520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Jul 27, 2021 23:31:28 GMT
What did you you consider outdated and creaky that this production has now addressed? It sounds like, if anything, anything that anyone ever complained about was retained and bits people liked were axed. The show felt much smoother tonight, fresher, modern. I wasn't a huge fan of the angel and quite like the horse - I enjoyed the way it pivoted around to the audience (and the audience seemed yo like it too). I'd recommend you go and see it to see what bits you like and the bits you don't - I've tried writing my comments with an open mind, including my disappointment that the reduction in orchestra is noticeable to me. Yet, another person felt it was barely noticeable and really liked it. Guess it comes down to taste. Many people around me (row C stalls) were diehard Phans, and they were animatedly discussing what they liked/didn't like at the interval and the end. My hunch is that this new production has won over some of those who were doubting how good it might be (and, bizarrely, left me feeling they didn't go far enough). There is plenty left of the original to satisfy even the harshest critics. I think that if they were honest about their approach from the start, whilst people would still be angry, it would be more understandable. Instead, they have continuously spouted that this is the "brilliant original". Webber himself has said countless times it would be "the brilliant original" and implying only technological changes and the re-production of the same sets (which, to be fair, was sorely needed.) However, this was all clearly lies... and the fact that the official social media of the show leave "the brilliant original" in their bio UNTIL THE NIGHT OF THE SHOW, only to remove it after the curtain falls. It's just... Yeah. People should be angry. And even doing things like putting the original chandelier outside of the theatre, days before reopening, which got fans on social media excited because it looked like the chandelier was staying the same... only for the chandelier to be different and for it to be nothing more than a publicity stunt? The whole way they've went about it is just weird. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 27, 2021 23:31:29 GMT
What did you you consider outdated and creaky that this production has now addressed? It sounds like, if anything, anything that anyone ever complained about was retained and bits people liked were axed. The show felt much smoother tonight, fresher, modern. I wasn't a huge fan of the angel and quite like the horse - I enjoyed the way it pivoted around to the audience (and the audience seemed yo like it too). I'd recommend you go and see it to see what bits you like and the bits you don't - I've tried writing my comments with an open mind, including my disappointment that the reduction in orchestra is noticeable to me. Yet, another person felt it was barely noticeable and really liked it. Guess it comes down to taste. Many people around me (row C stalls) were diehard Phans, and they were animatedly discussing what they liked/didn't like at the interval and the end. My hunch is that this new production has won over some of those who were doubting how good it might be (and, bizarrely, left me feeling they didn't go far enough). There is plenty left of the original to satisfy even the harshest critics. So other than the replacement of the Angel, was there anything you preferred in terms of the production? I'm just trying to understand what everyone considered "dated" that is no longer the case. I mean, even the original production could (and did) feel fresher and smoother once the director's been in to check up on it. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jul 27, 2021 23:32:09 GMT
Oh, another thing I’ve not seen mentioned here yet… the part of the proscenium that kinda fixed itself in mid-air during the overture, and rose up to join the rest. I did think that was cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 27, 2021 23:32:35 GMT
What is the status of the estates of the original Director and Designer here? If the backers were told this was a new show and the one they invested in had now closed its financial books - is a bit of butchery the price Hal and Maria's work must pay to make it look like this is 'New'? Yet it doesn't sound all that new - so what agreement is made to reuse their work but with changes that can't/don't represent their wishes?
Maybe it's poetic and metatheatrical justice that the show is now being haunted on Twitter by a disgruntled ghost of the show's own Twitter account - with "(1986)" added to their Twitter handle. I can't see their 'Notes' drying up quickly. Did ALW learn nothing from social media around 'Love Never Dies'?
