80 posts
|
Post by jay78uk on Aug 31, 2022 7:34:17 GMT
Revisited POTO on Monday night... fifteen years after last seeing the show. I've been following this thread, intrigued by the changes and what the 'reboot' might be like. I found the show in great form with strong, bang up to date production values and a tightness and slickness that IMHO is now expected by theatre audiences- whether tourists or theatre buffs in recent years.
The good- I found the staging of the title song just fantastic- like watching a movie. It looked absolutely amazing with the various shadowy moving walk ways and candles. The cast was on the whole strong- I particularly enjoyed Francesca Ellis's intense performance as Madame Giry. The lighting throughout was absolutely stunning and sets moved with a slickness I recall from Sunset Boulevard... everything just silently glided with a fluidity that was not there in the old production. I also very much liked the way the lights in the auditorium flickered on during the opera scenes, and I thought the way they lit the swags of the 'real' boxes in the auditorium to tie in with that of the opera boxes clever. I also liked the horse, and appreciated being able to see the climax of the first act from the mid rear of the stalls (Row L) which otherwise I would have previously missed. I appreciate these touches might seem a bit 'Disney' to some, but I felt they added to the overall experience.
The bad- I wasn't overwhelmed by Matt Blaker as Raoul. I felt his portrayal too 'wet' and I really didn't like his dramatic moves (which seemed to be mocking the behaviour of a star struck lover?) during his performance of AIAOU. For me it didn't work with the preceding scene and was miles away from the original where Raoul and Christine ran away together seeking comfort and assurance from the madness. Also the performance of Prima Donna was a bit all over the place, but in fairness I doubt anyone 'new' to the show would ever be able to follow much of that song however good the performances.
Regarding the new production, I was really surprised they have continued with the stick mannequin things for Masquerade. I found them tacky when I first saw the show as a teenager and again in my late twenties and I still do now! The cast is of sufficient size to render them unnecessary. I really didn't like the way they wobble through the performance! I also didn't think much of the chandelier- from row L of the stalls it seemed very slow and hovered over the stage a while. But no doubt its far better from elsewhere in the theatre. Phantom's final exit didn't really work- his movements behind his hung up cloak v. obvious. Re the scaled back orchestra, sounded good to me. Perhaps could have done with a bit more ooomph at times but I'm not sure the average theatre goer would notice any difference.
|
|
80 posts
|
Post by jay78uk on Aug 31, 2022 7:36:15 GMT
And one last thing... which I'll post as a potential spoiler/ with a not work safe disclaimer. {Spoiler - click to view}
Others might find this a sacrilegious thing to say, but I found the dummy of Christine in the final scene, which appeared flopped towards the audience really quite disturbing! It might just be me but it looked like some kind of s-x doll previously ravaged by the Phantom?! Is that what we are meant to conclude? Surprised it wasn't dropped to make the show more family friendly. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 31, 2022 9:45:14 GMT
The good- I found the staging of the title song just fantastic- like watching a movie. It looked absolutely amazing with the various shadowy moving walk ways and candles. The cast was on the whole strong- I particularly enjoyed Francesca Ellis's intense performance as Madame Giry. The lighting throughout was absolutely stunning and sets moved with a slickness I recall from Sunset Boulevard... everything just silently glided with a fluidity that was not there in the old production. Very intrigued as to what is more 'fluid' than previously given a lot of that has been compromised (with the doubles transition being scrapped in the title song) and the regularly breakdowns in the new set. The title song seems to be worse, IMHO. The Piranesi shadows are a nice effect, but the candelabra no longer slide outwards and there is a lot less fog (and the start of the number is no longer follows the Mirror sequence seamlessly). As for the lighting, I really do not like what Andrew Bridge has done. I understand that the old lights aren't made any more, but...why have we gone from gloomy Gothic shadows to this kind of oversaturated, Disney look? Someone on Twitter has helpfully done a 'before' and 'after', which I've nicked to illustrate my point:  As for the spoiler, if it creeps you out then GOOD, it should do. The Phantom is a psychopathic murderer, after all. |
|
421 posts
|
Post by Distant Dreamer... on Aug 31, 2022 9:56:34 GMT
Oh dear, the after photo looks terrible.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Aug 31, 2022 10:46:04 GMT
This is one of my reservations, in that all nuance has gone out the window.
