving only about half the orchestra. The last Queen's sound before the 2009 orchestrations were introduced was the weakest in the Les Mis run. With 15 odd in the pit, you need to blend the real and synthesised. Which in 2021 can be amazing! |
|
