895 posts
|
Post by max on Aug 13, 2021 19:19:06 GMT
Random: Could we turn back time to confounding expectations (Crawford's original casting) and ....
Jason Manford
be the Phantom?
With Su Pollard as Christi....no, I'm just being silly now.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 13, 2021 19:22:14 GMT
In 1999, a group of phans wrote an open letter to Andrew Lloyd Webber, demanding that Michael Crawford be cast as the Phantom in the film adaption. Presuming to speak “on behalf of Phantom fans worldwide”, the group told Lloyd Webber that they were “certain that, [he] above all others, [would know] that this film required” Crawford, and that casting literally else would not only “bury” the show, but show a lack of “courage” and “conviction”. In 2009, a group of phans formed “ Love Should Die”, a campaign “exposing the lunacy” behind a musical that no one had yet heard. So it goes. ...And ALW/RUG ignored both, it seems. The result was the 2004 film with Gerard Butler in the title role (yeah...) and a show that pretty much bombed, was the laughing stock of the West End for while (didn't Ben Brantley say it may as well have had 'kick me' on its back?) and never went to Broadway, despite those hubristic plans at the beginning to open it simultaneously worldwide on 3 continents. Ah, well...credit to him here I suppose at least for figuring out there wasn't much love for the Laurence Connor version.
|
|
|
Post by anglematsreader on Aug 13, 2021 20:04:00 GMT
In 1999, a group of phans wrote an open letter to Andrew Lloyd Webber, demanding that Michael Crawford be cast as the Phantom in the film adaption. Presuming to speak “on behalf of Phantom fans worldwide”, the group told Lloyd Webber that they were “certain that, [he] above all others, [would know] that this film required” Crawford, and that casting literally else would not only “bury” the show, but show a lack of “courage” and “conviction”. In 2009, a group of phans formed “ Love Should Die”, a campaign “exposing the lunacy” behind a musical that no one had yet heard. So it goes. ...And ALW/RUG ignored both, it seems. The result was the 2004 film with Gerard Butler in the title role (yeah...) and a show that pretty much bombed, was the laughing stock of the West End for while (didn't Ben Brantley say it may as well have had 'kick me' on its back?) and never went to Broadway, despite those hubristic plans at the beginning to open it simultaneously worldwide on 3 continents. Ah, well...credit to him here I suppose at least for figuring out there wasn't much love for the Laurence Connor version. "Ignored"? "Credit to him here, I suppose, for at least..."? Okay. Gerard Butler didn't work out. And back in 1986, "most people in the business" thought that casting Michael Crawford – a mere 'light entertainer' – was a "pretty awful idea". At least according to Cameron Mackintosh. Sometimes things work don't work out. And sometimes they do. I mean... a hip-hop musical about Alexander Hamilton... sounds like a dumb idea, right? Arm-chair critics love to act as though the future can be known. As though their understanding is greater. As though their motives are purer. It's such an easy, risk-free position to take.
|
|
500 posts
|
Post by anthony on Aug 13, 2021 20:29:55 GMT
I've never understood the hate LND got, tbh. It's probably his best score. Only thing I don't get is why it was practically based on the Phantom in Manhattan novel by Frederick Forsyth, but seemingly without any credit? All versions of LND, other than the West End, including the North American tour, the Austrian concert, the Australian production, the Danish production, have all been critical and box office successes. People didn't like LND purely because it was a Phantom sequel. I mean look here... we literally have people refusing to see it because some candles don't move left or right.
|
|
895 posts
|
Post by max on Aug 13, 2021 20:37:59 GMT
My favourite of these concerns EVITA, the film I think (or an article about Evita generally around the time of the film). I wish I'd noted the journalist's name, but their main sneer against ALW was that the musical was a cynical money maker, writing a show about someone so internationally famous - I mean how easy and obvious can you get!! How young they must have been not to know that Eva was little known by 1976, and the musical itself made her more famous than she'd ever been. Idiot.