Its like a kid fresh out of college has got to play with all the gobos - but been told only use gobos that come as stock in the fixtures.
|
|
80 posts
|
Post by jay78uk on Aug 31, 2022 10:49:16 GMT
Very intrigued as to what is more 'fluid' than previously given a lot of that has been compromised (with the doubles transition being scrapped in the title song) and the regularly breakdowns in the new set. The title song seems to be worse, IMHO. The Piranesi shadows are a nice effect, but the candelabra no longer slide outwards and there is a lot less fog (and the start of the number is no longer follows the Mirror sequence seamlessly). As for the lighting, I really do not like what Andrew Bridge has done. I understand that the old lights aren't made any more, but...why have we gone from gloomy Gothic shadows to this kind of oversaturated, Disney look? Someone on Twitter has helpfully done a 'before' and 'after', which I've nicked to illustrate my point: Everything felt more fluid to me- the way the curtains, screens and scenery moved, with no sound or judder. I understand how special the show is to people- I like it too, if not at the same level as Sondheim shows- but have no issue with AWL and CM making commercially led decisions to ensure the show remains viable and keeps tourists happy... the compromises seem v. minor to me in the overall scheme of things. I for one would be really sad to see Phantom closing its doors, and it must still be hugely costly to put on, and their revenue far less than previously... I wonder what proportion of their ticket sales are now discounted/ day tickets as is the way for pretty much all shows today? On the lighting... after reading the various comments objecting to it I was expecting a hugely overlit show but what I witnessed was suitably dark and atmospheric. I agree with DD the lighting looks naff in the after photo and the previous drapes more mysterious and less disney but sat in row L of the stalls it still looked great. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 31, 2022 10:58:43 GMT
Everything felt more fluid to me- the way the curtains, screens and scenery moved, with no sound or judder. I get what you mean about the sound of the scenery moving, although that could have been easily resolved without scrapping the original production and its grandeur; it's just that Cameron decided not to invest in its upkeep (same as what happened with old Miz). As for the judder, in many cases this was intentional. The concept was to model the production on traditional Victorian illusionist stagecraft. That's why they kept bigging up the old wooden machinery underneath the stage at Her Majesty's when the show opened; they didn't actually use it (contrary to some of the ambiguous language coming out of the mouths of the producers at the time), but they were inspired by it and wanted to incorporate those techniques into the production. That's why when the show was done everywhere else and they used computers to handle it all, they still made things look juddery as opposed to being too 'clean'. If Mackintosh has scrapped that, then that's another part of the original vision he's damaged. |
|
80 posts
|
Post by jay78uk on Aug 31, 2022 11:57:03 GMT
he concept was to model the production on traditional Victorian illusionist stagecraft. That's why they kept bigging up the old wooden machinery underneath the stage at Her Majesty's when the show opened; they didn't actually use it (contrary to some of the ambiguous language coming out of the mouths of the producers at the time), but they were inspired by it and wanted to incorporate those techniques into the production. That's why when the show was done everywhere else and they used computers to handle it all, they still made things look juddery as opposed to being too 'clean'. That's really interesting. I do wonder how much of the narrative about being so proud of using victorian techniques was marketing puff though... afterall the boat and chandelier were always automated-see theatrecrafts.com- apparently Delstar engineering were responsible. More generally, I'm not sure its viable for a show like Phantom to ever be regarded as a museum piece- its requires significant income to run- nor a masterpiece with aspects of the score closely resembling Puccini if not Pink Floyd. Also mindful that the treatment Phantom has recieved is in many respects less severe than the changes made to the other long running shows of its era, e.g. Les Mis and Miss Saigon. I can't speak for Cats as only saw it once (and that was more than enough for me!). I do think Phantom is an absolutely cracking, and above all else spectacular show, but do feel the changes made need to be put in perspective... I really do feel sorry for how much flack ALW gets given how much he's done for the theatre industry... and given he's 74... no one is perfect and I suspect its more a case of him sometimes being let down by those around him. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 31, 2022 14:51:12 GMT
