|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 9:22:57 GMT
So all the fuss about how close this is to the 'brilliant original' is all slightly daft. IMHO of course.
"The brilliant original" is a marketing tagline. And it is worth remembering that when Cam Mac's marketing team devise their strategy, they are thinking of the 99.9% of ticket buyers, not the 0.1% of mega fans who read this board. Marketing slogans lie to us the entire time, it's part of life. Is Gillette REALLY the best a man can get? Is Bounty ACTUALLY the taste of paradise? And back to musicals, was the New London Cats TRULY Now and Forever? Well no, it closed after 21 years.
But CM isn't even lying - this version IS the brilliant original. Clearly, it's based on the original, in a format suitable for the kind of tour and sit downs upon which it's embarking. Am sorry, but it's fairly obvious that it's not going to be 100% identical to the London version. And we could nit pick until the cows come home. And frankly for a 2020 tour you wouldn't expect that. There's many updates that might (shock) look even better like there are many things that will need to be dropped for this kind of tour.
But to 99.9% of the punters this IS the original. I mean good luck to the people who want to sue CM for misinformation and demand refunds. Also, to all the Debbie Downers, you do know you don't actually have to buy a ticket?
And to say Cameron does cheap tours is just laughable. Whether his tours are cheaper than they used to be I don't know (I personally don't think so) but his tours are the most lavish on offer BY A MILE and are truly better production value wise than much of the West End. Can't think of anything other than apparently Lion King and the very first Starlight tour that have come close. Period.
So lets have a bit of positivity. Of course CM will be wanting to make money - but he really does make these tours the best he can! And I for one, can't wait to see it!
|
|
|
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 23, 2020 15:57:03 GMT
They've changed some of the choreography, especially for masquerade and changed some of the lyrics for the Phantom. Madame Giry and Meg appear in Ill Muto Ballet scene and confront the Phantom in the end of Don Juan. The set changes may be somewhat defendable but these choreography and lyric changes are completely inexcusable. What's the point of changing lyrics?  So much for "Brilliant original on tour" On the bright side the cast was exceptional and very talented. Seems rather unnecessary. Is someone involved in this having some sort of power trip making what they think are improvements to something that’s been playing to full houses for 30 years? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 16:00:41 GMT
To be honest though, most people in regional cities are buying tickets based on the name of the show alone and won't really care whether or not it's faithful to the original...
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 23, 2020 16:59:29 GMT
Wow @dom, just because someone else makes a "fuss" over something you couldn't care less about, you completely invalidate their argument by calling it "daft"? I'm sorry I've had to bring this up but this is not the first time you've responded in a patronising way to someone who genuinely cares about the subject matter who aren't just "99.9% of ticket buyers", who wishes to discuss the finer details. I am glad you are so willing to accept whatever's thrown at you but but some of us like to be more selective and critical. IMHO of course. I used to be positive I could have a nice little discussion here with fellow theatre-goers, but now apparently if I have opposing opinions to the norm I am a 0.1 percenter who should get a grip and kiss Cameron's feet for giving us anything at all.
But back on topic: I think you are wrong in equating "the brilliant original" with the other, hyperbolic taglines. I am sure 99.9% of people who see the Gillette, Bounty, Cats advertising will not be naive enough to take it literally, but "the brilliant original" for me sits in a different category, as the same phrase is still being used in promoting the West End show right now, so using the same tagline for the tour would imply they are largely the same productions. Transitive property, if you wish to look into it.
This would be like me doing an impression of you, claiming I am you because clearly, I have based my speech and mannerisms on your original ones. Though it's fairly obvious that I'm not going to be 100% identical to you, and frankly for 2020 surely you can't expect that, I am still the brilliant original @dom. Do you see my point here?
While I would say 80% of the tour is replica, the 20% comprised of unnecessary minor changes and unforgivable major changes certainly does not make it worthy of being equated with the West End production. This is hardly a matter of personal feeling, anyone with eyes and a good enough memory will be able to catch the differences. How much money Cameron has splashed on this is irrelevant to my judgement, sure it might look "lavish" compared to others, but are we really setting the bar that low here- the expenses are huge therefore the show must be good?
I'm sad for the punters who come out thinking yes they saw the brilliant original, direct from West End, in their hometown, because it is not. It is AN original, but not THE original. Call it Phantom "For the 21st Century" for all I care, like they did for Les Mis, otherwise I still think it is blatant lying.