Anyway, back on the subject of the thread: I actually would be interested in Manford in the role of the phantom.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 13, 2021 20:40:30 GMT
I've never understood the hate LND got, tbh. It's probably his best score. Only thing I don't get is why it was practically based on the Phantom in Manhattan novel by Frederick Forsyth, but seemingly without any credit? All versions of LND, other than the West End, including the North American tour, the Austrian concert, the Australian production, the Danish production, have all been critical and box office successes. People didn't like LND purely because it was a Phantom sequel. I mean look here... we literally have people refusing to see it because some candles don't move left or right. The Oz and German productions weren't box office successes. Both lost money. Critically Oz was more favourable than London but the reviews certainly weren't glowing across the board. I know they like to spin the idea that Oz was a success, mainly in the hope that this narrative would launch a Broadway production (with ALW even claiming it could be like Madama Butterfly, which had a disastrous world premiere but then found success after the Brescia production), but the reality was that it didn't do well financially. It was supposed to go to Adelaide after Melbourne, which never happened because it just didn't sell. No idea about the Danish version. And I think it's fair game to dislike LND because it's a sequel. I had no interest in a Phantom sequel and still don't. Either he gets the girl or he doesn't. If he does, then it undermines the ending of Phantom. If he doesn't, then it's a redundant story since we've had that story already. It didn't help that they then used a ludicrous book. And in fairness to those sceptical of the sequel, we knew for a long time that it was going to be based on Forsyth's rather terrible novella since that was mooted in the 1990s. LND didn't arrive ex nihilo in 2009/10; it had a fair amount of baggage already. And the ardent naysayers weren't wrong, IMHO, in decrying the character deformations that I assume offended them so much. They were rather unbelievable, and pretty much every critic said it (even Crawford did, rather diplomatically, in an interview in New Zealand!). It's definitely fair to say that no-one knows what will be a hit and what won't. And I do like the fact that ALW doesn't play it safe with his choices. Though personally (not that I was ever asked) I would never have invested money in either the 2004 film once I knew they'd hired the man who did Batman & Robin to do it, nor in a sequel loosely based on a book that (quite rightly, IMHO) was ridiculed when it came out in the 90s.
|
|
895 posts
|
Post by max on Aug 13, 2021 20:50:21 GMT
I've never understood the hate LND got, tbh. It's probably his best score. Only thing I don't get is why it was practically based on the Phantom in Manhattan novel by Frederick Forsyth, but seemingly without any credit? All versions of LND, other than the West End, including the North American tour, the Austrian concert, the Australian production, the Danish production, have all been critical and box office successes. People didn't like LND purely because it was a Phantom sequel. I mean look here... we literally have people refusing to see it because some candles don't move left or right. Anything that retcons the original is on shaky ground artistically. Yet I remember an interview with ALW talking about Coney Island, and he said that one exhibit was newborn babies in early versions of incubators. What a great idea for the show. There was never any need to ruin the integrity of the original show with the idea Christine snuck back (at some unknown moment 'Beneath A Moonless Sky') to have sex with the phantom, and conceive a child. The phantom could be obsessed with newborns (exhibited in Coney Island attractions) but find that, via his teaching of music to Christine, a child (not genetically his) carried on his musical legacy. It would have given the show what it lacks: subject matter (being nature v nurture). I once briefly met Simon Phillips (director of Australia/video LND) and really wanted to say this, but it was inappropriate, and too late - though actually it now seems not too late for a further revision. After all, it's not my idea, it's ALW's - he just didn't use it.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 13, 2021 20:51:00 GMT
My favourite of these concerns EVITA, the film I think (or an article about Evita generally around the time of the film). I wish I'd noted the journalist's name, but their main sneer against ALW was that the musical was a cynical money maker, writing a show about someone so internationally famous - I mean how easy and obvious can you get!! How young they must have been not to know that Eva was little known by 1976, and the musical itself made her more famous than she'd ever been. Idiot. Of course, that show was Tim Rice's baby (and idea) rather than ALW's. It's a shame ALW doesn't have much time for it, because it's probably his best score. If anything the least daring subject-matter wise was LND. It seemed too keen to pander to a certain demographic that they figured would love a Mills & Boon fanfiction-esque treatment. But then sequels like that are usually borne out of trying to milk the commercial success of the predecessor. I didn't like the execution or end result of Stephen Ward, but I *did* like the idea.