he concept was to model the production on traditional Victorian illusionist stagecraft. That's why they kept bigging up the old wooden machinery underneath the stage at Her Majesty's when the show opened; they didn't actually use it (contrary to some of the ambiguous language coming out of the mouths of the producers at the time), but they were inspired by it and wanted to incorporate those techniques into the production. That's why when the show was done everywhere else and they used computers to handle it all, they still made things look juddery as opposed to being too 'clean'. That's really interesting. I do wonder how much of the narrative about being so proud of using victorian techniques was marketing puff though... afterall the boat and chandelier were always automated-see theatrecrafts.com- apparently Delstar engineering were responsible. More generally, I'm not sure its viable for a show like Phantom to ever be regarded as a museum piece- its requires significant income to run- nor a masterpiece with aspects of the score closely resembling Puccini if not Pink Floyd. Also mindful that the treatment Phantom has recieved is in many respects less severe than the changes made to the other long running shows of its era, e.g. Les Mis and Miss Saigon. I can't speak for Cats as only saw it once (and that was more than enough for me!). I do think Phantom is an absolutely cracking, and above all else spectacular show, but do feel the changes made need to be put in perspective... I really do feel sorry for how much flack ALW gets given how much he's done for the theatre industry... and given he's 74... no one is perfect and I suspect its more a case of him sometimes being let down by those around him. As I said, a lot of it WAS marketing puff...but the aesthetic was very much to imitate the old-school way of doing things. It was a repudiation of those technomusicals at the time that were sweeping the West End ( Starlight, Mutiny, Time etc). I think Phantom is one of those 'go big or go home' shows. A bit like Follies. ALW deserves the flack for frankly outright lying about what was being done to the production. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Sept 1, 2022 21:06:40 GMT
I get the 'fluidity' we're discussing and while the sets do squeak less (though the masquerade dummies are just as wobbly), it was exactly that which killed the magic for me... sadly all the stuff I remember griping about, 2 years ago- the damned horse, new lyrics, costume & choreo changes for change's sake- I couldn't care less any more (well the horse is still annoying when we've had so much better), now that I've seen this new version twice, it's the shininess and clarity and cleanliness of everything that really bothered me and made the whole thing feel a quite 'off' and anachronistic. like a modern replica of an antique jewellery piece, where all the materials are the best and newest on the market, all the details are geometrically perfect, crafted with the latest precision machinery, but the 'fire' of the gem isn't there... just sitting there shining clinically as it should, but not sparkling as I remember it... that vintage, dreamlike-memories feel is lost- and without this added layer of atmosphere to the show I just couldn't fully immerse myself in it even when in very good stalls seats- it was simply a performance of the work, one of eight a week, with alts on certain days yada yada... when it used to take me on an alluring enough journey that drew me in for 2.5 hours, even from a cheap balcony seat. and saddest bit is when this set has aged enough to recapture that patinated magic, it will be deemed too dusty and in need of another 'modern' overhaul! well at least my wallet is happy I'm no longer dashing down to HMT like a madman to check out every new trio/ensemble track debut  |
|
2,244 posts
|
Post by richey on Sept 1, 2022 22:21:06 GMT
Well I saw it tonight from the second row of the stalls and was totally transfixed. I actually felt like I was my eighteen year old self seeing it for the first time again.
