|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2021 19:09:29 GMT
[/quote]Bloody hell! That’s a school? Blown away![/quote]
Yep The Kings Academy in West Palm Beach.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 10:56:01 GMT
I think the chandelier needs it's own thread!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 11:25:06 GMT
I think the chandelier needs it's own thread! I think the chandelier needs it's own show!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 11:27:25 GMT
I think the chandelier needs it's own thread! I think the chandelier needs it's own show! Real LOL ;-) She may well do!
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 19, 2021 15:20:52 GMT
Yeah, Cameron is not putting in the Vegas effect. It seems like it'll be more akin to the Laurence Connor tour (save that the rather ugly design of that chandelier will be replaced with something more appropriate). I was holding out hope we'd still get the old-school effect of swinging out over the audience in the stalls, which is far more theatrical...and would have thought ALW would want that retained given that he even says in his autobiography that it is the single most theatrical effect he'd ever conceived. The design used in the planning application though is simply the small chandelier they would have used (had it worked) in the 2020 tour, which is disappointing. Yes, this exactly- it's the reason why I, at least, am so protective of the original chandelier + angel, as they also represent the theatrical effects and dramatic sequences from which they are inseparable, and are synonymous with ALW's Phantom by now- it's not just any prop that can be swapped out with just anything else, because it was designed to be stylistically, mechanically integrated into the production. So I couldn't judge a new chandelier simply by how impressive of a drop it makes. Or view the Pegasus as just another fresh take on the rooftop scene. Personally I thought having a UK Tour-esque vertical-drop chandelier made the Overture scene a bit disparate. The changed script was distracting (no longer "Lot 666, a chandelier in pieces"), that chandelier was already mostly in place so it was a choice of either craning your neck to see it strobe a bit or watching the next scene come into place onstage, instead of everyone following the chandelier's diagonal path in awe like at Her Majesty's. It's not bad or totally inscrutable per say, but compared to the original, genius move of the chandelier rise bridging the stage and auditorium, as well as signifying the reverse time hop from the auction to Hannibal, moving from an outsider-POV/dusty recollections to witnessing/being part of a live rehearsal, in one elegant gesture, not having it is certainly a downgrade. Throwing away a winning formula to save money is nothing new, but it's a damn pity. The angel statue is another elegant, symbolic move. Being the centrepiece of a golden proscenium that signifies the Garnier's grandeur, an angel overlooking all proceedings, then actually being inhabited by the "angel of music" himself, as he literally and figuratively "descends" on the unaware couple below? This motif could not be abstracted more perfectly in the story's turning point at the end of Act I, and the surreality of seeing such a beautiful piece of the set being so immersed into the narrative- just makes the whole All I Ask of You Reprise sequence iconic. Whereas the UK Tour horse... merely represents a horse statue that happens to be on the Garnier's roof. Since it's so literal, it's more difficult to suspend disbelief when the entire statue starts swinging out to *ominous musical sounds*, making the Phantom popping out at the end disappointingly predictable. Also I'd wager for every spark of recognition that goes "ah yes, that's Lequesne's Pegasus on each side of the Opera roof in actual Paris" someone will go "why is the Phantom on a horse?" To me, it's quite obvious which is the winner here. It's not a matter of being a "superfan" nitpicking over details, an inferior product = bad for business. I just don't understand how anyone who proclaims to want the best for Phantom (in wanting it to return/stick around/make money) can casually accept getting rid of such important components of the show. Let's hope retaining these iconic sequences are what they mean when they intend to "blur the line" between stage and audience. I think the chandelier needs it's own thread! I think the chandelier needs it's own show! The "rising from onstage" version certainly deserves its place in the whole Overture scene! How crazy is it that a high school production can raise the chandelier from the stage and fly it out over the audience but they can’t continue to do this in the West End? I know right?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 15:42:52 GMT
The chandelier rising from the stage into the auditorium is more than a special effect it sets the show up from the very start as metatheatre, . While there are other aspects in the show like the phantoms voice from the speakers in the auditorium to the police men (if I remember correctly after point of no return) coming into the auditorium they are later in the production and haven't the same impact and in my opinion will be lost when the chandelier no long rises out into the audience.
