|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 9, 2022 13:27:42 GMT
It is just going down and up a scale. It is hardly an original concept in music!
ALW copied far more egregiously than that one
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 9, 2022 13:55:14 GMT
This has probably been discussed here before as it’s all over YouTube but my brother just sent me this and I have never noticed it before! Did ALW steal Phantom from Pink Floyd or is it just a coincidence?! I thought he only stole music from his other shows! 😂 I'm afraid this is one of the most well-known ones going right back to when Steve Harley and Sarah Brightman released it as a single - he has been a lot more blatant elsewhere... |
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Apr 9, 2022 21:36:13 GMT
So, I picked up day seats for today's matinee. We had Holly-Anne as Christine and the u/s Meg, but other than that, the rest of the cast were there. The show is in a bit of a state, isn't it? This is my 4th time seeing the new production and probably the worst performance I've seen of it. I've seen Phantom a ridiculous number of times and this was genuinely probably the worst performance I've ever seen of the show.
I guess before I get into the negatives, there were two big pluses for me: Michael Robert-Lowe as Buquet - man has a ridiculously rich voice. Predict he'll be a leading man in a few years. Rhys Whitfield is wonderful as Raoul too. He never broke character for even a second and was genuinely a joy to watch this afternoon - genuinely couldn't keep my eyes off him throughout. He plays Raoul wonderfully - in fact, I'd possibly go as far as saying that his Raoul was one of the most convincing performances I've ever seen??!?!?
The negatives: Where to start? I don't know if its the changes or just the cast, but something just doesn't work here. During songs like Prima Donna, it's impossible to work out what is happening; indeed, the couple in front of me were complaining that they didn't understand anything that was happening because it was all just such a... mess. In fact, when the couple were talking to the ice-cream usher at the interval, I overheard the usher also admitting that they had no idea what was happening in scenes where multiple characters are singing...
- I don't know if Killian is just sick of the show and bored, but Jesus, the man has no personality? He may as well be standing up singing in concert style for all the emotion he puts into the part. His "fall" during "Stranger than you Dreamt It" was genuinely laughable (and people in the audience did actually laugh!). It was just dead. Honestly. There is more personality in a brick.
- Holly-Anne Hull was OK as Christine. Vocally great but the performance was mediocre in terms of actual acting. But she was decent enough.
- Saori Oda has improved significantly, but I still think she misses many of the comic moments with Carlotta?
- I love Greg Castiglioni. His Piangi is great... except for the changes. I don't blame him for this, obviously. But I don't understand why Piangi is now so prominent in so many scenes, where as he wasn't previously? Why is he hiding behind the bed in Il Muto, making himself the centre of attention during a key part of the show? Why is he eyeing up every single male member of the company? Why has Piangi become a nuisance?
As a complete side note, since when has Meg worn a baby pink poncho during Notes and the Il Muto rehearsal? It genuinely looked so stupid. It literally looked like she'd just came back from Mexico and fancied a bit of cultural appropriation. Checked some bootlegs on YouTube and she definitely didn't wear this before - wonder if it has something to do with the costume not fitting the understudy correctly and that was a quick fix?
The trapdoor also failed at the end of Masquerade. Killian froze up and Firmin and Andre ran on to cover him with their cloaks. I don't think anyone would have noticed if they hadn't seen the show before, to be honest.
Overall, genuinely just thought it was a complete mess. Stalls was maybe 80% full. Maybe it's just that they cast don't "gel"... I don't know. But something really doesn't work in this production.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 9, 2022 22:15:25 GMT
^^^ have to agree with most of what you say, despite seeing a slightly different cast. Killian Donnelly left me very cold with his dead eyes as Valjean and Enjolras previously, so I can't say I was fussed about missing his Phantom - not that I liked his understudy either. Also I didn't appreciate Hull's singing as much as you and the previous "reviewer", so perhaps I caught her on an off day.
Did you notice the amount of "business" the director has added? I noticed similar in Lawrence Connor's Les Mis. It seems so incredibly hectic and the "rhubarb chatter" can be very grating at times, especially in "Hannibal" for example.