I really think this board exists in a bubble of negativity sometimes because all I could hear around me during the interval was praise. One guy was telling the FoH staff how he doesn't get to the theatre enough though he should "when it's this good" and I got to talking to two ladies sat behind me who were seeing it for the first time and absolutely loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by raoul on Sept 2, 2022 0:17:56 GMT
Well I saw it tonight from the second row of the stalls and was totally transfixed. I actually felt like I was my eighteen year old self seeing it for the first time again. I really think this board exists in a bubble of negativity sometimes because all I could hear around me during the interval was praise. One guy was telling the FoH staff how he doesn't get to the theatre enough though he should "when it's this good" and I got to talking to two ladies sat behind me who were seeing it for the first time and absolutely loved it. I felt exactly the same. Saw the new production from one of the boxes and absolutely loved it. Everyone has the right to love or criticise the new production but to 99.99% of the worlds population, none of the changes will matter. It's basically exactly the same show minus a few minor changes to the set pieces. An improved set, sound and lighting brings it bang up to date IMHO. The original production was brilliant, but it had a lot of faults, but I still loved it. Phantom of the Opera would not currently be playing in the West End without the overhaul. It's bringing joy to thousands of people every week and will continue to do so for many years to come. Enjoy it whist it's here I say. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 2, 2022 7:24:00 GMT
Everyone has the right to love or criticise the new production but to 99.99% of the worlds population, none of the changes will matter. 99.99% of the world's population will not go and see the new production. The show relies on tourists and repeat attenders. The former aren't here. I wouldn't call removing what the director called the 'key to the show' minor. How is the set improved with the absence of the proscenium, the painted flat, the cartoonish rooftop, and the stationary candelabra? I am trying to think of something about the set that is nicer beyond the chandelier (which has issues given the pathetic new pyro) and the Escher effect during the title song but am genuinely struggling. If its simply about certain stage pieces being newer, then that was regularly done when they wanted to. But then Cameron stopped wanting to because plans were afoot to remake the show in his image after Hal died. With half of the orchestra gone? Otherwise the sound system is no different to that introduced in 2010. See comments above. Which faults of the original production (beyond a squeaky set that could have been easily rectified?) were addressed and resolved with this one? Because everything people tended to complain about, e.g. the fireballs in 'Wandering Child', remained. This isn't true and it's sad people keep buying this BS. The original was not losing money and is still on Broadway. They replaced it with a tour because Cameron wants more money and, while he had not planned to do this until a few years' time, he didn't want two prolonged shutdowns. If the original genuinely wasn't viable then the thing to do would be to close it and revive it afresh down the road. NOT lie to everyone about the original coming back 'in its entirety', 'with the original designs', and 'bigger and better than ever'. But equally a user of this board posted this in August: |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 2, 2022 8:53:55 GMT
And the set is improved. It is nice to hear Raoul and Giry's exchange in Act 2 without the rumbles and creaks of the staircase being taken away. Which I'm sure is great, but that doesn't answer my question about how there have been genuine substantial improvements to the scenic design, which is a downgrade. As I said above, the fact a set piece is new isn't something particular to this production. Everything was new once with the original and could have been new again and many set pieces were regularly replaced until they stopped bothering altogether so they could phase the original out. As for 'butchering' Miz, they replaced the original (which, like you, I much prefer and I have no inclination to revisit the Laurence Connor one) with a totally different production, rather than messing about with (and worsening) the original and then claiming nothing had changed. |
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 2, 2022 16:54:09 GMT