The Phantom recent UK/US was often described as being like a film in VOX pops as audiences leave the different theatres on tour stops. I believe this loses the very essence of what makes Phantom magical, it is a love story and the central love story was Hal Prince's love of theatre.
One of my favourite parts is as the chandelier rises and you see the world of Palais Garnier restore and the other part I love is the use of the curtains in the black box, these empty spaces that told so much. For the time I think the direction was very brave and while some see Phantom as this 1980's blockbuster musical I think it is essentially timeless because of the use of theatrical effects Hal Prince employed to tell the story.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Feb 19, 2021 16:31:03 GMT
Nobody *wants* these changes. Cameron Mackintosh clearly views them as necessary to reduce the weekly operating cost of the production. Will it harm the show? Absolutely. But Cameron didn't get to be the richest and most commercially successful producer in the history of musical theatre by not being a shrewd businessman - and certainly not by running shows at anything other than maximum profit.
Don't be fooled though, these "savings" can only come from the biggest recurring cost of running a show. Which is, of course, human resources. Crew. Which means more theatre workers unemployed. But without his shows, there would be a hell of a lot more!
Much like Les Mis' downsizing in the early 2000's, attempts will naturally be made to spin this as an "refresh" or other euphemism. Many will buy it or just not care. When Sinfonia was introduced, it was because the technology was now available where it wasn't previously, saving a fortune across a theatrical season on professional pit musician's wages. It was slyly pitched as an "upgrade"; it's "new technology". Sure, in essence you're getting less for your money, in what is a very expensive evening out, but it is marketed as "new and exciting". Then prices go up again.
I wouldn't buy into the marketing copy for this (which frankly has been a shambles - what on earth is going on between ALW and Cameron's office, do they not communicate?!). The show is being adjusted purely for financial reasons, not artistic ones, which is understandable but impossible to spin credibly as a "refresh" of the show.
Finally, one last point regarding the oft-repeated argument, which goes like; "well, Mr and Mrs Bloggs who only visit a show once a year won't care or notice about XYZ (smaller band, such and such effect, so and so cast) because they aren't theatre obsessives".
I have a big problem with this argument, and here's why. Essentially it is saying that people will pay for a brand name regardless of the quality of the product, but time and time again in theatre this has been disproven often with huge financial loss for the producers. You might get them on hype and name awareness but they simply won't recommend it to their friends or come back themselves. This is a large part of why Frozen isn't reopening on Broadway but Lion King and Aladdin are.
Whilst the average punter might not pick up on specific changes, multiple little downgrades add up to an overall sense or feeling of declining quality. The stage looking a little bare because of a little trimming of the chorus, the band sounding a touch thin because of downsizing of the pit, a dodgy piece of casting here, a cheaper effect there and suddenly the show as a whole becomes a lot less impressive.
And this audiences most certainly do notice.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 19, 2021 17:10:31 GMT
Yes, to all of this. Perfectly reasonable to feel like we’re being cheated out of something.
But conversely would you go to work for free or half the wage? If your product always made you ‘x’amount, but is now only making ‘y’ amount because of increased costs from all sides what would you do? We’ve reached a ceiling for ticket prices, added value packages, merchandise, extortionate drinks and snacks. We need to get to a stage where people pay for what they are watching. If the production has high running costs, then the ticket price should represent that. As nice as it is to be able to get a £15 ticket for your fave show from one of the cheapie sites, it has created a culture of entitlement and a devaluation of the product which I’m sure makes investing in theatre even more of a turn off.
