3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 13, 2021 22:17:03 GMT
Can't wait to see the new version in two weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jul 14, 2021 15:34:15 GMT
so i lurked around stage door and saw them moving the head of the horse from All I Ask of You. OH FFS!!!!!! (at the horse) Really really really did not want the golden angel to have been replaced with this... |
|
2,259 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 14, 2021 16:18:09 GMT
Ok this is probably going to be a bit controversial but I could never see how the Angel actually fitted in the story. If Raoul and Christine have run to the roof then it actually makes no sense to have the Angel there. And whilst I actually loved the spectacle of the Angel rising as the Phantom sings, it didn't make sense logically to me. At least the Phantom appearing from behind a statue which is part of the Opera House roof is more logical. Or is that just me being obtuse?
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jul 14, 2021 18:55:32 GMT
Ok this is probably going to be a bit controversial but I could never see how the Angel actually fitted in the story. If Raoul and Christine have run to the roof then it actually makes no sense to have the Angel there. And whilst I actually loved the spectacle of the Angel rising as the Phantom sings, it didn't make sense logically to me. At least the Phantom appearing from behind a statue which is part of the Opera House roof is more logical. Or is that just me being obtuse? The Liberty Angel is part of the actual physical architecture and decoration of the Paris Opera House roof. It's a legitimate reference to the architecture of the setting.  |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 14, 2021 18:56:36 GMT
Richey,
The rooftop of the Opera House has many statues, levels, and overall opulent design. As the Angel descends at the end of All I Ask of You, Bjornson/Prince's staging suggests that the Phantom had been spying on them behind this Angel statue, which also serves to symbolize the Phantom as a Fallen Angel, as the Angel is Falling before our eyes. Imagine how dull it would have been to have the Phantom simply step out from behind. Whenever I see the show, the minute the Phantom's hand appears over the Angel, the audience gasps, realizing the Phantom has heard Christine profess her love for someone else, and gasping at wait how the heck did an actor get into that Angel! It is all in all a COOL theatrical concept.
Then, as Phantom's All I Ask of You Reprise ends, he is brought back up, and the audience is brought back into the auditorium of the Opera house, and the Angel goes back to being part of the proscenium. But on his way up, the Phantom appears to direct the lightning strikes, foreshadowing something awful about to happen as we shiver helplessly in our seats watching the clueless actors walk up for their bows. (What will the Phantom do now? Jump out of the way of the actors on their way downstage? Ugh)
Finally, with being in the Angel, the Phantom is in the perfect spot to pull the chandelier down in full view of the audience.
|
|
2,259 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 14, 2021 19:08:19 GMT
Ok this is probably going to be a bit controversial but I could never see how the Angel actually fitted in the story. If Raoul and Christine have run to the roof then it actually makes no sense to have the Angel there. And whilst I actually loved the spectacle of the Angel rising as the Phantom sings, it didn't make sense logically to me. At least the Phantom appearing from behind a statue which is part of the Opera House roof is more logical. Or is that just me being obtuse? The Liberty Angel is part of the actual physical architecture and decoration of the Paris Opera House roof. It's a legitimate reference to the architecture of the setting. I never realised that was there. I visited the Opera House years ago and was completely mesmerised by the staircase and all the sculptures but I never noticed that one! Don't know how I missed it lol Puts the scene in better context now. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2021 20:00:08 GMT
Richey, The rooftop of the Opera House has many statues, levels, and overall opulent design. As the Angel descends at the end of All I Ask of You, Bjornson/Prince's staging suggests that the Phantom had been spying on them behind this Angel statue, which also serves to symbolize the Phantom as a Fallen Angel, as the Angel is Falling before our eyes. Imagine how dull it would have been to have the Phantom simply step out from behind. Whenever I see the show, the minute the Phantom's hand appears over the Angel, the audience gasps, realizing the Phantom has heard Christine profess her love for someone else, and gasping at wait how the heck did an actor get into that Angel! It is all in all a COOL theatrical concept. Then, as Phantom's All I Ask of You Reprise ends, he is brought back up, and the audience is brought back into the auditorium of the Opera house, and the Angel goes back to being part of the proscenium. But on his way up, the Phantom appears to direct the lightning strikes, foreshadowing something awful about to happen as we shiver helplessly in our seats watching the clueless actors walk up for their bows. (What will the Phantom do now? Jump out of the way of the actors on their way downstage? Ugh) Finally, with being in the Angel, the Phantom is in the perfect spot to pull the chandelier down in full view of the audience. Really well put. I remember seeing it for the first time with my Mum. Dave Willetts was Phantom and Michael Ball as Raoul. We were in the circle so that moment when he appears at the top of the proscenium made me jump and stuck with me along with many of the other tricks and set pieces. I’m more of a Les Mis person and it’s the same for me now the original staging is gone. The death of the students and Enjolras on the barricade with the simple but breathtaking moment as the music swells and the revolve spins and they’re gone…. Again a moment of theatre burned into my memory since my first visit to the Palace. Carting him off in a wheelbarrow doesn’t cut it for me. Changing these things for a tour is fair enough, I understand and adjust my expectations. And as many have said you’re never short changed with a Cameron production, but so many of these little moments are what made these shows the blockbusters they are. So sad they’re seen as expendable. It’s why I don’t watch Bond films on ITV. Hacked to bits and a shadow of the original. Yeah the story is still there but it makes something magical a bit more ordinary. |
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 14, 2021 20:10:46 GMT
Just think, by 10.15pm on 27 July, all the speculation will cease and the truth about the new production will be laid out bare for all to see - good, bad or indifferent. What if (shock horror) there is a horse AND an angel? What if the chandelier does a vegas style plummet and then swings into the stage as before? Just imagine if the new production genuinely improves on the old version? And imagine if great sound design and new orchestrations renders the reduction in instruments irrelevant? So many questions. Can't wait for the answers.
|
|
42ndBlvd
Swing
I'll be back where I was born to be
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Jul 14, 2021 23:16:36 GMT
Just think, by 10.15pm on 27 July, all the speculation will cease and the truth about the new production will be laid out bare for all to see - good, bad or indifferent. What if (shock horror) there is a horse AND an angel? What if the chandelier does a vegas style plummet and then swings into the stage as before? Just imagine if the new production genuinely improves on the old version? And imagine if great sound design and new orchestrations renders the reduction in instruments irrelevant? So many questions. Can't wait for the answers. There is no Angel or new chandelier. These are all things that disappointingly have been already confirmed… |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 15, 2021 1:13:30 GMT
Ceebee, I don't know if I'll regret asking this, but what do you consider to be speculation? It sounds like you are already convinced that whatever changes were made will be fine. If that's your personal opinion, then that is wonderful.
Based on all of the empirical evidence we have, we can definitively say that there is a horse, there is no Angel, there is no Vegas style plummet. Will it swing to the stage? Perhaps, since it does appear to be the original chandelier, even though that chandelier was not "ready for the 21st century" as the actors, new director, and Cameron (and ostensibly CeeBee) so breathlessly love to remind us over and over.
And great sound design and rendering live musicians irrelevant is an oxymoron at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 15, 2021 15:44:14 GMT
The poster did previously state on this thread that he "welcome[d] any changes" to the "creaky and outdated" original, and called the production that hasn't opened yet "equally brilliant". So my crystal ball predicts a very positive response regardless of what is unveiled on 27 July.