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 27, 2021 23:34:00 GMT
So were they having a little dig at people during the auction when the chandelier was announced as “Until recently, believed to have been destroyed”? Sounded like a line written by Cameron himself 😁 They said that?! So they really were aware of the social media noise. That doesn't clear up the mystery though of the old-style chandelier outside the building a few weeks ago. I wonder if it's just gone backstage as a memento. The Hamburg revival had the original Angel backstage as a good luck charm. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jul 27, 2021 23:36:39 GMT
So were they having a little dig at people during the auction when the chandelier was announced as “Until recently, believed to have been destroyed”? Sounded like a line written by Cameron himself 😁 They said that?! So they really were aware of the social media noise. That doesn't clear up the mystery though of the old-style chandelier outside the building a few weeks ago. I wonder if it's just gone backstage as a memento. The Hamburg revival had the original Angel backstage as a good luck charm. Yeah, that was said during the auction. A number of changes to text in that section actually. I think the chandelier may actually look a bit too big now. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 27, 2021 23:36:50 GMT
What is the status of the estates of the original Director and Designer here? If the backers were told this was a new show and the one they invested in had now closed its financial books - is a bit of butchery the price Hal and Maria's work must pay to make it look like this is 'New'? Yet it doesn't sound all that new - so what agreement is made to reuse their work but with changes that can't/don't represent their wishes? Maybe it's poetic and metatheatrical justice that the show is now being haunted on Twitter by a disgruntled ghost of the show's own Twitter account - with "(1986)" added to their Twitter handle. I can't see their 'Notes' drying up quickly. Did ALW learn nothing from social media around 'Love Never Dies'? I think Björnson's estate is generally hands off. The person who runs her archive told me that if the show uses her name, then the estate would have had to approve it. However, that doesn't mean the estate always knows what was going on. The Connor tour claimed they were using her costumes but in many cases altered them substantially or introduced new ones entirely (e.g. the Red Death). When that got back to the estate, they were not amused and CML had to modify the wording of the credits as a result. I don't know what the deal is since Hal died. His estate wouldn't receive the huge cut of the gross any more that Hal negotiated when he was alive as that was for run of show (though it'll still apply to the Bway production while it lasts). |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 27, 2021 23:38:50 GMT
Oh, another thing I’ve not seen mentioned here yet… the part of the proscenium that kinda fixed itself in mid-air during the overture, and rose up to join the rest. I did think that was cool. Is this the cracked thing on the side? Because the interval pics still show the shattered thing still going on. |
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 27, 2021 23:41:29 GMT
The show felt much smoother tonight, fresher, modern. I wasn't a huge fan of the angel and quite like the horse - I enjoyed the way it pivoted around to the audience (and the audience seemed yo like it too). I'd recommend you go and see it to see what bits you like and the bits you don't - I've tried writing my comments with an open mind, including my disappointment that the reduction in orchestra is noticeable to me. Yet, another person felt it was barely noticeable and really liked it. Guess it comes down to taste. Many people around me (row C stalls) were diehard Phans, and they were animatedly discussing what they liked/didn't like at the interval and the end. My hunch is that this new production has won over some of those who were doubting how good it might be (and, bizarrely, left me feeling they didn't go far enough). There is plenty left of the original to satisfy even the harshest critics. So other than the replacement of the Angel, was there anything you preferred in terms of the production? I'm just trying to understand what everyone considered "dated" that is no longer the case. I mean, even the original production could (and did) feel fresher and smoother once the director's been in to check up on it. The previous version (to me) felt dusty, dark, bleak at times, and some of the mechanics of the theatre - whilst charming- felt clunky and cumbersome. I knew tonight would feel more modern, fresher - the lighting was excellent in particular. I also wasn't a huge fan of the big drapes, do was glad to see them go. It's subjective - I feel great about aspects of the new version, but there's bits I'm less fond of and I can't put my finger on it, other than to say I fully understand why purists or fans of the original show are so upset. I'm happy with the new version but was never fully wedded to the old version to care enough about the inevitable changes. The most noticeable change for me was the music, and I did believe that they could bridge the gap. I was wrong. Perhaps it needs to bed in and they can use some of their clever surround wizardry to create a fuller spectrum of sound. |
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 27, 2021 23:42:28 GMT
Oh, another thing I’ve not seen mentioned here yet… the part of the proscenium that kinda fixed itself in mid-air during the overture, and rose up to join the rest. I did think that was cool. I noticed that too and thought it was a very clever touch. |
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Jul 27, 2021 23:42:45 GMT
The show felt much smoother tonight, fresher, modern. I wasn't a huge fan of the angel and quite like the horse - I enjoyed the way it pivoted around to the audience (and the audience seemed yo like it too). I'd recommend you go and see it to see what bits you like and the bits you don't - I've tried writing my comments with an open mind, including my disappointment that the reduction in orchestra is noticeable to me. Yet, another person felt it was barely noticeable and really liked it. Guess it comes down to taste. Many people around me (row C stalls) were diehard Phans, and they were animatedly discussing what they liked/didn't like at the interval and the end. My hunch is that this new production has won over some of those who were doubting how good it might be (and, bizarrely, left me feeling they didn't go far enough). There is plenty left of the original to satisfy even the harshest critics. So other than the replacement of the Angel, was there anything you preferred in terms of the production? I'm just trying to understand what everyone considered "dated" that is no longer the case. I mean, even the original production could (and did) feel fresher and smoother once the director's been in to check up on it. To be fair, the set was in terrible need of being re-created. A few years ago now, I had the misfortune of seeing David Shannon as The Phantom. I really disliked his performance (nothing against him personally or his voice - I just didn't like his Phantom.) This left me with some time to look around the theatre. Frankly, it was filthy. Shockingly dirty. The sets were dusty. Some peeling. It did look... old. But then, maybe that was part of the charm. Speaking of charm - is the chandelier still pushed off stage at the start and caught when it comes back down? << actually one of my favourite things about the show! |
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 27, 2021 23:48:12 GMT
It was pushed off at the beginning but wasn't caught as far as I remember. In fact when they raised it back up in the interval I had to tell people to watch their heads as it seemed very low. The fall was pretty quick (sitting beneath it).
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jul 27, 2021 23:49:05 GMT
Oh, another thing I’ve not seen mentioned here yet… the part of the proscenium that kinda fixed itself in mid-air during the overture, and rose up to join the rest. I did think that was cool. Is this the cracked thing on the side? Because the interval pics still show the shattered thing still going on. No, it’s a horizontal piece of the top of the proscenium. I didn’t notice where it appeared from, presumably rose up amidst all the curtains etc during the overture. It looked snapped in 2, and broken at the end, but as it rose it straightened out, and the end rotated to fix itself. It then continued up and joined the rest of the set (I assume, as it was out of my view by that point). |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 27, 2021 23:58:38 GMT