If people are happy to pay the prices they pay for an iphone or trainers, they should look at a piece of entertainment the same.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 17:43:02 GMT
Yes, to all of this. Perfectly reasonable to feel like we’re being cheated out of something. But conversely would you go to work for free or half the wage? If your product always made you ‘x’amount, but is now only making ‘y’ amount because of increased costs from all sides what would you do? We’ve reached a ceiling for ticket prices, added value packages, merchandise, extortionate drinks and snacks. We need to get to a stage where people pay for what they are watching. If the production has high running costs, then the ticket price should represent that. As nice as it is to be able to get a £15 ticket for your fave show from one of the cheapie sites, it has created a culture of entitlement and a devaluation of the product which I’m sure makes investing in theatre even more of a turn off. If people are happy to pay the prices they pay for an iphone or trainers, they should look at a piece of entertainment the same. I agree to a point. I often looked at the weekly grosses for shows on Broadway (Don't believe we have that for the West End) and I think Phantom is a consistent performer in terms of gross and potential gross. www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/THE-PHANTOM-OF-THE-OPERAAlso, I don't think I buy the idea that the show will cost more to run with new technology, of course there will be an initial cost outlay but one would think the show would run more efficiently and sadly as a result with less crew costing less in weekly running costs. Perhaps it's because of a spiral in insurance costs, I don't know. I don't know about a sense of entitlement but theatre is much more accessible today, I often joke too accessible when i am stuck beside people more interested in themselves than what is happening on stage. The £15 tickets are few and far between and Phantom day seats are like hens teeth any time I've tried the box office before the show. There's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange before it bursts. I also think no matter the industry that sometimes people forget to reinvest and think it's just take take take from the golden goose. I believe Phantom will survive but there will be lean months when tourists are sparse and the local audience might not be too keen on the new show. Also it's a risky strategy in a post-corona world where people will crave the nostalgia and a post-brexit world where the UK might not be the tourist draw it once was.
|
|
14 posts
|
Post by rjschess on Feb 19, 2021 22:51:16 GMT
|
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Feb 20, 2021 9:51:10 GMT
Deviation from the chandelier but Id like to Christine Allado as Christine when phantom does return
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2021 11:25:42 GMT
Meanwhile, exclusive footage of the new chandelier has been revealed:
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 20, 2021 11:54:09 GMT
Deviation from the chandelier but Id like to Christine Allado as Christine when phantom does return She sounds lovely! Warm and clear, modern enough without being too "pop" which was my issue with the UK Tour Christine. Hope casting directors' choices are as inspired as this. The "very diverse cast" rumour that was mentioned earlier also gives me hope that Alistair So might be considered to return, he was 1st cover last year and really was a sweet, sincere Raoul.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Feb 20, 2021 12:07:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2021 12:30:27 GMT
poor attempt at trying to capitalize on a joke I made
|
|
2,150 posts
|
Post by richey on Feb 20, 2021 13:50:40 GMT
Their social media posts are getting more and more patronising, spelling out the story like a child's storybook. Don't know what they're hoping to achieve with them as at the moment they're just giving people a chance to pile in and criticise that the original staging isn't returning
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 20, 2021 14:43:25 GMT
Their social media posts are getting more and more patronising, spelling out the story like a child's storybook. Don't know what they're hoping to achieve with them as at the moment they're just giving people a chance to pile in and criticise that the original staging isn't returning Yeah, their current take on social media, whatever it is, confuses me. Hardly think anyone will forget the story after only a year of the show not being on, and would rather they share tidbits about the stage show itself/the making-of, new or original production. Also think they're trying too hard to play "interactive" with the followers, or maybe that's simply just not how I perceive branded accounts on social media. Scott Davies' personal Insta is much more interesting (and entertaining)!