|
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 15, 2021 15:45:03 GMT
Just think, by 10.15pm on 27 July, all the speculation will cease and the truth about the new production will be laid out bare for all to see - good, bad or indifferent. What if (shock horror) there is a horse AND an angel? What if the chandelier does a vegas style plummet and then swings into the stage as before? Just imagine if the new production genuinely improves on the old version? And imagine if great sound design and new orchestrations renders the reduction in instruments irrelevant? So many questions. Can't wait for the answers. There is no Angel or new chandelier. These are all things that disappointingly have been already confirmed… I didn't say a new chandelier. |
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 15, 2021 15:46:47 GMT
The poster did previously state on this thread that he "welcome[d] any changes" to the "creaky and outdated" original, and called the production that hasn't opened yet "equally brilliant". So my crystal ball predicts a very positive response regardless of what is unveiled on 27 July. I do hope so. It'd be good to move the conversation on after months of angst and aggro. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 15, 2021 18:00:43 GMT
It would also be good to continue to let people discuss a topic that is, in fact, on topic for this thread, and people who would rather discuss other elements of this show are welcome to change the subject or visit other threads, if I am not mistaken as to how message boards generally work.
|
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 15, 2021 18:25:16 GMT
It would also be good to continue to let people discuss a topic that is, in fact, on topic for this thread, and people who would rather discuss other elements of this show are welcome to change the subject or visit other threads, if I am not mistaken as to how message boards generally work. No, I don't think you're mistaken - that's how they work. You're right. Let's talk again about the angel, reduction in orchestra, chandelier, proscenium ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 15, 2021 18:56:52 GMT
We could, or we could defend a billionaire making changes to a beloved show simply to save himself a few bucks and how some people find it necessary to defend him on a message board thread devoted to said show.
We could also talk about our favorite Christines. Or the funniest stage mishap we've seen in the show. Or what our favorite intermission drink is. Or perhaps the classism showed in the muted response to Buquet's murder but the immediate demand for revenge with Piangi's murder.
But if you would rather talk about the angel, reduction in orchestra, and chandelier, we certainly can. I hold ALW personally responsible for not buying out CM's half of the show and producing it himself and keeping it intact. With the UK's weaker unions, there is no way the show is less profitable on the West End than Broadway, where the unions are strong and the show is staying in its perfect 1980's state.
|
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 15, 2021 19:03:29 GMT
I think the response to Buquet's murder is not classism, and more a case of "on with the show". Regarding defending a billionaire, I think you'll find it's two billionaires... My view on this matter is that it is a cynical move to dilute the value of the original show in order to mount "...In Concert" style shows. ("Hear the original version in all it's glory" with a couple of leading names - JOJ etc - charging £150 a ticket to watch and hear people sing with the original sized orchestra, no set, fewer overheads, maximised profit.) That's genuinely my view (all previous banter aside). I actually share the concerns raised by others, but remain optimistic and hopeful for the new version. `
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 15, 2021 19:53:12 GMT
I think the response to Buquet's murder is not classism, and more a case of "on with the show". Regarding defending a billionaire, I think you'll find it's two billionaires... My view on this matter is that it is a cynical move to dilute the value of the original show in order to mount "...In Concert" style shows. ("Hear the original version in all it's glory" with a couple of leading names - JOJ etc - charging £150 a ticket to watch and hear people sing with the original sized orchestra, no set, fewer overheads, maximised profit.) That's genuinely my view (all previous banter aside). I actually share the concerns raised by others, but remain optimistic and hopeful for the new version. ` Good quality post. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 15, 2021 20:11:41 GMT
How often do they do those kinds of concerts though? Only for very special anniversaries, really.