|
|
|
Post by anglematsreader on Aug 13, 2021 21:08:53 GMT
If anything the least daring subject-matter wise was LND. It seemed too keen to pander to a certain demographic that they figured would love a Mills & Boon fanfiction-esque treatment. That's really interesting, I always thought of LND the other way: as something bold. For me at least, Phantom works because it's gothic and grand and magical and romantic. LND, on the other hand, seems earthbound and domestic to me and... well... soap-operatic. There's no grandeur to it, and that seems intentional. It's like Lloyd-Webber committed to the parts of the mythology that he likes, whether his fans agreed or not.
|
|
500 posts
|
Post by anthony on Aug 13, 2021 21:12:25 GMT
My favourite of these concerns EVITA, the film I think (or an article about Evita generally around the time of the film). I wish I'd noted the journalist's name, but their main sneer against ALW was that the musical was a cynical money maker, writing a show about someone so internationally famous - I mean how easy and obvious can you get!! How young they must have been not to know that Eva was little known by 1976, and the musical itself made her more famous than she'd ever been. Idiot. Of course, that show was Tim Rice's baby (and idea) rather than ALW's. It's a shame ALW doesn't have much time for it, because it's probably his best score. If anything the least daring subject-matter wise was LND. It seemed too keen to pander to a certain demographic that they figured would love a Mills & Boon fanfiction-esque treatment. But then sequels like that are usually borne out of trying to milk the commercial success of the predecessor. I didn't like the execution or end result of Stephen Ward, but I *did* like the idea. Whilst a great score, it's just so dreadfully boring on stage, isn't it? I've seen two different productions and genuinely just find it so incredibly boring. I don't know why. Same with West Side Story. I think Webber is in a position where he is seen as somewhat "uncool". The recent revival of Woman in White was just sublime and deserved so much more credit. I also wondered if it was meant for something more - why would he rewrite it, create a "final" version, only to shove it in a low-capacity off-West End theatre? The cast was epic. I'm still gutted there wasn't a cast album. I loved Stephen Ward too - wonder if it would have been better in a smaller theatre, such as the Charing Cross Theatre...
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 13, 2021 21:13:55 GMT
If anything the least daring subject-matter wise was LND. It seemed too keen to pander to a certain demographic that they figured would love a Mills & Boon fanfiction-esque treatment. That's really interesting, I always thought of LND the other way: as something bold. For me at least, Phantom works because it's gothic and grand and magical and romantic. LND, on the other hand, seems earthbound and domestic to me and... well... soap-operatic. There's no grandeur to it, and that seems intentional. It's like Lloyd-Webber committed to the parts of the mythology that he likes, whether his fans agreed or not. I'd agree with that...it takes something out of the realm of the mythical and makes it rather pedestrian. I think that's why the Connor tour didn't work...and the film to some extent. Rather than bold mythology with an almost superhuman, supernatural Phantom, we got a guy who doesn't even win swordfights.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 13, 2021 21:19:12 GMT
Of course, that show was Tim Rice's baby (and idea) rather than ALW's. It's a shame ALW doesn't have much time for it, because it's probably his best score. If anything the least daring subject-matter wise was LND. It seemed too keen to pander to a certain demographic that they figured would love a Mills & Boon fanfiction-esque treatment. But then sequels like that are usually borne out of trying to milk the commercial success of the predecessor. I didn't like the execution or end result of Stephen Ward, but I *did* like the idea. Whilst a great score, it's just so dreadfully boring on stage, isn't it? I've seen two different productions and genuinely just find it so incredibly boring. I don't know why. Same with West Side Story. You mean Evita? Ooh...I can't agree there. Hal Prince's production was thrilling and so theatrical. The original Broadway production in particular could never have been described as boring. And I liked Grandage's one at the Adelphi too (less so on Broadway). Though if your experience of it was Kenwright and/or Regent's Park, then I can understand why you didn't like it. And it goes to show why a bad production can let down what could otherwise be a great show. It's the magic and curse of the theatre, I guess, the fact that nothing is tied to one production. This is why some of us, I guess, on this thread, just want shows we're fond of to be shown in their best light. Some posters have mocked quibbling about little details, but often it's that the crucial 5%/10% that can be offbeam that can let a show down. I think ALW's own Sunset is an example...a few tweaks to the original version and the result in LA came across as so much better. And...I like West Side Story too, so...