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 20, 2021 22:02:43 GMT
This is even more spectacular than the 1986 original and really updates Phantom for the 21st century. It's also definitely the same show that has always played Her Majesty's. Perfection.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 20, 2021 22:33:57 GMT
The chandelier rising from the stage into the auditorium is more than a special effect it sets the show up from the very start as metatheatre, . While there are other aspects in the show like the phantoms voice from the speakers in the auditorium to the police men (if I remember correctly after point of no return) coming into the auditorium they are later in the production and haven't the same impact and in my opinion will be lost when the chandelier no long rises out into the audience. The Phantom recent UK/US was often described as being like a film in VOX pops as audiences leave the different theatres on tour stops. I believe this loses the very essence of what makes Phantom magical, it is a love story and the central love story was Hal Prince's love of theatre. One of my favourite parts is as the chandelier rises and you see the world of Palais Garnier restore and the other part I love is the use of the curtains in the black box, these empty spaces that told so much. For the time I think the direction was very brave and while some see Phantom as this 1980's blockbuster musical I think it is essentially timeless because of the use of theatrical effects Hal Prince employed to tell the story. This is so well put, especially the part about the show being Hal Prince's love letter to the theatre, which it definitely was. The whole point about us being precious about the staging and not wanting to make it 'for the 21st century' is because Hal Prince's whole aesthetic for the show was grounded in nineteenth-century theatre techniques. I have no problem with relying on modern technology to achieve those but despair when I hear people say things like 'oh they could use video projections now' (not, of course, that they will). Video projections don't belong in Hal's production (and it's one of the reason the RAH staging leaves me stone cold). Not saying they wouldn't work in another production conceived from scratch, of course.
|
|
42ndBlvd
Ensemble
come and meet those dancing feet!
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Feb 21, 2021 0:39:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 12:14:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 12:21:27 GMT
The chandelier rising from the stage into the auditorium is more than a special effect it sets the show up from the very start as metatheatre, . While there are other aspects in the show like the phantoms voice from the speakers in the auditorium to the police men (if I remember correctly after point of no return) coming into the auditorium they are later in the production and haven't the same impact and in my opinion will be lost when the chandelier no long rises out into the audience. The Phantom recent UK/US was often described as being like a film in VOX pops as audiences leave the different theatres on tour stops. I believe this loses the very essence of what makes Phantom magical, it is a love story and the central love story was Hal Prince's love of theatre. One of my favourite parts is as the chandelier rises and you see the world of Palais Garnier restore and the other part I love is the use of the curtains in the black box, these empty spaces that told so much. For the time I think the direction was very brave and while some see Phantom as this 1980's blockbuster musical I think it is essentially timeless because of the use of theatrical effects Hal Prince employed to tell the story. This is so well put, especially the part about the show being Hal Prince's love letter to the theatre, which it definitely was. The whole point about us being precious about the staging and not wanting to make it 'for the 21st century' is because Hal Prince's whole aesthetic for the show was grounded in nineteenth-century theatre techniques. I have no problem with relying on modern technology to achieve those but despair when I hear people say things like 'oh they could use video projections now' (not, of course, that they will). Video projections don't belong in Hal's production (and it's one of the reason the RAH staging leaves me stone cold). Not saying they wouldn't work in another production conceived from scratch, of course. Exactly. No one wants a Laurent’s situation like Gypsy or WSS. Personally I love new adaptions and have traveled for them. I sadly missed the Oslo one recently but enjoyed the Gothenburg non replica Phantom. I think the grievances people have is, firstly, they feel they are being hoodwinked with the way language is used. Secondly, people are protective over the legacy of Maria Bjornson and Hal Prince, we all saw the way they treated Gillian Lynn to their own detriment. Finally, I think people don’t buy the idea that technology of the 21st Century can’t fix issues with a 20th Century production and make it run smoother or improve little things like the Graveyard fireballs for example.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 21, 2021 12:44:55 GMT
£8 million for a 4 bedroom house! I know London is expensive but surely you should be able to get more than 4 bedrooms for that much money!