Will most of the audience care? No. But to those of us admirers of the West End production it is such a shame for its brilliant legacy to be continually watered down by falsely-advertised "new" productions, that are messed around with for no good reason, that are done to lower and lower standards and fed to the masses as "pretty much the original".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 17:49:50 GMT
Are the lyric and choreography changes new to this tour? I remember when I saw the show on Broadway they definitely used different lyrics to the London production in parts. As did the first UK tour in the mid '90s. I'm not a big enough fan of Phantom to be able to detail all the changes (although Think of Me, Masquerade, and the graveyard scene spring to mind), but surely things like this happen with all long-running productions. Les Mis had many lyric and blocking changes throughout the years (before the new version was created), usually when a new production/tour opened.
My take on "the brilliant original" tagline is to differentiate the production from "Cameron Mackintosh's NEW production of...", which the last UK tour carried.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 18:49:37 GMT
Wow @dom, just because someone else makes a "fuss" over something you couldn't care less about, you completely invalidate their argument by calling it "daft"? I'm sorry I've had to bring this up but this is not the first time you've responded in a patronising way to someone who genuinely cares about the subject matter who aren't just "99.9% of ticket buyers", who wishes to discuss the finer details. I am glad you are so willing to accept whatever's thrown at you but but some of us like to be more selective and critical. IMHO of course. I used to be positive I could have a nice little discussion here with fellow theatre-goers, but now apparently if I have opposing opinions to the norm I am a 0.1 percenter who should get a grip and kiss Cameron's feet for giving us anything at all. But back on topic: I think you are wrong in equating "the brilliant original" with the other, hyperbolic taglines. I am sure 99.9% of people who see the Gillette, Bounty, Cats advertising will not be naive enough to take it literally, but "the brilliant original" for me sits in a different category, as the same phrase is still being used in promoting the West End show right now, so using the same tagline for the tour would imply they are largely the same productions. Transitive property, if you wish to look into it. This would be like me doing an impression of you, claiming I am you because clearly, I have based my speech and mannerisms on your original ones. Though it's fairly obvious that I'm not going to be 100% identical to you, and frankly for 2020 surely you can't expect that, I am still the brilliant original @dom. Do you see my point here? While I would say 80% of the tour is replica, the 20% comprised of unnecessary minor changes and unforgivable major changes certainly does not make it worthy of being equated with the West End production. This is hardly a matter of personal feeling, anyone with eyes and a good enough memory will be able to catch the differences. How much money Cameron has splashed on this is irrelevant to my judgement, sure it might look "lavish" compared to others, but are we really setting the bar that low here- the expenses are huge therefore the show must be good? I'm sad for the punters who come out thinking yes they saw the brilliant original, direct from West End, in their hometown, because it is not. It is AN original, but not THE original. Call it Phantom "For the 21st Century" for all I care, like they did for Les Mis, otherwise I still think it is blatant lying. Will most of the audience care? No. But to those of us admirers of the West End production it is such a shame for its brilliant legacy to be continually watered down by falsely-advertised "new" productions, that are messed around with for no good reason, that are done to lower and lower standards and fed to the masses as "pretty much the original". My post was my thoughts which remain the same and can assure you was not specifically aimed at you (or anyone). Many apologies you felt I was invalidating your argument and have found me patronising in previous posts - neither would have been my intention. Everyone’s view points are equally valid. I was just expressing mine! |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 24, 2020 3:45:19 GMT
So all the fuss about how close this is to the 'brilliant original' is all slightly daft. IMHO of course. "The brilliant original" is a marketing tagline. And it is worth remembering that when Cam Mac's marketing team devise their strategy, they are thinking of the 99.9% of ticket buyers, not the 0.1% of mega fans who read this board. Marketing slogans lie to us the entire time, it's part of life. Is Gillette REALLY the best a man can get? Is Bounty ACTUALLY the taste of paradise? And back to musicals, was the New London Cats TRULY Now and Forever? Well no, it closed after 21 years. But CM isn't even lying - this version IS the brilliant original. Clearly, it's based on the original, in a format suitable for the kind of tour and sit downs upon which it's embarking. Am sorry, but it's fairly obvious that it's not going to be 100% identical to the London version. And we could nit pick until the cows come home. And frankly for a 2020 tour you wouldn't expect that. There's many updates that might (shock) look even better like there are many things that will need to be dropped for this kind of tour. But to 99.9% of the punters this IS the original. I mean good luck to the people who want to sue CM for misinformation and demand refunds. Also, to all the Debbie Downers, you do know you don't actually have to buy a ticket? And to