|
|
Post by FrontrowverPaul on Jan 25, 2020 18:51:07 GMT
I was told that I didn't have to pay because it was the same performance, for a different performance there would have been a charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 16:33:16 GMT
Certainly looks like the current International Tour staging, with the 25th Anniversary tour chandelier. Which isn’t exactly the replica of the London/New York productions promised in the press release. Excuse the rant, but I've had it with Cameron Mackintosh. This is piss poor and unacceptable. If it’s no longer economically viable to tour the actual “Brilliant Original” Phantom, then fine – but be honest about it! Don’t bill it as the “Brilliant Original” in all the publicity and advertising! And for heaven’s sake, don’t insult our intelligence with ridiculously PR-managed comments in that publicity video which makes spurious claims that this is any kind of improvement on what Hal Prince, Maria Björnson and Andrew Bridge achieved in 1986. The set looks even worse than the current World Tour. Not only is the Angel missing (it’ll be replaced by a tacky statue, à la Laurence Connor crap we got in 2012), but what on earth is going on with the proscenium sculptures? They’ve also replaced the chandelier with that very odd- (and IMHO cheap-) looking Regency one, rather than the original which is based on the actual chandelier in the Paris Opera House. I had a horrible feeling when Hal Prince passed away that Cameron Mackintosh was going to capitalise on that by taking an axe to his beautiful production and making it as cheap as possible to line his already well-lined pockets. I hope the audience who comes to see it react in the same way as audiences did in 2012 to that awful restaged ‘SPECTACULAR’ production; when I went to see that, many people in the audience remembered the previous full-scale tours of the original production and didn’t have much nice to say about what they were seeing in its place. I’ve got my tickets, anyway, but I suspect I will need to see the show again in London to remind myself of the beauty of the true ‘Brilliant Original’. I used to have massive respect for Sir Cameron in the 1990s when he insisted that tour audiences should not get a lower-quality product that West End and Broadway ones. He’s now chucked that philosophy out the window and is going into full Kenwright mode, destroying his legacy in the process and simultaneously disrespecting a Broadway legend who’s barely cold in his grave. Hmmmm, this is a bit harsh. Especially as we haven't even seen the set yet! To compare Dame Cameron to Kenwright is just mad - they are still chasms apart. And he really has remained one of the few to bring West End quality to the regions. Miss Saigon (very recently) and Les Mis (now) are the same! And Mary Poppins in the West End now is the same as the recent tour. We will have to wait and see how Phantom turns out. But I feel sure the quality will be good. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 9:33:03 GMT
Excuse the rant, but I've had it with Cameron Mackintosh. This is piss poor and unacceptable. If it’s no longer economically viable to tour the actual “Brilliant Original” Phantom, then fine – but be honest about it! Don’t bill it as the “Brilliant Original” in all the publicity and advertising! And for heaven’s sake, don’t insult our intelligence with ridiculously PR-managed comments in that publicity video which makes spurious claims that this is any kind of improvement on what Hal Prince, Maria Björnson and Andrew Bridge achieved in 1986. The set looks even worse than the current World Tour. Not only is the Angel missing (it’ll be replaced by a tacky statue, à la Laurence Connor crap we got in 2012), but what on earth is going on with the proscenium sculptures? They’ve also replaced the chandelier with that very odd- (and IMHO cheap-) looking Regency one, rather than the original which is based on the actual chandelier in the Paris Opera House. I had a horrible feeling when Hal Prince passed away that Cameron Mackintosh was going to capitalise on that by taking an axe to his beautiful production and making it as cheap as possible to line his already well-lined pockets. I hope the audience who comes to see it react in the same way as audiences did in 2012 to that awful restaged ‘SPECTACULAR’ production; when I went to see that, many people in the audience remembered the previous full-scale tours of the original production and didn’t have much nice to say about what they were seeing in its place. I’ve got my tickets, anyway, but I suspect I will need to see the show again in London to remind myself of the beauty of the true ‘Brilliant Original’. I used to have massive respect for Sir Cameron in the 1990s when he insisted that tour audiences should not get a lower-quality product that West End and Broadway ones. He’s now chucked that philosophy out the window and is going into full Kenwright mode, destroying his legacy in the process and simultaneously disrespecting a Broadway legend who’s barely cold in his grave. Hmmmm, this is a bit harsh. Especially as we haven't even seen the set yet! To compare Dame Cameron to Kenwright is just mad - they are still chasms apart. And he really has remained one of the few to bring West End quality to the regions. Miss Saigon (very recently) and Les Mis (now) are the same! And Mary Poppins in the West End now is the same as the recent tour. We will have to wait and see how Phantom turns out. But I feel sure the quality will be good. From Nikolai Foster's twitter. