4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jul 14, 2019 13:18:08 GMT
Let's be honest, the average audience member probably goes along to Les Mis for the iconic songs.
They won't know all this back story and, if they did, probably wouldn't care.
|
|
7,066 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jul 14, 2019 13:36:24 GMT
Cameron can’t touch Phantom as he isn’t the sole producer and the new production I think ALW wasn’t keen on so it’s very unlikely to replace the current production.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 13:40:39 GMT
Poster J, do you think the same counts for Phantom? That removing the chandelier, costumes, stairs, boat, chandeliers would not harm the show? Removing the chandelier did the touring production of Phantom no harm! In fact, I found it a far superior production to the London one. A barricade that revolves is not an essential part of Les Mis - the average theatre goer won't notice if the barricade revolves or is pushed on. The story can still powerfully be told either way, it's just a different set design. And your comparison makes no sense as the barricade isn't being lost, it just isn't revolving anymore! Technology advances, artistic styles advance, and theatre has to move with the times to keep attracting the casual audiences that underpin its revenue. That is all this is, and sad as it is for hardcore fans, the commercial justification is blindingly obvious. They will choose a legendary show, which is either of them. The vast majority won't know or care whether the staging used to be different, they will be booking for the name recognition of the show, not what the set is made from! Even if you do think the set is "cheap" (which is entirely subjective), plenty of shows with little or no set are huge successes (look at Come From Away, for example) and they don't have the phenomenal brand recognition that Les Mis has built up over so many years, revolve or no revolve. I would not be at all surprised if Phantom is quickly the one that starts to look tired (arguably it is already). I get that fans of the show are sad to see the original staging go, and don't see the point in changing it. Yet many of the same fans have been complaining for years that the show is a pale imitation of the original already, so to the objective bystander complaining about refreshing it makes no sense. And you have to step back to be that objective bystander to understand how the general public will feel about the changes, which really is that the vast majority will either not know, or if they do they won't care - the music and plot that they recognise will still be there, and that is what counts, and what gives the show the recognition that underpins its box office.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 13:46:28 GMT
Elena Skye (Eponine) has put a video together starring Vivien Parry (Madame T) and other cast members which I found very amusing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 13:57:18 GMT
So last night i saw Les Miz for the 30-something time. Its the show that got me hooked on Musical Theatre and the show i have seen the most in many places across the world and it's also the show i have the most recordings of. I couldn't not be there for the closing of the original production.
I haven't seen the show in about 8 years and i thought the final show was fantastic. Watching the show again made me realise just how good the original staging is. Not just the revolve and barricades, but also the lighting. There are so many great, iconic pictures created through the production. The lighting and smoke at the start of At The End Of The Day, the female ensemble in Lovely Ladies, staying on the middle as the revolve goes around them, Marius, sat alone at the start of Empty Chairs, the male ensemble on the barricades, the shutters in On My Own... i could go on.
Unlike others, i didn't think the show was too fast, i thought the sound was great, but then i was 3 rows from the front and i knew all the words before i went in, though there were a few little changes that i don't recall hearing before.
I thought most of the cast were very good, Dean Chisnall is very easy on the eye and a great voice, i don't get all the praise for Bradley Jaden and i thought Carly Stenson was just ok. I prefer my Fantine's to have a bigger voice. Toby Miles was also good as Marius.
I even cried twice, which surprised me, but the musical has been a big part of my life since 1986 and it's the end of an era. Yes the show itself will continue, and i've yet to see any other production apart from the original, so it will be interesting to see the new production at the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 14, 2019 14:10:20 GMT
One of the many,many problems with the new version is the ridiculously laughable barricade which the producers MUST look at imo.As I have said before here,when I saw it live,I thought that someone was taking the mick.The huge section of the show that deals with the confrontation between the state and the protesters is rendered farcical by the cut-price comical version of the barricade.It has no vertical height or bulk and is quite frankly,a joke. There are entrenched views on this thread and it is a stale-mate situation,but some of us who love the original cannot understand in what way the new version is an improvement rather than a shoddy fake?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 14:30:50 GMT
but those of us who love the original cannot understand in what way the new version is an improvement rather than a shoddy fake? That's not true. There are those of us who love the original, but don't describe the new version as a shoddy fake. I don't think the two are exclusive. I prefer the original, but having seen several productions of the new version, think it's certainly worthy of it's place on a West End (and Broadway) stage. I just wouldn't have closed the only remaining original version to put it there.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 14, 2019 14:48:48 GMT
Furet...edited to ‘some of us’, to avoid pedantic outrage lol.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 14, 2019 14:53:26 GMT
^Can’t agree that the no-chandelier tour of Phantom was superior...completely ruined it for me,sadly
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 14:53:35 GMT
Furet...edited to ‘some of us’, to avoid pedantic outrage lol. I appreciate that, thank you. My outrage has subsided.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 14, 2019 14:54:50 GMT
Glad to hear it...you’re welcome👍
|
|
5,823 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 14, 2019 15:05:05 GMT
So- the question is- will they be allowed to continue calling it the worlds longest running musical ? Because they sure as hell shouldn’t be..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 15:08:10 GMT
So- the question is- will they be allowed to continue calling it the worlds longest running musical ? Because they sure as hell shouldn’t be.. It will be interesting to see what marketing they go with (and what they do with the mural on the wall of the theatre).
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 14, 2019 15:23:13 GMT
Poster J, do you think the same counts for Phantom? That removing the chandelier, costumes, stairs, boat, chandeliers would not harm the show? And putting a cheap revival set in its place?Sorry but I cannot agree with this. There is nothing cheap about the new production, it’s one of the most stunning things I’ve seen on stage and looks BETTER than the original and is better than many if not most West End musicals that I’ve seen. If people prefer the revolve and the nostalgia factor of the original then fine, but to say the new one is cheap is misrepresenting the facts. I don't think it's necessarily about the sets being more or less expensive (though they are cheaper for Cameron, because he doesn't have to pay royalties to John Napier - he tried to buy the intellectual property to the Napier set so he wouldn't have to keep doing that, but Napier refused). It's cheaper in the sense that they have hired two not-so-great and far cheaper assistants to 'direct' the show, and they have no vision. They've merely copied and pasted a lot of the blocking and when that hasn't been copied, it's a bit of mess. The level of attention to the background characters and the lack of knowledge of the novel (knowledge which Nunn and Caird had in spades) is really evident. And while it may not look cheaper, it certainly sounds it - the new orchestrations pale in comparison to what was heard in the original production (until they shoved the new orchestrations into the Queens). The tours of the restaged version have benefited from very strong casting. It will be interesting as to whether the show will really hold up when, inevitably, not so great casts (like the most recent one in London) are put into the production. Time will tell as to whether this will last, or whether, as on Broadway, the restaged one will have a very limited shelf life. In the case of the restaged Phantom, though, that is cheap as hell and doesn't hold a candle to the original. Connor's comment in the souvenir brochure for the 2012 tour that the production was 'every bit as opulent' as the Prince/Björnson/Bridge original was laughable. It's no wonder they've ditched it and are returning to the original for the tour next year.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 14, 2019 15:48:46 GMT
scarpia,totally agree with every word of your summation 🙂
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jul 14, 2019 16:10:35 GMT
So- the question is- will they be allowed to continue calling it the worlds longest running musical ? Because they sure as hell shouldn’t be.. I'm not sure what the "rules" are regarding these things but the in concert version does not begin until tenth August. If it started on Monday they could have a claim but starting in a month's time?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 16:25:46 GMT
The tours of the restaged version have benefited from very strong casting. It will be interesting as to whether the show will really hold up when, inevitably, not so great casts (like the most recent one in London) are put into the production. Time will tell as to whether this will last, or whether, as on Broadway, the restaged one will have a very limited shelf life. To be fair though, the 2014 Broadway production of the new restaged version lasted longer than the 2006 revival of the original version. I think that's just Broadway/Les Mis, rather than a reflection on the new staging. But as someone said a few pages back, I do wonder if when sales do eventually start to slow down in London (to the point of closing), whether Cameron will bring back the original version with all the hype that would go with it.
|
|
1,057 posts
|
Post by David J on Jul 14, 2019 16:37:05 GMT
I’ve said my peace about loosing the original and the long running title.
Just PLEASE Cameron, for the love of all that’s good in this world, put in the bloody locations and dates into those sodding projections.
Just for the benefit of those tourists you want to make money off. Don’t expect them to keep looking at the programmes they buy to make out what’s going on
Rant over. I’ll post my thoughts on yesterday evening later
|
|
19,684 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 14, 2019 17:14:12 GMT
Sorry but I cannot agree with this. There is nothing cheap about the new production, it’s one of the most stunning things I’ve seen on stage and looks BETTER than the original and is better than many if not most West End musicals that I’ve seen. If people prefer the revolve and the nostalgia factor of the original then fine, but to say the new one is cheap is misrepresenting the facts. I don't think it's necessarily about the sets being more or less expensive (though they are cheaper for Cameron, because he doesn't have to pay royalties to John Napier - he tried to buy the intellectual property to the Napier set so he wouldn't have to keep doing that, but Napier refused). It's cheaper in the sense that they have hired two not-so-great and far cheaper assistants to 'direct' the show, and they have no vision. They've merely copied and pasted a lot of the blocking and when that hasn't been copied, it's a bit of mess. The level of attention to the background characters and the lack of knowledge of the novel (knowledge which Nunn and Caird had in spades) is really evident. And while it may not look cheaper, it certainly sounds it - the new orchestrations pale in comparison to what was heard in the original production (until they shoved the new orchestrations into the Queens). I was responding to Dave’s “cheap revival set” comment. I totally get how the new version releases CM from paying royalties to the original creatives. He’s a businessman and without him the show wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Everyone involved in the original has made a very fine living off it for over 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 14, 2019 17:22:20 GMT
I’ve said my peace about loosing the original and the long running title. Just PLEASE Cameron, for the love of all that’s good in this world, put in the bloody locations and dates into those sodding projections. Just for the benefit of those tourists you want to make money off. Don’t expect them to keep looking at the programmes they buy to make out what’s going on This was one of my major bugbears with the 2009 production. Without those, how a first-timer is supposed to follow the plot is beyond me. This is one of the reasons that I feel the 2009 one is much more about belting through the score as power ballads rather than telling a story with in-depth characterisation.
|
|
1,563 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 14, 2019 17:31:04 GMT
Poster J, do you think the same counts for Phantom? That removing the chandelier, costumes, stairs, boat, chandeliers would not harm the show? And putting a cheap revival set in its place? I think a big part of the "brand" is not the name of the show alone, but the fact that is has a solid, 30 year running original production that stands as a house. True, les Mis became somewhat of a name because of Susan Boyle and the film, but fact is that the production has closed and a new, cheaper revival is going to replace the show. Will tourists, who visit London once, who only might choose 1 show to visit, choose an original legendary blockbuster production that has been running for 30 years or a cheap modern revival production? Time will tell. Also, the concerts audiences were full of long time fans, not random tourists. Has there ever, in the histpry of musical theatre, been a case, where a revival of a show, toned down and cheaper, has been more successful than the long-running original of the same show? The revival of Chicago, vastly stripped down was way more successful than the original,
|
|
1,563 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 14, 2019 17:33:45 GMT
Given what posters have said about the way in which the original version has been watered down / sped up / cut etc, it seems clear from overall ticket sales that the average theatre goer hasn't noticed, and the name Les Miserables is enough to keep the show going. It will still be a tourist trap and will keep doing brisk business. I actually think that the classic set pieces are less important in Les Mis than Phantom, as the re-imagined POTO tour showed. Les Mis can exist without the revolve, but Phantom without the boat, chandelier etc would be tricky. I loved the original production, I first saw it at the Palace in the late 80s, and it was, indeed, epic and it saddens me that it will no longer be seen. However, I also really enjoyed the new version when I saw it in Manchester. It paves the way for a money making tour of the future though, the original production returns. Just like Phantom is now doing! A tourist trap is something mediocre or bad that sells because of unknowing tourists (Thriller). Les Mis isn’t a tourist trap just because tourists like it. People in London like it too as they do all over the world.
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by stuartww on Jul 14, 2019 21:15:10 GMT
Myself and my husband were there last night. Thought it was one of the best cards we have seen. The Thenardier’s were cracking! Had an amazing time, and it was hubby’s first last night (after opening night at Joseph on Thursday (he insists he was “papped” on the red carpet - I didn’t have the heart to tell him Gary Wilmot was behind him).
Back to Les Mis. A brilliant show ruined in part by the camera crew we were sat next to in the front row of the Dress Circle, in particular the lady sat next to me. Constantly checking her phone and texting - I assumed she was in contact with colleagues elsewhere in the building...until I snuck a look and she was just texting a friend! Then, just before curtain up on Act 2 she clambers over the back of the seat and out of auditorium along row B. She then decided to return just as the barricade is forming on stage, thus ruining the final ever time this will happen for half of row and and rows behind us! Totally unprofessional, and if the camera was picking up sound, a few expletives from my direction may have been picked up!
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 14, 2019 21:41:22 GMT
Were they working today to remove everything.....by the way, at the end was it still the double revolve, or had they downscaled to a single revolve?
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 14, 2019 21:46:27 GMT
Gotta ask, did the 'queer' party goer always kiss the waiter? It got an 'immigrants we get the job done' type. Reaction! I thought that was spontaneous, but I hadn't seen the stage production in about 10 years before tonight so wondered if it was just me not remembering it or if it was improv! And yes, the amount of sniffling in the Grand Circle from Empty Chairs onwards was a bit crazy. The woman beside me was inconsolable from On My Own the whole way to the end! I noticed that Friday evening too, and hadn't seen it before, so may have been spontaneous at some point but seemingly stuck!
|
|