|
|
895 posts
|
Post by max on Aug 13, 2021 21:30:07 GMT
Whilst a great scoreu, it's just so dreadfully boring on stage, isn't it? I've seen two different productions and genuinely just find it so incredibly boring. I don't know why. Same with West Side Story. You mean Evita? Ooh...I can't agree there. Hal Prince's production was thrilling and so theatrical. The original Broadway production in particular could never have been described as boring. And I liked Grandage's one at the Adelphi too (less so on Broadway). Though if your experience of it was Kenwright and/or Regent's Park, then I can understand why you didn't like it. And it goes to show why a bad production can let down what could otherwise be a great show. It's the magic and curse of the theatre, I guess, the fact that nothing is tied to one production. This is why some of us, I guess, on this thread, just want shows we're fond of to be shown in their best light. Some posters have mocked quibbling about little details, but often it's that the crucial 5%/10% that can be offbeam that can let a show down. I think ALW's own Sunset is an example...a few tweaks to the original version and the result in LA came across as so much better. And...I like West Side Story too, so... Agree Hal Prince's version was thrilling. As for Kenwright's...any production that has Eva sing 'Don't Cry For Me Argentina' to an audience made up of the aristocracy doesn't even understand what the show is about. [If they were going for irony it's too many layers for a new audience to get]
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 14, 2021 10:04:44 GMT
You mean Evita? Ooh...I can't agree there. Hal Prince's production was thrilling and so theatrical. The original Broadway production in particular could never have been described as boring. And I liked Grandage's one at the Adelphi too (less so on Broadway). Though if your experience of it was Kenwright and/or Regent's Park, then I can understand why you didn't like it. And it goes to show why a bad production can let down what could otherwise be a great show. The only Evita production I've seen is the Kenwright one (I had already seen the film years previously) and I really liked it. In fact I ended up seeing it a dozen times, over several years/casts/venues. I'm not sure why it is so disliked. Yes it's not the most lavish, because it has to tour, but I thought it told the story clearly & straightforwardly and it was set in the right time period. The only issue I had was I wished they'd cast some older ensemble members as the generals all being about 21 wasn't very realistic!
Back to Phantom, last night I had a nightmare that there was an announcement the WE production would close after 3 months & would be replaced at Her Majesty's by LND!!
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Aug 14, 2021 18:32:54 GMT
I really applaud the fans of this show who believe in it so passionately and support and follow every production and development. It’s wonderful that something like a piece of theatre can have such a loving following. I wish I could say I loved it so much that it prompted me to get into arguments with strangers on the internet, but I’m afraid life is just too short. For people who are enjoying the current production, I applaud you for putting your money where your mouth is, and looking deeper and still connecting with the material. For those who don’t like the current production, that’s okay too. Please do try to see it before making your mind up though. Your rationale will always be more substantial and supported. To those who are passionate and opinionated, thank you. That’s what art is for. Just be careful not to create such a wall around this thing that you love that it becomes inaccessible or off-putting to a whole generation of potential new fans, who will be just as passionate and opinionated. Long may The Music of the Night play. In whichever production that might be, and however many musicians may be in the pit. This is honestly one of the best things I've ever read on this thread!