Well I saw it tonight from the second row of the stalls and was totally transfixed. I actually felt like I was my eighteen year old self seeing it for the first time again. I really think this board exists in a bubble of negativity sometimes because all I could hear around me during the interval was praise. One guy was telling the FoH staff how he doesn't get to the theatre enough though he should "when it's this good" and I got to talking to two ladies sat behind me who were seeing it for the first time and absolutely loved it. I felt exactly the same. Saw the new production from one of the boxes and absolutely loved it. Everyone has the right to love or criticise the new production but to 99.99% of the worlds population, none of the changes will matter. It's basically exactly the same show minus a few minor changes to the set pieces. An improved set, sound and lighting brings it bang up to date IMHO. The original production was brilliant, but it had a lot of faults, but I still loved it. Phantom of the Opera would not currently be playing in the West End without the overhaul. It's bringing joy to thousands of people every week and will continue to do so for many years to come. Enjoy it whist it's here I say. Me three! Interesting to note also that 69% of our own very highly qualified theatregoers who have voted give this production 4 or 5 stars. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 2, 2022 18:54:02 GMT
I felt exactly the same. Saw the new production from one of the boxes and absolutely loved it. Everyone has the right to love or criticise the new production but to 99.99% of the worlds population, none of the changes will matter. It's basically exactly the same show minus a few minor changes to the set pieces. An improved set, sound and lighting brings it bang up to date IMHO. The original production was brilliant, but it had a lot of faults, but I still loved it. Phantom of the Opera would not currently be playing in the West End without the overhaul. It's bringing joy to thousands of people every week and will continue to do so for many years to come. Enjoy it whist it's here I say. Me three! Interesting to note also that 69% of our own very highly qualified theatregoers who have voted give this production 4 or 5 stars. Alternatively, more people have rated it 2 and 3* than have rated it 5*. In fact, a decisive 14.29% more people think it’s either a 2 or 3* production than a 5* one. Statistics are fun!!! 😂😂😂 |
|
309 posts
|
Post by jm25 on Sept 2, 2022 22:25:32 GMT
I watched this tonight after picking up one of their day tickets. I'm not generally into musicals and I didn't know anything about Phantom beyond the name and the title song. But I'm trying to make an effort to watch more of the big hitters and I absolutely loved this! It felt like watching a musical, opera and magic show mixed into one, and it was easily the best production design I've seen in a show.
Slightly surprised to read that the comments on here aren't quite so positive, but then again I've not got anything to compare it to. All I know is that I want to see it again! I don't regret going in without knowing the plot, songs, etc, but I do think I'll get something different out of it when rewatching it with some familiarity.
Incidentally, when I mentioned to a work colleague that I was going to see this tonight, she was beside herself as she absolutely adored it when she went to see it. Wouldn't say she's a regular theatregoer but she liked this enough to see it twice! The people around me today also seemed to really enjoy it, though I'd agree that it seemed to be primarily a mix of tourists and repeat attenders.
And FWIW given all the talks about stats... I gave it 4 stars! 😂
|
|
282 posts
|
Post by kyvai on Sept 3, 2022 6:57:38 GMT
I saw this last week, and I’ve voted 4 stars. I last saw the previous production around 10 years ago. None of the negative complaints from this board about the changes bothered me at all - I thought the sets were very effective, the whole thing completely magical, and really in no way inferior to my previous experience. I only had 2 real criticisms - one was the sound mix during the Notes scenes and a few other places, whenever more then one actor was singing simultaneously and you should be able to hear what both are saying, it was just a hot mess and all you could really make out was Carlotta trilling over a too-loud babble of everyone else, those scenes have a lot of exposition and it’s completely lost by poor sound mixing. I mean they are messy sections anyway but still. It is a bit baffling seeing as the same technician is clearly capable of excellent work elsewhere in the same piece……although reading later I wondered how much of the finer mixed parts were when they use pre-recorded tracks for practical reasons over when they were mixing multiple live singers.
And secondly……I didn’t rate Killian Donnelly much at all really. He wasn’t bad, he just wasn’t breathtaking which is what you kinda want from a Phantom. He was technically sound but just not madly exciting to watch in the role. Lucy St Louis was phenomenal though. Loved her.