So other than the replacement of the Angel, was there anything you preferred in terms of the production? I'm just trying to understand what everyone considered "dated" that is no longer the case. I mean, even the original production could (and did) feel fresher and smoother once the director's been in to check up on it. The previous version (to me) felt dusty, dark, bleak at times, and some of the mechanics of the theatre - whilst charming- felt clunky and cumbersome. I knew tonight would feel more modern, fresher - the lighting was excellent in particular. I also wasn't a huge fan of the big drapes, do was glad to see them go. It's subjective - I feel great about aspects of the new version, but there's bits I'm less fond of and I can't put my finger on it, other than to say I fully understand why purists or fans of the original show are so upset. I'm happy with the new version but was never fully wedded to the old version to care enough about the inevitable changes. The most noticeable change for me was the music, and I did believe that they could bridge the gap. I was wrong. Perhaps it needs to bed in and they can use some of their clever surround wizardry to create a fuller spectrum of sound. It's admittedly difficult to tell from photographs alone, but it looks almost too brightly lit (as did Leicester) now. The old lighting was obsolete, though, so not sure what they could have done...but is there no way to recreate the patina of 'gloomth' that the production needs using modern technology? I feel when posters here are saying that things were creaky, it's just set pieces that needed more care and attention, which I certainly agree was necessary. That didn't merit chucking away the entire production and replacing it with this, IMHO. Also that painted cloth comes down at the end rather than the gorgeous red curtain, which is sad since they do have the red curtain there. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 28, 2021 0:08:58 GMT
The previous version (to me) felt dusty, dark, bleak at times, and some of the mechanics of the theatre - whilst charming- felt clunky and cumbersome. I knew tonight would feel more modern, fresher - the lighting was excellent in particular. I also wasn't a huge fan of the big drapes, do was glad to see them go. It's subjective - I feel great about aspects of the new version, but there's bits I'm less fond of and I can't put my finger on it, other than to say I fully understand why purists or fans of the original show are so upset. I'm happy with the new version but was never fully wedded to the old version to care enough about the inevitable changes. The most noticeable change for me was the music, and I did believe that they could bridge the gap. I was wrong. Perhaps it needs to bed in and they can use some of their clever surround wizardry to create a fuller spectrum of sound. It's admittedly difficult to tell from photographs alone, but it looks almost too brightly lit (as did Leicester) now. The old lighting was obsolete, though, so not sure what they could have done...but is there no way to recreate the patina of 'gloomth' that the production needs using modern technology? I feel when posters here are saying that things were creaky, it's just set pieces that needed more care and attention, which I certainly agree was necessary. That didn't merit chucking away the entire production and replacing it with this, IMHO. Yes but as stated before the key issue was maintenance of the theatre as a whole. The production was never designed to last as long as 35 years, so there's little wonder that the underlying theatre itself needed a repair job that couldn't be done while the production was running. At that point, when you accept that you need to temporarily close the show, rip it out to fix the theatre itself, it becomes an interesting debate over what is best to go back in - as we've seen played out over the last year or so. Personally, it would have been best had they sorted the technology they wanted to do out but then have it visually identical to the previous version. Obviously that hasn't happened, but it sounds from tonight on here that the show has been butchered less than some corners were worrying. And the issue with lighting is just the nature of LED unfortunately, you can dim them and soften the edges but the quality of light is different. At home if you replace a filiment bulb with an LED one you'll notice the difference no matter how much the packaging originally said you wouldn't. Also much more energy efficient (and therefore environmentally friendly), FWIW. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 28, 2021 0:12:41 GMT
With all that has been said tonight about the current state of the show, I'm still curious to see it for myself. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I heard on social media that tonight's performance was a preview, so maybe they'll fix up/add things, but that could just be my wishful thinking yet again.
But then again, I'd rather 'Phantom' still be running that not, whatever state it's in. At least it is somewhat close to the original, even if it isn't completely the same. In fact, at least it wasn't a complete departure like with 'Les Mis'.