say Cameron does cheap tours is just laughable. Whether his tours are cheaper than they used to be I don't know (I personally don't think so) but his tours are the most lavish on offer BY A MILE and are truly better production value wise than much of the West End. Can't think of anything other than apparently Lion King and the very first Starlight tour that have come close. Period. So lets have a bit of positivity. Of course CM will be wanting to make money - but he really does make these tours the best he can! And I for one, can't wait to see it! No, this is not the Brilliant Original. Just look at it:  Looks nothing like the original, and looks cheap. It's a strange hybrid with that ghastly Laurence Connor production. Cameron has greatly cheapened his tours and he's on record for saying he doesn't want to fork out the money to tour the original production any more. This is him in 2012: " We knew that all the trappings of Phantom, the huge backstage costs of the original production, would only allow for it to go on so long. Eventually economics would catch up with it because it is so expensive to move and tour. You have to close Phantom for ten whole days before you can open it again." Compare this production with every previous UK tour of Phantom (save for the 'new' restaged one in 2012 which didn't claim to be the original), and the differences are substantial enough. When Maria Björnson's favourite set piece (the Angel) and Hal Prince's concept of real curtains are no longer there, then you no longer have the original production. Something like THIS could claim to be the 'Brilliant Original' - this is the last Danish production. It's not a carbon copy of Her Majesty's (notice the lack of sculptures on the sides of the proscenium), but sufficiently close to be called the original:  Frankly, had I known this at the time of booking, I wouldn't have booked. So Cameron has sneakily got my money and I do feel conned. |
|
1,306 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Feb 24, 2020 10:02:13 GMT
I am glad you are so willing to accept whatever's thrown at you ...... some of us like to be more selective and critical. IMHO of course. I used to be positive I could have a nice little discussion here with fellow theatre-goers, but now apparently if I have opposing opinions to the norm I am a 0.1 percenter who should get a grip and kiss Cameron's feet for giving us anything at all. ..... I'm sad for the punters ..... lower and lower standards and fed to the masses as "pretty much the original". I’m hesitating to add any more to this thread but I was pissed off after reading this yesterday and it’s still rankling, - do I stay pissed off or do I / am I allowed to state the following. Nothing was “thrown” at me on Saturday night. I wanted to see Phantom of the Opera, I wanted to see Killian Donnelly in his first appearance as Phantom of the Opera, I very much enjoyed the production I saw Saturday night and I personally observed nothing – from (over 20 years) my 6 or so visits to the London production – that made me think this was a cheap version – a dumbed down version for the “ 99.9% of people” who aren’t, ah, purists. ...... Patronizing – verb - treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority.
IMHO, of course. And please don't think your opinion is worth less than anyone else's. I'm saying my opinion, humble and all that, is worth as much as yours. |
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 24, 2020 10:28:01 GMT
Yes,I think there’s a valid argument for people to have about whether they feel that this has been mis-sold to them based on the marketing of the show. But we can do that without suggesting that others who don’t are in some way deficient or equally that those who are upset/ annoyed are being unreasonable.
Let’s try for that moving forward please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 11:13:32 GMT
I am glad you are so willing to accept whatever's thrown at you but but some of us like to be more selective and critical. That's the very definition of patronising. Instead of calling others out, maybe you should practice what you preach. |
|
|
|
Post by Playbill99 on Feb 24, 2020 11:21:44 GMT
I think this could still pass as the original production. I've seen the show 5 or 6 times in the West End and saw the 2012 "re-imagined" production which was of course different. Though if small changes have been made in order to make it work/run better for the tour then so be it.
When Wicked tours, Elphaba doesn't come up through a trap door in No Good Deed because it's not viable to cut a hole in every stage across the tour - but I wouldn't say that doesn't make it a copy of the "original".
The tagline for the show is "The Brilliant Original" - Which IMHO has been taken too literally in this case. It means the Original mega musical not the absolute carbon copy of the original production that premiered in London in the 80s.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents - Feel free to scream at me
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 12:01:14 GMT
Whilst two wrongs dont make a right, in fairness the use of 'fuss' was patronising and belittling of others opinion so I dont think it's fair to just pick on those complaining about this production.
even if the use of 'the brilliant original' was in terms of first mega musical (which personally I've never heard anyone think that until this debate), that still isnt correct as Cats, Starlight and Les Mis all came before it. It's quite clearly marketing spin (something Cameron is known for) and as people have said, the majority of the audience probably wont notice. But its completely fair for fans of the show to feel lied to when they first booked as it was originally being heralded as the first tour of the original production in 20 years.