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Aug 15, 2021 7:39:48 GMT
That's really interesting, I always thought of LND the other way: as something bold. For me at least, Phantom works because it's gothic and grand and magical and romantic. LND, on the other hand, seems earthbound and domestic to me and... well... soap-operatic. There's no grandeur to it, and that seems intentional. It's like Lloyd-Webber committed to the parts of the mythology that he likes, whether his fans agreed or not. I'd agree with that...it takes something out of the realm of the mythical and makes it rather pedestrian. I think that's why the Connor tour didn't work...and the film to some extent. Rather than bold mythology with an almost superhuman, supernatural Phantom, we got a guy who doesn't even win swordfights. Exactly this- and why "modern", "gritty", "for the 21st century" in any marketing spiel makes me so apprehensive... because if you're still trying to capture/capitalise on the same look and feel of the three-decades old original, itself based on a century-old story, you NEED to take a lot of care so nothing feels anachronistic, if the end goal is to transport audiences back to your "1980s take on the late 19th century", which is what Phantom is. "Modern" is subjective yes, but materially, "shiny and new" doesn't automatically make something "better" in this context. Agree with above posters re: directional changes switching out the metaphorical for the literal, prioritising "making sense" over suspension of disbelief, ridding concept and poetry for *realism*... why the Connor tour and other non-replicas failed so much artistically- though I respect them for trying. The reviews and pictures coming out of the West End revival though... hard to muster any respect for this production. For a show purporting to be the "bigger and better" version of the original whose selling point was visual spectacle, material details should've been a high priority: there should've been someone to oversee and make sure fabrication techniques, materiality, any visible technology all feel of their time, at least on the surface, as they all contribute to the bigger picture. Any shortfall in this area will be obvious to any trained eye, to people who know and notice how things are made, not just the "overzealous fan" stereotype that some love to perpetuate on this board. The lack of detail in the set, chandelier, we have all seen proof, and with more costume comparisons coming out these days... just makes me sad. The more budget is slashed on this deeper level of care & attention, adding more "earthbound", modern tweaks here and there- the more the show becomes a shallow, cobbled-together facade of its former self than the true immersive extravaganza it wants to continue being.
|
|
306 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Aug 18, 2021 11:35:36 GMT
Found this thread very amusing over the last few months, not a regular at all, seen it a few times only over the years, only once in London, though love the score. Decided to go see the show because of the cast and to form my own opinion, but seeing the prices has made the decision for me. 87.50 front (well, nearly all good) stalls, no discounts or access tickets to speak of. No, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 19, 2021 22:29:38 GMT
I'd agree with that...it takes something out of the realm of the mythical and makes it rather pedestrian. I think that's why the Connor tour didn't work...and the film to some extent. Rather than bold mythology with an almost superhuman, supernatural Phantom, we got a guy who doesn't even win swordfights. Exactly this- and why "modern", "gritty", "for the 21st century" in any marketing spiel makes me so apprehensive... because if you're still trying to capture/capitalise on the same look and feel of the three-decades old original, itself based on a century-old story, you NEED to take a lot of care so nothing feels anachronistic, if the end goal is to transport audiences back to your "1980s take on the late 19th century", which is what Phantom is. "Modern" is subjective yes, but materially, "shiny and new" doesn't automatically make something "better" in this context. Agree with above posters re: directional changes switching out the metaphorical for the literal, prioritising "making sense" over suspension of disbelief, ridding concept and poetry for *realism*... why the Connor tour and other non-replicas failed so much artistically- though I respect them for trying. The reviews and pictures coming out of the West End revival though... hard to muster any respect for this production. For a show purporting to be the "bigger and better" version of the original whose selling point was visual spectacle, material details should've been a high priority: there should've been someone to oversee and make sure fabrication techniques, materiality, any visible technology all feel of their time, at least on the surface, as they all contribute to the bigger picture. Any shortfall in this area will be obvious to any trained eye, to people who know and notice how things are made, not just the "overzealous fan" stereotype that some love to perpetuate on this board. The lack of detail in the set, chandelier, we have all seen proof, and with more costume comparisons coming out these days... just makes me sad. The more budget is slashed on this deeper level of care & attention, adding more "earthbound", modern tweaks here and there- the more the show becomes a shallow, cobbled-together facade of its former self than the true immersive extravaganza it wants to continue being. The lack of attention to detail has been surprising. I wasn't expecting them to randomly cobble together a hybrid of Leicester and the original without trying to achieve some coherence, but that's what they've done. One example has already been