Agree, the show is in poor shape but I can't help but feel they desperately need a world class cast and things will quickly and dramatically improve, despite the new production's many flaws and issues.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Apr 10, 2022 2:13:59 GMT
^^^ have to agree with most of what you say, despite seeing a slightly different cast. Killian Donnelly left me very cold with his dead eyes as Valjean and Enjolras previously, so I can't say I was fussed about missing his Phantom - not that I liked his understudy either. Also I didn't appreciate Hull's singing as much as you and the previous "reviewer", so perhaps I caught her on an off day. Did you notice the amount of "business" the director has added? I noticed similar in Lawrence Connor's Les Mis. It seems so incredibly hectic and the "rhubarb chatter" can be very grating at times, especially in "Hannibal" for example. Agree, the show is in poor shape but I can't help but feel they desperately need a world class cast and things will quickly and dramatically improve, despite the new production's many flaws and issues. "Rehearsals. Always rehearsals." is the one that really drives me nuts. It's not even the addition of it, really, but the fact that Mme. Giry and Christine are just standing there, staring at each other awkwardly until Meg has finished the line. She doesn't say the line until she's at the bottom of the stairs, so there is about 5 seconds of awkward staring. Just weird. The set during AIAOY too... I've complained a lot about it, but I just don't understand the creative decision. No other set piece is in this 2D comic book style. It looks out of place and just stupid. It breaks immersion. I get the need to redo that set for the horse (which I still don't hate, actually - it looks visually impressive... it looks huge, especially from the stalls!), but there were surely alternative ways to do this? The Hungarian non-replica production does the rooftop scene really well, actually and I'm not sure why they didn't go down that more realistic route. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 10, 2022 10:25:43 GMT
^^^ have to agree with most of what you say, despite seeing a slightly different cast. Killian Donnelly left me very cold with his dead eyes as Valjean and Enjolras previously, so I can't say I was fussed about missing his Phantom - not that I liked his understudy either. Also I didn't appreciate Hull's singing as much as you and the previous "reviewer", so perhaps I caught her on an off day. Did you notice the amount of "business" the director has added? I noticed similar in Lawrence Connor's Les Mis. It seems so incredibly hectic and the "rhubarb chatter" can be very grating at times, especially in "Hannibal" for example. Agree, the show is in poor shape but I can't help but feel they desperately need a world class cast and things will quickly and dramatically improve, despite the new production's many flaws and issues. "Rehearsals. Always rehearsals." is the one that really drives me nuts. It's not even the addition of it, really, but the fact that Mme. Giry and Christine are just standing there, staring at each other awkwardly until Meg has finished the line. She doesn't say the line until she's at the bottom of the stairs, so there is about 5 seconds of awkward staring. Just weird. The set during AIAOY too... I've complained a lot about it, but I just don't understand the creative decision. No other set piece is in this 2D comic book style. It looks out of place and just stupid. It breaks immersion. I get the need to redo that set for the horse (which I still don't hate, actually - it looks visually impressive... it looks huge, especially from the stalls!), but there were surely alternative ways to do this? The Hungarian non-replica production does the rooftop scene really well, actually and I'm not sure why they didn't go down that more realistic route. The 'always rehearsals' line was always in the Broadway production (presumably Seth has imported that over) but it was never delivered in the way you describe, you barely even noticed it. A lot of the 'business' you've mentioned seems to be Cameron's way of 'directing' things...hence why ou see it in 'Miz' too (the man unfortunately thinks he's a director). The whole thing sounds like a right mess and I'm glad not to have bothered with it. I'm still just flummoxed that one of the crown jewels of British musical theatre (indeed, London's most successful homegrown show) was abruptly cancelled with no fanfare only to be replaced by a cheap-looking, cheap-sounding high-school mess. |
|
2,264 posts
|
Post by richey on Apr 10, 2022 11:31:37 GMT
Sorry,if as you say you've not seen it, then how do you know it's cheap looking?
I saw the show a few weeks ago and yes, I was hesitant as I didn't want the changes to ruin a show I've loved for more than 30 years. I came away still in love with it, to me it looked in fine form. There were a few things I didn't like (mainly the new, brighter lighting) but it certainly wasn't the show I've seen described above.
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 10, 2022 11:53:09 GMT
Totally agree. I saw it before Christmas and I thought it looked beautiful.