The comparison to Wicked or Lion King doesnt really work as the show still looks the same and iconic moments are still the same.
If the drapes have gone, scenes are redesigned and directed and a question mark over the chandelier then it cant really be the original.
|
|
3,306 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 24, 2020 12:05:03 GMT
@sharpe12 -news just in. Due to austerity measures the chandelier for the Manc dates has been downgraded. Theatreboard’s very own BurlyBeaR has been involved in testing it for health and safety - images.app.goo.gl/g5PrqeBCybxEfcen7 |
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 24, 2020 12:11:03 GMT
@sharpe12 -news just in. Due to austerity measures the chandelier for the Manc dates has been downgraded. Theatreboard’s very own BurlyBeaR has been involved in testing it for health and safety - images.app.goo.gl/g5PrqeBCybxEfcen7I offered to do it in costume but they weren’t prepared to stump up that kind of money. CHEAPSKATES.  |
|
3,306 posts
|
Post by david on Feb 24, 2020 12:14:31 GMT
@sharpe12 -news just in. Due to austerity measures the chandelier for the Manc dates has been downgraded. Theatreboard’s very own BurlyBeaR has been involved in testing it for health and safety - images.app.goo.gl/g5PrqeBCybxEfcen7I offered to do it in costume but they weren’t prepared to stump up that kind of money. CHEAPSKATES. CM’s loss. You would of been fantastic. I even bought a family sized bag of Monster Munch as a gift for you at Stage Door in anticipation of seeing you on stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Playbill99 on Feb 24, 2020 12:39:11 GMT
Whilst two wrongs dont make a right, in fairness the use of 'fuss' was patronising and belittling of others opinion so I dont think it's fair to just pick on those complaining about this production. even if the use of 'the brilliant original' was in terms of first mega musical (which personally I've never heard anyone think that until this debate), that still isnt correct as Cats, Starlight and Les Mis all came before it. It's quite clearly marketing spin (something Cameron is known for) and as people have said, the majority of the audience probably wont notice. But its completely fair for fans of the show to feel lied to when they first booked as it was originally being heralded as the first tour of the original production in 20 years. The comparison to Wicked or Lion King doesnt really work as the show still looks the same and iconic moments are still the same. If the drapes have gone, scenes are redesigned and directed and a question mark over the chandelier then it cant really be the original. Fair - I made a factual mistake with dates, but that's how I read the term "The Brilliant Original". Your opinion on this tagline is different to mine. The key word being opinion.
Nobody is wrong on the take of the tagline, just as nobody is right - I was just saying how I perceive it.
That being said.....I do have my theatre marketing hat on. If I was advising Cameron then I would have taken it off. Just like I would take it off the London creative. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 24, 2020 17:14:54 GMT
Lol you guys 😂😂😂 I was literally only ever talking about the marketing of this tour being thrown at us, how it's creating expectations that I have now personally seen that do not match the reality- identifying it as a matter that some have wilfully glossed over in this thread, and why I think it should be more critically thought about.
All my comments in that post were referring to visual/physical differences from the original "brilliant original", and expressing my incredulity that even after seeing side-by-side photos or watching both productions, how anyone can seriously justify this altered production as pretty much the West End one. Especially since the aesthetics play such an iconic role in Phantom.
Can't believe I have to state this out loud but in no way do I think you're a lesser person for liking this production...🙄 In fact, I thought Killian's performance was rather brilliant. But on the other hand I can actually make a list of all the differences I noticed- none of which I found particularly improved the show overall- but I don't think I'll bother with bothering you all with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 17:53:28 GMT
The only thing that could improve the brillaint original, would be to have Alfie Boe as the Phantom.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2020 20:43:48 GMT
Ok, I guess really this comes down to how you perceive the phrase "The Brilliant Original". Do you read 'Original' as a noun or an adjective?
Are you reading "The Brilliant Creative" or "The Brilliant Primary"?
Given that London & Broadway productions have the same set and both are marketed by the tagline "The Brilliant Original", I perceive that production to be the archetypical production and we're dealing with "the Brilliant Primary" production of The Phantom of the Opera.
Any production anywhere else, using that strapline should look and sound the same in every way technically possible. Granted, UK received houses cant facilitate trap doors etc (dressing rooms are under half the stages in many regional theatres) but replacing tableau curtains with printed drapes does not constitute original.
The original production is fundamentally a black box production with a few special set items. Its black drapes with a few big hitting items. 80% of the set is Black wool serge drapes. By reducing such key items as the tableau curtains and the gilt, ornamental proscenium it becomes really noticeable and affecting. The Paris Opera house is an opulent, romantic building and Maria Bjornsons channeled that into exquisite designs. This new production looks like something out of a college in North America (no offence to any college productions!).
It all comes to down an outright cost cutting exercise. The printed drape replacing the tabs will have cost about £800, pennies when it comes down to the full touring budget.
I still don't full understand this argument that they could do it 20 years ago, but cant now. Technology has progressed extensively meaning that it should facilitate even more not less.
I also fail to see how "well the rest of the audience wont notice" is also a valid excuse, but hey;
When Cats last did the rounds without the big tyre, with the revised Rum Tum Tugger and that weird UFO thing, had they marketed that as "The Original production of Cats", would that have been ok?
Come to think of it, I wonder if the monumental losses RUG are likely to have seen as a result of the Cats movie have had any implications on the finances of other productions.
|
|
421 posts
|
Post by carmella1 on Feb 24, 2020 22:56:28 GMT
The only thing that could improve the brillaint original, would be to have Alfie Boe as the Phantom. Just NO. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 25, 2020 10:57:32 GMT
Ok, I guess really this comes down to how you perceive the phrase "The Brilliant Original". Do you read 'Original' as a noun or an adjective? Are you reading "The Brilliant Creative" or "The Brilliant Primary"? Given that London & Broadway productions have the same set and both are marketed by the tagline "The Brilliant Original", I perceive that production to be the archetypical production and we're dealing with "the Brilliant Primary" production of The Phantom of the Opera. Any production anywhere else, using that strapline should look and sound the same in every way technically possible. Granted, UK received houses cant facilitate trap doors etc (dressing rooms are under half the stages in many regional theatres) but replacing tableau curtains with printed drapes does not constitute original. The original production is fundamentally a black box production with a few special set items. Its black drapes with a few big hitting items. 80% of the set is Black wool serge drapes. By reducing such key items as the tableau curtains and the gilt, ornamental proscenium it becomes really noticeable and affecting. The Paris Opera house is an opulent, romantic building and Maria Bjornsons channeled that into exquisite designs. This new production looks like something out of a college in North America (no offence to any college productions!). It all comes to down an outright cost cutting exercise. The printed drape replacing the tabs will have cost about £800, pennies when it comes down to the full touring budget. I still don't full understand this argument that they could do it 20 years ago, but cant now. Technology has progressed extensively meaning that it should facilitate even more not less. I also fail to see how "well the rest of the audience wont notice" is also a valid excuse, but hey; When Cats last did the rounds without the big tyre, with the revised Rum Tum Tugger and that weird UFO thing, had they marketed that as "The Original production of Cats", would that have been ok? Come to think of it, I wonder if the monumental losses RUG are likely to have seen as a result of the Cats movie have had any implications on the finances of other productions. The film of Cats wasn't RUG-produced as far as I know, and RUG isn't the producer of this UK tour. Cameron Mackintosh is the producer, via a licence granted by RUG. Cameron only has the rights to Phantom in four territories: UK, Ireland, USA, Australia. So fortunately I don't think this hodgepodge will be rolled out worldwide (and it's why Laurence Connor's mess was not rolled out beyond the USA either - and I don't think we will ever see that production again anywhere, save in weird hybrid form like here). It's worth noting that 'The Brilliant Original' has only ever been used in connection with the London and Broadway productions. Coupled with RUG saying in Baz's column that this tour would be an 'exact replica' of what you get on London and Broadway, what they have done here is really not acceptable. I get that Cameron feels he doesn't want to fork out to tour the original any more. But in that case, be honest about it! Then people can't say they weren't warned and people wouldn't be arguing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 20:57:00 GMT
Does anyone know if Stage Left stalls or Stage Right stalls are a more restricted view for this? There are some cheap end aisle seats in Edinburgh for this which I was considering.
|
|
So much for "Brilliant original on tour" On the bright side the cast was exceptional and very talented. 