|
|
5,033 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 28, 2021 0:13:31 GMT
So were they having a little dig at people during the auction when the chandelier was announced as “Until recently, believed to have been destroyed”? Sounded like a line written by Cameron himself 😁 Despite all the extra comedy in the show, the funniest thing tonight for me was someone approaching Charles Hart in the interval… “Excuse me, are you… Richard Stilgoe?” “No, I’m Charles Hart” “Oh, I’m sorry!’” “Richard Stilgoe is 70 !!” 🤣🤣🤣 Ha, no surprise the public don’t know Charles Hart, no disrespect to him, he is actually a very likeable person. But there is no getting away from it - I cannot think of anyone else in theatre that has done so well, by doing so little. He has the best pension scheme in the industry, he kind of retired 35 years ago at the age of 25!!! Good luck to him. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 28, 2021 0:17:59 GMT
With all that has been said tonight about the current state of the show, I'm still curious to see it for myself. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I heard on social media that tonight's performance was a preview, so maybe they'll fix up/add things, but that could just be my wishful thinking yet again. But then again, I'd rather 'Phantom' still be running that not, whatever state it's in. At least it is somewhat close to the original, even if it isn't completely the same. It's the first performance of a new production of a musical, this definitely fits the category of first preview. Worthwhile noting most new musicals have around a month of performances before they're totally locked down and introduced to the press. Obviously this is a special case creatively, but from a technical perspective it is a new production. There would have been all kinds of things not quite running how they should. That's not to say everything that didn't run ideally would have been detectable to the audience, but it's probably a fair bet that something(s) seen tonight are not in their final version yet. Don't expect changes, obviously, but there may well be effects reintroduced which were not in place tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2021 0:18:19 GMT
It's admittedly difficult to tell from photographs alone, but it looks almost too brightly lit (as did Leicester) now. The old lighting was obsolete, though, so not sure what they could have done...but is there no way to recreate the patina of 'gloomth' that the production needs using modern technology? I feel when posters here are saying that things were creaky, it's just set pieces that needed more care and attention, which I certainly agree was necessary. That didn't merit chucking away the entire production and replacing it with this, IMHO. Yes but as stated before the key issue was maintenance of the theatre as a whole. The production was never designed to last as long as 35 years, so there's little wonder that the underlying theatre itself needed a repair job that couldn't be done while the production was running. At that point, when you accept that you need to temporarily close the show, rip it out to fix the theatre itself, it becomes an interesting debate over what is best to go back in - as we've seen played out over the last year or so. Personally, it would have been best had they sorted the technology they wanted to do out but then have it visually identical to the previous version. Obviously that hasn't happened, but it sounds from tonight on here that the show has been butchered less than some corners were worrying. And the issue with lighting is just the nature of LED unfortunately, you can dim them and soften the edges but the quality of light is different. At home if you replace a filiment bulb with an LED one you'll notice the difference no matter how much the packaging originally said you wouldn't. Also much more energy efficient (and therefore environmentally friendly), FWIW. Thanks for the explanation re the LED. Re the show being less butchered than some corners were worrying...I'm not sure. I think everything that was said a year ago has pretty much come to pass, the exception being the chandelier. |
|
5,033 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 28, 2021 0:20:07 GMT
I wonder if Harold Prince and Maria Bjornson are spinning the same way in their graves.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 28, 2021 0:22:36 GMT
Thanks for the explanation re the LED. Re the being less butchered than some corners were worrying...I'm not sure. I think everything that was said a year ago has pretty much come to pass, the exception being the chandelier. Fair point - to be honest it's extremely difficult to work that out from a first preview and a reasonably small range of commentators who were actually there. I don't have the time or inclination to go back and try to piece together every mooted change and if it seems to have come to pass. I'll gut judge it when I eventually get down to 'er Maj's. |
|
|
|
4,025 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 28, 2021 5:24:26 GMT
Covent Garden was still showing her Contes d'Hoffmann just before the pandemic. Also gorgeously designed. Unfortunately when the production was last performed, in 2016, it was stated that that would be its final outing. |
|
1,568 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 28, 2021 5:43:05 GMT
My advice to the armchair critics is to go and see for yourself then make your mind up about whether it has improved or not. Pluses for me were costumes and lighting, bits of the set wowed me, other bits less so. Sound design was good for the surround effects. The big question for most is around the orchestra, right? Going to be completely honest and say there is a noticeable difference. The depth and swells are lost, no amount of keys can replicate what has been removed, the most obvious being Primadonna which lost that glorious crescendo moment. So for me, whilst it was a great show and very well received tonight, it's definitely Phantom-lite with the reduction in musicians. A very balanced and substantive review…I’ve always enjoyed your post and will certainly take your advice. |
|
2,259 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 28, 2021 8:05:39 GMT
And as could have been predicted ALW has already come out with his "better than ever" statement
Also does anyone else find that picture with Lucy vaguely creepy or is it just me?
|
|
