2,257 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
Swing
I'll be back where I was born to be
|
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. |
|
4,023 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 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 12:33:49 GMT
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 I’d say he has framed pictures of Laurence Connor with a sledgehammer. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 27, 2021 13:07:40 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! Don't think anyone's saying that they don't have the legal grounds to do it, just that it's unnecessary and not a great idea insofar as they are wrecking/diluting a key theatrical moment. Also, the transformations scene during the overture as staged isn't entirely down to ALW, although he had the idea. The way it's staged owes a lot to Hal Prince's own previous work, e.g. the 'Loveland' sequence in Follies. |
|
1,821 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Mar 1, 2021 10:10:23 GMT
New reopening date is 21 July.
|
|
1,740 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyero on Mar 1, 2021 11:48:18 GMT
New reopening date is 21 July. Is that confirmed or just going by the booking calendar ? |
|
1,821 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Mar 1, 2021 11:53:30 GMT
|
|
3,463 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 1, 2021 15:16:30 GMT
Out of interest, what happens to those who bought vouchers to get first dibs on the reopening of the show? If 5 June is no longer the opening date I guess those with tickets are now at the back of the queue...
|
|
1,740 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyero on Mar 1, 2021 15:24:02 GMT
Out of interest, what happens to those who bought vouchers to get first dibs on the reopening of the show? If 5 June is no longer the opening date I guess those with tickets are now at the back of the queue... This is my quandary. Do I book now for 21/07 and get a refund on 05/06 or wait and see what they offer. |
|
3,463 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Mar 1, 2021 16:18:16 GMT
Out of interest, what happens to those who bought vouchers to get first dibs on the reopening of the show? If 5 June is no longer the opening date I guess those with tickets are now at the back of the queue... This is my quandary. Do I book now for 21/07 and get a refund on 05/06 or wait and see what they offer. You'd hope they might lift and shift people to the new opening date or offer an exclusive performance the Saturday before... |
|
1,740 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyero on Mar 1, 2021 16:27:50 GMT
This is my quandary. Do I book now for 21/07 and get a refund on 05/06 or wait and see what they offer. You'd hope they might lift and shift people to the new opening date or offer an exclusive performance the Saturday before... That’s why I questioned if 21/07 was reopening night or just the first night on sale. Wait and see I guess  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2021 19:08:50 GMT
21st now seems to have disappeared from the website!
|
|