The cast will make a difference of course though. I once saw it with JOJ towards the end of his run and even someone of his calibre can be guilty of phoning it in. And if the lead isn’t 100% on it, that can affect the whole show.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 10, 2022 12:29:23 GMT
Sorry,if as you say you've not seen it, then how do you know it's cheap looking? I saw the show a few weeks ago and yes, I was hesitant as I didn't want the changes to ruin a show I've loved for more than 30 years. I came away still in love with it, to me it looked in fine form. There were a few things I didn't like (mainly the new, brighter lighting) but it certainly wasn't the show I've seen described above. I've seen (and heard) enough. The proscenium itself and that flat cloth they use look cheap as hell. I don't need to spend £90 to find out that it won't look any better in person, and I think it's disingenuous to imply that it will (especially since everyone I personally know who's gone and who was familiar with the original production has reported back saying how underwhelmed and disappointed they were). If others want to imply this means I'm not credible, then fine, I'm not particular bothered. I'd rather keep my memories of what was quite an important show in my life, for both personal and professional reasons, to be uncontaminated by this than to have more authority on a message board. Even if it looks beautiful, I don't see how anyone can claim it is equally as, or more beautiful than, an original production that was genuinely bigger, more expensive, and more detailed. Re performers 'phoning it in', they are replaceable. The same applies to the new production. It's quite possible to replace Killian et al with better suited cast members. But that won't fix the reductions to the set or orchestra, or the loss of the show's soul. |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 11, 2022 11:43:28 GMT
Christ, it sounds dire now. I would never go and see this production. Prefer to keep my memories. It sounds so dreadfully watered down.
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Apr 20, 2022 9:38:06 GMT
Following a lead I got yesterday in the accounts of LW Theatres, I've been looking into a relatively new company called Phantom Productions London Ltd, which was incorporated on 22 February 2021.
There are 20 shares in total, comprising 11 'A' shares and 9 'B' shares, which is a 55/45 split. Contrary to what I think we previously thought, the 9 are held by Cameron Mackintosh Ltd, with the majority, 11, held by Really Useful Theatre Company Ltd.
I fear I may have just opened a can of worms!
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 20, 2022 11:09:55 GMT
So Andy is the villain of the piece after all…..
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Apr 20, 2022 12:19:10 GMT
Following a lead I got yesterday in the accounts of LW Theatres, I've been looking into a relatively new company called Phantom Productions London Ltd, which was incorporated on 22 February 2021. There are 20 shares in total, comprising 11 'A' shares and 9 'B' shares, which is a 55/45 split. Contrary to what I think we previously thought, the 9 are held by Cameron Mackintosh Ltd, with the majority, 11, held by Really Useful Theatre Company Ltd. I fear I may have just opened a can of worms! Reading up it looks like when it was incorporated in February CMLtd was the only company shareholder. That changed 4th August when RUTC came in as majority shareholder. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 20, 2022 12:31:36 GMT
Either way it is still a business venture, not a hobby or plaything, which some who hold it dear behave at times. You wouldn’t keep a leaking bucket even if it was your favourite bucket. You might spend years and unrealistic amounts patching up the holes, but know that eventually you’ll need to throw it away and replace it with a new one.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 20, 2022 12:42:04 GMT
Either way it is still a business venture, not a hobby or plaything, which some who hold it dear behave at times. You wouldn’t keep a leaking bucket even if it was your favourite bucket. You might spend years and unrealistic amounts patching up the holes, but know that eventually you’ll need to throw it away and replace it with a new one. Meh. Previously I'd come back with points disagreeing with you and stating my opinion why. Having seen the new production I am just over the whole thing, as many Phans are. I just don't care any more. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 20, 2022 16:28:41 GMT
Either way it is still a business venture, not a hobby or plaything, which some who hold it dear behave at times. You wouldn’t keep a leaking bucket even if it was your favourite bucket. You might spend years and unrealistic amounts patching up the holes, but know that eventually you’ll need to throw it away and replace it with a new one. But when you’re charging people to use the bucket, and the new one isn’t as good as the old one, people are entitled to complain. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 20, 2022 18:08:09 GMT
Either way it is still a business venture, not a hobby or plaything, which some who hold it dear behave at times. You wouldn’t keep a leaking bucket even if it was your favourite bucket. You might spend years and unrealistic amounts patching up the holes, but know that eventually you’ll need to throw it away and replace it with a new one. Meh. Previously I'd come back with points disagreeing with you and stating my opinion why. Having seen the new production I am just over the whole thing, as many Phans are. I just don't care any more. Exactly. If enough people vote with their feet they may do something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 20, 2022 18:54:20 GMT