|
|
3,473 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 15, 2021 20:42:55 GMT
How often do they do those kinds of concerts though? Only for very special anniversaries, really. Look at the "Les Mis" concert in London... They could be running the show right now but instead they're running the concert through to September. I see a future when concert versions with orchestras and names run parallel to the shows, or even worse, the shows close and concerts become the only way to experience these shows in future. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 21:15:57 GMT
We could, or we could defend a billionaire making changes to a beloved show simply to save himself a few bucks and how some people find it necessary to defend him on a message board thread devoted to said show. I'd happily defend them on here. At the end of the day, ALW and CM can do whatever they want to their production. No production is designed to last 35 years and changes have to be made. It's a tourist trap now and the tourists won't know or care about the differences between the productions. They can still say they saw Phantom in London. Yes, It's a beloved show to many, but those fans aren't owed anything. Like the iconic original staging of Les Miz, we had it, appreciated it and now its gone. If people disapprove of all the changes made to the show, don't see it. But at least see it once, so you know what actual changes have been made before you say how terrible it is. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom4ever on Jul 16, 2021 2:07:41 GMT
If the fans aren't owed anything, the ALW and CM certainly are not owed anything either, including an audience to see their severely-reduced-strictly-for-financial-reasons show. And you are quite right, I for one will not be seeing this particular new production of Phantom, mostly because of how misleading and sneaky CM and ALW have been in promoting the changes (I mean lack of changes I mean total changes I mean only changes for safety reasons I mean only changes for the 21st century I mean no changes I mean it's a tribute to Maria Bjornson I mean we don't have to pay her estate much at all now)
I attended the Spectacular New production of Phantom many times, partly because they clearly and willfully acknowledged it was a new tour, and partly because I knew the Brilliant Original was being well cared for in New York and London. I also went to see the new tour of Les Miz, mostly because it was the only way to see Les Miz and again, I knew if I really wanted to see the original, I could still go to London and see it. But I would never see the new Les Miz in London or the cheap tour that most have us have come to accept is going into Her Majesty's.
Yes I know that's just me and yes I know that busloads of tourists will still want to see Phantom even if it's just Cam's assistant walking onstage and pressing playing on a DVD of the movie, but wow they certainly could have respected the audience a bit more than to lie they way they did.
I know there is no hope of getting the original stagings of Les Miz/Phantom back in London, but I hope we can hold onto the original Phantom in New York as long as possible.
Tourists seeing shows isn't the insult that you suggested it is. None of the long runners would survive without them.
If Prince and Bjornson were here, I think they would quite disagree with your inane theory that a show suddenly must change at the age of 35. How odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2021 4:51:49 GMT
I never said tourist trap was an insult, its fact, and I never said anything about how a show must stop after 35 years. I said it wasnt designed to last 35 years. The London set was on its last legs and needed a big refurb, and when covid hit, they just brought the refurb forward. The stage machinery is not fot for purpose, especially when things can be done so much quicker and easier with new technology. They could have just put the same exact replica production back in, but advertising a 'new production' (if that is what they have finally decided on) is far more appealing to people rather than bring the same old version back in. It will run a few more years at least. Despite its tag line, even Cats wasn't forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 16, 2021 11:21:52 GMT
I never said tourist trap was an insult, its fact, and I never said anything about how a show must stop after 35 years. I said it wasnt designed to last 35 years. The London set was on its last legs and needed a big refurb, and when covid hit, they just brought the refurb forward. The stage machinery is not fot for purpose, especially when things can be done so much quicker and easier with new technology. They could have just put the same exact replica production back in, but advertising a 'new production' (if that is what they have finally decided on) is far more appealing to people rather than bring the same old version back in. It will run a few more years at least. Despite its tag line, even Cats wasn't forever. We've been through this before. The refurb is intended to downgrade the show, not upgrade it. Yes, there will be new technology, but none of it will be used in a way that actually improves the product. Re ALW and CM not owing anyone anything, that's fair. But then ALW's recent pleas on social media for Phantom fans to come back to see the show have an aura of entitlement around them. I think we can safely conclude Hal Prince would NOT have been in favour of what they're doing in London. This is him in 2017: |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 16, 2021 11:25:06 GMT
The poster did previously state on this thread that he "welcome[d] any changes" to the "creaky and outdated" original, and called the production that hasn't opened yet "equally brilliant". So my crystal ball predicts a very positive response regardless of what is unveiled on 27 July. I do hope so. It'd be good to move the conversation on after months of angst and aggro. I think a previous poster's suggestions that this board have two threads (one for the original production, and one for the 'new' version) might be the sensible way forward. Clearly the ones who have decided the new production is amazing have no time for discussions of the original. |
|