I’ll happily go and see the current production again.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 3, 2022 7:02:42 GMT
Slightly surprised to read that the comments on here aren't quite so positive, but then again I've not got anything to compare it to. That's what the 'non-positive' comments are doing, though. I imagine if my Phantom experience was just a tabula rasa I'd like it just fine. Those of us who have issues are simply frustrated that the show is no longer in the best form it could be in and has been subjected to a series of downgrades when the producers cynically promised the opposite, knowing full well that wasn't going to happen, and the the downgrades were not necessary (contrary to what posters here keep claiming) but simply born out of greed. Glad you liked it and hope you get to see the 'full fat' version on Broadway some day. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on Sept 3, 2022 15:16:49 GMT
99.99% of the world's population will not go and see the new production. The show relies on tourists and repeat attenders. The former aren't here. I thought it was the repeat attenders that kept the show afloat? If they aren't going and yet the show is still running, It's clearly just the tourists that keep the show around. Her Majestys holds what, 1300? There's no way repeat visits could affect the running of a show, because the venue is so large. |
|
80 posts
|
Post by jay78uk on Sept 3, 2022 16:39:40 GMT
Slightly surprised to read that the comments on here aren't quite so positive, but then again I've not got anything to compare it to. That's what the 'non-positive' comments are doing, though. I imagine if my Phantom experience was just a tabula rasa I'd like it just fine. Those of us who have issues are simply frustrated that the show is no longer in the best form it could be in and has been subjected to a series of downgrades when the producers cynically promised the opposite, knowing full well that wasn't going to happen, and the the downgrades were not necessary (contrary to what posters here keep claiming) but simply born out of greed. Glad you liked it and hope you get to see the 'full fat' version on Broadway some day. Scarpia, I understand where you are coming from but I'm not sure anyone can say with certainty one way or the other whether audiences will feel the new production is 'downgraded' or 'better than ever', or about the same! Surely views will depend on what people value in terms of production and performance values. I appreciate the changes aren't your cup of tea, but there's likely to be some repeat visitors liking the refresh, as I and some other posters write. I also don't think it reasonable to state that the changes were 'simply born out of greed'. I disagree with the point of view that wealthy producers and writers should feel obliged to forgo income or even prop up a loss making production simply because they have the bank balance to do so. I see no reason why either ALW or CM should do this, and furthermore I wouldn't want them to as it would mean they'd be clogging up west end theatres with unpopular loss making shows which would not be in the interest of the general public. Also, I would suggest that the revamp may well be encouraging repeat visits by theatre goers keen to see what the new production is like... that is what got me back again, alongside their £30 day ticket offer... which I hope entices others back to the West End to see this much loved show. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 3, 2022 21:00:49 GMT
That's what the 'non-positive' comments are doing, though. I imagine if my Phantom experience was just a tabula rasa I'd like it just fine. Those of us who have issues are simply frustrated that the show is no longer in the best form it could be in and has been subjected to a series of downgrades when the producers cynically promised the opposite, knowing full well that wasn't going to happen, and the the downgrades were not necessary (contrary to what posters here keep claiming) but simply born out of greed. Glad you liked it and hope you get to see the 'full fat' version on Broadway some day. Scarpia, I understand where you are coming from but I'm not sure anyone can say with certainty one way or the other whether audiences will feel the new production is 'downgraded' or 'better than ever', or about the same! Surely views will depend on what people value in terms of production and performance values. [...] I also don't think it reasonable to state that the changes were 'simply born out of greed'. I disagree with the point of view that wealthy producers and writers should feel obliged to forgo income or even prop up a loss making production simply because they have the bank balance to do so. [...] The original production was not loss-making at the time of its closure. Re wealthy producers/writers foregoing income, they weren't foregoing anything. They just wanted even more and wanted to cut out the payments to the estates of their deceased collaborators (and to former investors in the 1986 production). Re upgrades/downgrades, of course the experience is subjective but I'm struggling to see how anyone can argue the design alterations have been for the better. Is there anyone actually familiar with the original production and who remembers it clearly that genuinely thinks the alterations to the set design