discussed - which is the chandelier. I've had it confirmed from parties involved that there *was* a last-minute reversal and that it was never the intention for this chandelier to rise from the stage. But they had problems in getting the drapes sucked in and apparently ALW was not too happy with the change, rightly sensing audiences didn't want a non-rising-from-the-stage lighting fixture. Hence hours before curtain up, they prised the lyres off the old one (which was seen pictured outside the theatre) and stuck them on. But the result means a chandelier with a hole at the bottom and one that isn't collapsible, and looks rather cheaply painted. Another example, which I had mentioned before but was dismissed, is the quality of the costumes. Since posters wanted evidence here it is. On the left is what Christine's Masquerade costume should look like, representing twilight. On the right the current costume worn by Lucy St Louis. I shouldn't need to point out the lack of details, the neon colours, the absence of the beading etc...it's plainly obvious that budgets have been slashed for costumes too. As another example of lack of attention to detail, not only does the removal of Hal Prince's black box and some of the statues without anything to compensate for it make the false curvature of the top part painfully obvious (rather than it looking integrated within the architecture of the theatre)... ...but they couldn't be bothered even to blend together the bits from the UK tour and the bits they salvaged from the original set! See below: It's difficult to justify any of this when they had ample time in which to do it. And yes, I know many audience members will not notice or care. Doesn't make this artistically a good decision. And overall, cumulatively, these little details add up (on top of the loss of the orchestra, the Angel, little details like the catwalk and the sliding of the candelabra) to a detrimental effect. And people wonder why posters get annoyed by this, when Cameron Mackintosh literally says in interviews that this is "even more opulent" than its predecessor and both the producers, rather offensively, say how this is honouring Prince and Björnson.
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Aug 19, 2021 22:35:27 GMT
Saw The Brilliant Orig…The Passable Imitation again tonight.
Preferred the alternate Christine to the regular one.
Candelabra still don’t track.
I like the candle lights around the front of the circles that become flickering candles whenever we are watching a performance on the opera stage. Guess this is the show blending into the theatre they made such a big deal about.
Raoul didn’t leap off the bridge, but that often happens doesn’t it?
Chandelier had lots of pyrotechnics I either missed or couldn’t see on the opening night.
Still can’t understand why the proscenium is all cracked and full of holes - looks crap!
|
|
3,084 posts
|
Post by david on Aug 20, 2021 9:29:48 GMT
Have any board members managed to get any last minute walk up box office tickets at a bargain price or am I looking at paying full price? Thanks in advance.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 20, 2021 12:35:43 GMT
On the left is what Christine's Masquerade costume should look like, representing twilight. On the right the current costume worn by Lucy St Louis. I shouldn't need to point out the lack of details, the neon colours, the absence of the beading etc...it's plainly obvious that budgets have been slashed for costumes too. That new Masquerade costume looks like something made by Mattel for a Barbie princess. Which is all very well for Mattel as they'd be churning out thousands of them & it's 1/6th scale. However for a limitedly-made item at full scale, & compared to the previous version, I think it looks a bit cheap.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 20, 2021 14:44:13 GMT
On the left is what Christine's Masquerade costume should look like, representing twilight. On the right the current costume worn by Lucy St Louis. I shouldn't need to point out the lack of details, the neon colours, the absence of the beading etc...it's plainly obvious that budgets have been slashed for costumes too. That new Masquerade costume looks like something made by Mattel for a Barbie princess. Which is all very well for Mattel as they'd be churning out thousands of them & it's 1/6th scale. However for a limitedly-made item at full scale, & compared to the previous version, I think it looks a bit cheap. Got to agree. The thing that always astonished me was the WEIGHT of those costumes. As well as being garish and undetailed, the new costume seems to just have nothing to it. Not that I'm any kind of costume expert of course!
|
|
5,279 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 20, 2021 18:42:30 GMT
Those new costumes are a disgrace. Maria Bjornsons designs were genius and it’s so tawdry that CM thinks this is good enough. I hope whoever has destroyed those costumes is credited (blamed) and not Maria B.
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Aug 20, 2021 18:50:15 GMT
Those new costumes are a disgrace. Maria Bjornsons designs were genius and it’s so tawdry that CM thinks this is good enough. I hope whoever has destroyed those costumes is credited (blamed) and not Maria B. It’s the same attitude CM and ALW have for the whole production. Cheapen it because no one will notice the difference (as demonstrated by a lot of the discerning people on here!) and sod the artistic integrity of the original creatives.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 19:19:11 GMT
The overall feeling I'm getting is it's been disneyfied for want of a better word. Everything looks cleaner and brighter and the dark gothic romance aspect seems watered down, which for me is a shame and makes me loose interest a bit. The new chandelier does look better though.