Meh. Previously I'd come back with points disagreeing with you and stating my opinion why. Having seen the new production I am just over the whole thing, as many Phans are. I just don't care any more. Exactly. If enough people vote with their feet they may do something about it. After hundreds of visits as a fan all over the globe, and similar working on the show in question, it's my opinion that the show is in irretrievable decline. Frankly, I'd be a lot more likely to see a production in Europe before I saw this again. It wasn't all bad, it's just a wasted opportunity. And the casting really, really sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 23, 2022 17:08:49 GMT
Either way it is still a business venture, not a hobby or plaything, which some who hold it dear behave at times. You wouldn’t keep a leaking bucket even if it was your favourite bucket. You might spend years and unrealistic amounts patching up the holes, but know that eventually you’ll need to throw it away and replace it with a new one. But when you’re charging people to use the bucket, and the new one isn’t as good as the old one, people are entitled to complain. Especially if they keep pretending the bucket is the same as the old one, and even better than the old one! And especially if the old bucket actually wasn't full of holes but was just allowed to get stale so they could ditch it to replace it with a smaller one...while a corresponding bucket on the other side of the pond is in good shape. New Phantom is regularly on TKTS. Old one was rarely on it pre-pandemic. I love how 'for the 21st century' this is that the new pyro in the overture looks even more dated than the original. Just...what were they thinking? And I finally saw that 'All Star Musicals' performance and my God, the casting is even worse than I had expected. Lucy looks great but those vocals at the end... And Killian makes certain subpar Phantoms of the past look like they're on par with Michael Crawford. I'm with inthenose on this...ALW has checked out mentally and the show is now in decline. They just don't care any more. And it doesn't seem like the audiences do either. It'll be interesting to see how closely this proposed European tour follows the old model or whether it borrows any CamMac ideas, since it won't be produced by Mackintosh. |
|
3,486 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 23, 2022 19:33:34 GMT
So Buquet leaks. Who knew.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 23, 2022 20:50:11 GMT
Lol. I do feel for fans of the show and their disappointment. I was just looking at it from a business point of view. One side needs the other to survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 23, 2022 22:32:03 GMT
Lol. I do feel for fans of the show and their disappointment. I was just looking at it from a business point of view. One side needs the other to survive. Which I would appreciate more if this were practically any show other than the "most profitable entertainment event of all time, with total estimated worldwide gross receipts of over $6 billion". I understand trying to bail out a listing ship, I don't understand drilling the holes in the hull yourself, sacking all the crew, then wondering why your beautiful cruise liner is suddenly sinking. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 23, 2022 22:45:53 GMT
Agreed. But if you used to earn a quarter of a billion a year from your product then that number dwindled massively due to increased costs all round what would you do, and would it involve a big horse?
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 23, 2022 23:59:24 GMT
Agreed. But if you used to earn a quarter of a billion a year from your product then that number dwindled massively due to increased costs all round what would you do, and would it involve a big horse? It doesn't quite work like that though, because the only reason that bottom line number dwindled massively was Covid. Not falling sales, not increased running costs. Here's what actually happened.Everything that happened at this show was related to residual payments and the complex situation regarding the contracts of director Hal Prince, the late Maria Björnsson and a few other creatives (to a much lesser extent).Prince in particular - ever since the show opened - was receiving a nightly percentage of the box office gross. This may sound absolutely mental, but it has some logic. Staging musicals is a very risky and hugely expensive business, especially groundbreaking shows with new technology, huge special effects, a sizeable orchestra and large cast. Add a star name, Michael Crawford, on top of that (also with his own sizeable slice of the pie each night) and the producers naturally will try and keep costs as a low as possible wherever they can, until the show is up and making money. If a mega show/film bombs and loses investors millions, it can take with it the credibility and entire career of the director, star and anybody else who cost the money men moolah. A director will often trade off a huge freelance salary in return for a percentage of box office, which gives them incentive to do their best (and most commercially successful) work, which in turn sells more tickets. It's like working on commission. These contracts remained in place from when work began on the show in 1985, right through until 2020. They were cast-iron. Attempts may have been made to buy people out of their contracts for a lump sum. Naturally, these would've been declined. With the show earning well over $6 billion at the time of closing, you can imagine this was hundreds of millions of pounds that RUG were "losing". Then two things happened. First of all, Hal Prince sadly died in July 2019. Then, Covid struck. The show was forced to close. But plans were already afoot. The original production was officially closed. The producers could now open a legally distinct new version of The Phantom of the Opera, with "new direction" (Seth Sklar-Heyn) and "new designs" (Matt Kinley). After extensive and very careful consultation with specialist intellectual property lawyers, of course. As you can imagine, neither the new director, designer - or any