and orchestra have been for the better? No one has stated what is a specifically an upgrade here beyond having brand new set pieces (which is not unique to the new production and used to be regularly done in the original until they decided to phase it out). In terms of design alterations, I can think of only three things people seem to like that weren't in the original and they are very minor: the Escher projection (I like it too, but then the title song has suffered cuts to the design elsewhere), the proscenium bit that rises during the overture (which is negated by the absence of the proscenium otherwise), and the flickering lights during the opera scenes. Considering what has been junked, these are rather superficial and in no way a serious upgrade. Nor do they make the show in any way 'for the 21st century'...in fact the most dated effects either have remained (e.g. the fireballs) or have been worsened (such as the pyro for the chandelier). If there are other specific alterations that represent a material improvement then I'm genuinely very interested. |
|
|
|
Post by raoul on Sept 3, 2022 23:52:38 GMT
I've never seen so many people fall asleep in an audience as I did with the original production. It was so darkly lit and sounded like it was being performed through a sardine can. Otherwise it was "brilliant." My partner refused to see it again unless it was a matinée for fear of falling asleep. I was thrilled when the people on the front row of the Royal Circle fell asleep and tilted their heads side ways. We saw it many times pre 2020 and can honestly confirm the show is much more enjoyable now. I respect the purisists opinions entirely and I hope they can respect mine. I've only seen the new production once, but for me that's all I needed to come to this conclusion. Keep arguing your points but do yourselves a favor and move on. It's not going back. Support the show you love as it's not going to change. All you're doing is putting people off buying a ticket. I certainly don't think it's been butchered. It's a 5* West End show that deserves its place in London. Everyone should make up their own minds rather than being scorned at every opportunity to tell them they're wrong. Sorry, but that's free speech. It works both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 4, 2022 0:17:39 GMT
I've never seen so many people fall asleep in an audience as I did with the original production. It was so darkly lit and sounded like it was being performed through a sardine can. Otherwise it was "brilliant." My partner refused to see it again unless it was a matinée for fear of falling asleep. I was thrilled when the people on the front row of the Royal Circle fell asleep and tilted their heads side ways. We saw it many times pre 2020 and can honestly confirm the show is much more enjoyable now. I respect the purisists opinions entirely and I hope they can respect mine. I've only seen the new production once, but for me that's all I needed to come to this conclusion. Keep arguing your points but do yourselves a favor and move on. It's not going back. Support the show you love as it's not going to change. All you're doing is putting people off buying a ticket. I certainly don't think it's been butchered. It's a 5* West End show that deserves its place in London. Everyone should make up their own minds rather than being scorned at every opportunity to tell them they're wrong. Sorry, but that's free speech. It works both ways. No you can’t. You can opine that some people may find it more enjoyable now. I opine the opposite based on my experiences. You can no more confirm that the show is “more enjoyable” post downsizing than I can confirm that Killian Donnelly/Lucy St. Louis is one of the weakest pairings in the 35 year history of the show. |
|
|
|
Post by raoul on Sept 4, 2022 0:42:04 GMT
I've never seen so many people fall asleep in an audience as I did with the original production. It was so darkly lit and sounded like it was being performed through a sardine can. Otherwise it was "brilliant." My partner refused to see it again unless it was a matinée for fear of falling asleep. I was thrilled when the people on the front row of the Royal Circle fell asleep and tilted their heads side ways. We saw it many times pre 2020 and can honestly confirm the show is much more enjoyable now. I respect the purisists opinions entirely and I hope they can respect mine. I've only seen the new production once, but for me that's all I needed to come to this conclusion. Keep arguing your points but do yourselves a favor and move on. It's not going back. Support the show you love as it's not going to change. All you're doing is putting people off buying a ticket. I certainly don't think it's been butchered. It's a 5* West End show that deserves its place in London. Everyone should make up their own minds rather than being scorned at every opportunity to tell them they're wrong. Sorry, but that's free speech. It works both ways. No you can’t. You can opine that some people may find it more enjoyable now. I opine the opposite based on my experiences. You can no more confirm that the show is “more enjoyable” post downsizing than I can confirm that Killian Donnelly/Lucy St. Louis is one of the weakest pairings in the 35 year history of the show. Yes, yes I can, and I have. Your opinion is respected, so respect mine. |
|