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 21, 2021 12:48:06 GMT
I’m not sure where you’re coming from re:modern technology...too many double negatives. I think that modern technology must surely make many of the practical effects safer and more affordable, thereby saving money and ensuring a further life for the show. I also remember stories of Dave Willets falling from height inside a coffin or something when the show first toured? Presumably this effect has already gone. I can’t imagine that it’s a lot of fun being lowered from a theatre ceiling on an approximation of an angel be it lowered by hand or computer operated machinery but at least you might feel safer knowing that its a modern safety device rather than some worn old belt!
|
|
|
Post by beardedmusicalfan on Feb 21, 2021 13:09:52 GMT
I’m not sure where you’re coming from re:modern technology...too many double negatives. I think that modern technology must surely make many of the practical effects safer and more affordable, thereby saving money and ensuring a further life for the show. I also remember stories of Dave Willets falling from height inside a coffin or something when the show first toured? Presumably this effect has already gone. I can’t imagine that it’s a lot of fun being lowered from a theatre ceiling on an approximation of an angel be it lowered by hand or computer operated machinery but at least you might feel safer knowing that its a modern safety device rather than some worn old belt! The Dave Willetts incident was when he’s inside the cross during Wishing, just before he’s supposed to come out to sing wandering child. It fell backwards with him still in it, it would have been from around 10-12 feet high I think. They still use the same thing now although I assume they’ve made sure it’s more stable.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 22, 2021 11:38:48 GMT
I’m not sure where you’re coming from re:modern technology...too many double negatives. I think that modern technology must surely make many of the practical effects safer and more affordable, thereby saving money and ensuring a further life for the show. I also remember stories of Dave Willets falling from height inside a coffin or something when the show first toured? Presumably this effect has already gone. I can’t imagine that it’s a lot of fun being lowered from a theatre ceiling on an approximation of an angel be it lowered by hand or computer operated machinery but at least you might feel safer knowing that its a modern safety device rather than some worn old belt! Oh of course, no one has any objection to that. But that's not what they're doing here. The 'modern technology' thing is being used as a smokescreen simply to downgrade the production values. All the original 1986 effects are still achievable with modern technology that can make them safer and more affordable. Even Broadway (pre-lockdown) used less manual labour than Her Majesty's to create the same effects.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2021 16:06:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2021 11:15:01 GMT
Re all the hoo-hah about lack of respect for Bjornson and Prince's vision now they are gone - the rising of the chandelier from the stage (and the falling back on to it) is from the ALW and Hart script, which they worked on very closely with Mackintosh. So this particular aspect of things is something of a non argument.
If this has gone from the new version (and it's a big IF - we still have no idea) - leaving aside for the moment the degree of how good/bad this would be - then the living creatives are changing their own script (which was then designed by Bjornson), not an idea of those sadly passed on. And this is entirely up to them!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 11:15:43 GMT
Re all the hoo-hah about lack of respect for Bjornson and Prince's vision now they are gone - the rising of the chandelier from the stage (and the falling back on to it) is from the ALW and Hart script, which they worked on very closely with Mackintosh. So this particular aspect of things is something of a non argument. If this has gone from the new version (and it's a big IF - we still have no idea) - leaving aside for the moment the degree of how good/bad this would be - then the living creatives are changing their own script (which was then designed by Bjornson), not an idea of those sadly passed on. And this is entirely up to them! Oh I’d love to see Mackintosh’s designs for the chandelier
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 11:18:56 GMT
Re all the hoo-hah about lack of respect for Bjornson and Prince's vision now they are gone - the rising of the chandelier from the stage (and the falling back on to it) is from the ALW and Hart script, which they worked on very closely with Mackintosh. So this particular aspect of things is something of a non argument. If this has gone from the new version (and it's a big IF - we still have no idea) - leaving aside for the moment the degree of how good/bad this would be - then the living creatives are changing their own script (which was then designed by Bjornson), not an idea of those sadly passed on. And this is entirely up to them! Oh I’d love to see Mackintosh’s designs for the chandelier Im sure he's got a few in one of his mansions he could donate
|
|