other beneficiaries from the original production contracts - will be receiving a penny in box office revenue. It's a new show. Now the producers get 100% of the take every single night, with no estates to pay massive residuals to. It's 2020, and seeing as the show is now closed, it's our one opportunity to also do all that good stuff to the theatre, upgrading it all nice and ready for another 30 year run. While we're at it, let's cut running costs by using all this marvellous 2020 technology we obviously didn't have back in 1986. As a result, many of the crew were laid off, troublesome and labour intensive effects/staging were cut or restaged to not require crew to operate (notably the angel) and around half of the orchestra were dismissed, again hugely saving on running costs. Nowadays, not only is the show cheaper than ever to run, the producers are actually making more money at the box office than they ever have in the past, because they are out of those contracts. This whole thing has been a legal flimflam. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 24, 2022 9:26:03 GMT
Agreed. But if you used to earn a quarter of a billion a year from your product then that number dwindled massively due to increased costs all round what would you do, and would it involve a big horse? It doesn't quite work like that though, because the only reason that bottom line number dwindled massively was Covid. Not falling sales, not increased running costs. Here's what actually happened.Everything that happened at this show was related to residual payments and the complex situation regarding the contracts of director Hal Prince, the late Maria Björnsson and a few other creatives (to a much lesser extent).Prince in particular - ever since the show opened - was receiving a nightly percentage of the box office gross. This may sound absolutely mental, but it has some logic. Staging musicals is a very risky and hugely expensive business, especially groundbreaking shows with new technology, huge special effects, a sizeable orchestra and large cast. Add a star name, Michael Crawford, on top of that (also with his own sizeable slice of the pie each night) and the producers naturally will try and keep costs as a low as possible wherever they can, until the show is up and making money. If a mega show/film bombs and loses investors millions, it can take with it the credibility and entire career of the director, star and anybody else who cost the money men moolah. A director will often trade off a huge freelance salary in return for a percentage of box office, which gives them incentive to do their best (and most commercially successful) work, which in turn sells more tickets. It's like working on commission. These contracts remained in place from when work began on the show in 1985, right through until 2020. They were cast-iron. Attempts may have been made to buy people out of their contracts for a lump sum. Naturally, these would've been declined. With the show earning well over $6 billion at the time of closing, you can imagine this was hundreds of millions of pounds that RUG were "losing". Then two things happened. First of all, Hal Prince sadly died in July 2019. Then, Covid struck. The show was forced to close. But plans were already afoot. The original production was officially closed. The producers could now open a legally distinct new version of The Phantom of the Opera, with "new direction" (Seth Sklar-Heyn) and "new designs" (Matt Kinley). After extensive and very careful consultation with specialist intellectual property lawyers, of course. As you can imagine, neither the new director, designer - or any other beneficiaries from the original production contracts - will be receiving a penny in box office revenue. It's a new show. Now the producers get 100% of the take every single night, with no estates to pay massive residuals to. It's 2020, and seeing as the show is now closed, it's our one opportunity to also do all that good stuff to the theatre, upgrading it all nice and ready for another 30 year run. While we're at it, let's cut running costs by using all this marvellous 2020 technology we obviously didn't have back in 1986. As a result, many of the crew were laid off, troublesome and labour intensive effects/staging were cut or restaged to not require crew to operate (notably the angel) and around half of the orchestra were dismissed, again hugely saving on running costs. Nowadays, not only is the show cheaper than ever to run, the producers are actually making more money at the box office than they ever have in the past, because they are out of those contracts. This whole thing has been a legal flimflam. Yup, and this was entirely obvious from the beginning. And yet people insisted on believing the nonsense that somehow they'd get some kind of 'spruced up' Phantom when the reality has been a downgrade. A downgrade musically, a downgrade scenically, a downgrade in direction, and a downgrade in casting. The original production was still profitable. Yes, Cameron had deliberately stopped maintaining it because he had planned for it to be obsolete (which is why the Angel basically stopped working entirely in the last few months). He did the same with Miz. Posters then post that how much 'fresher' the show is - well, no sh!t if you deliberately don't care for the original. It didn't need to be that way, and it isn't on Broadway. Any holes in it were self-inflicted. And the nonsense that 'oh, the scenery is very old and it has gone past its natural life' is BS. I don't see them saying that on Broadway and that production only a year and a bit younger than the original London production. In reality, set pieces were regularly replaced during the course of the run. Just not after Hal died, and we know why. Even if none of this were the case, better to have closed the show and left it at that. Rather than play these dubious games with the truth and install a touring version and claim it is the "brilliant original in its entirety". |
|