If this had been another show I might buy into the need to save money for survival, but phantom is the highest grossing piece of entertainment in the world, grossing more than Hollywood blockbusters. Of all shows that needs to save money this isn't it. Its about control for Cameron, and lining his pockets more.
|
|
5,279 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 20, 2021 19:32:20 GMT
The overall feeling I'm getting is it's been disneyfied for want of a better word. Everything looks cleaner and brighter and the dark gothic romance aspect seems watered down, which for me is a shame and makes me loose interest a bit. The new chandelier does look better though. If this had been another show I might buy into the need to save money for survival, but phantom is the highest grossing piece of entertainment in the world, grossing more than Hollywood blockbusters. Of all shows that needs to save money this isn't it. Its about control for Cameron, and lining his pockets more. No I think the word for it all is ‘CHEAPER’.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 20, 2021 20:29:47 GMT
Got to agree. The thing that always astonished me was the WEIGHT of those costumes. As well as being garish and undetailed, the new costume seems to just have nothing to it. Not that I'm any kind of costume expert of course! Nor am I but costumes are the aspect I'm most interested in out of the technical/backstage aspects of theatre so when I was fortunate enough to get to go backstage at Phantom a few years ago I paid most attention to them. The detail of those costumes I saw close-to was amazing. Gorgeous base fabrics & then so much added by way of ribbons, brocades, beadwork, etc. It would be interesting to see the new costumes similarly close-to. I have the feeling that by in large they would not have the same level of detail.
|
|
3,084 posts
|
Post by david on Aug 22, 2021 17:27:43 GMT
Having only seen POTO on tour in Manchester a few years ago and absolutely loving it, I decided to give the new WE version a watch as I’ve never seen it so I rolled up to the box office and got a £37.50 front row Grand Circle seat (A2) this afternoon. Despite there being swathes of empty seats both in the Grand Circle and stalls, no offers or cheap last minute deals were to be had unfortunately. Anyway, the seat was RV and I had to lean forward to see the bottom right hand side corner during the 2.5hrs. With only the touring version to compare it to, this 2021 WE production left me really underwhelmed by the end by not delivering that WOW factor I felt watching it in Manchester. With the full main cast performing, vocally they delivered those fantastic numbers, and both Killian Donnelly and Lucy St. Louis gave knockout performances as the leads, unfortunately this wasn’t backed up by the orchestra. The 15 piece orchestra really felt underpowered and I just couldn’t muster any enthusiasm for that fantastic ALW score. I would have loved to have heard this score with the original orchestra because the cuts made in the pit really don’t do this score justice in its current format. Whilst the set pieces such as the chandelier rising and falling and all the pyrotechnics were impressive from where I was sat, there was something about the staging that just left me cold. During the interval I was reading some the posts on this thread and then I realised what the issue for me was. The whole staging just felt too much like a Disney production and less of that gothic feel that the piece needs to deliver the tension and emotion as events unfold on stage. I couldn’t care about any of the characters and their outcomes. I wouldn’t say the costumes looked cheap from where I was sat, but I can’t really make much comment on that without having a look at the original ones. Overall, It’s ticked HM theatre off the list of theatres yet to visit even if the product didn’t do much for me. A really lovely theatre auditorium. Also, BurlyBeaR , having a look at the merch on sale, I did notice they are selling the Phantom bears at £35 each 😮. Maybe an email to ALW might be in order to get some of the sales money from image rights?
|
|
18,820 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 22, 2021 17:34:33 GMT
Also, BurlyBeaR , having a look at the merch on sale, I did notice they are selling the Phantom bears at £35 each 😮. Maybe an email to ALW might be in order to get some of the sales money from image rights? Honestly, if it isn’t that TallPaul nicking my best cape it’s ALW nicking my likeness for his merch! 🙄. Re the lighting, my first experience of the show was that tour and it was lit so dark I could barely see what was going on. I was squinting at the bloody thing half the night!
|
|
2,149 posts
|
Post by richey on Aug 22, 2021 17:40:52 GMT
|
|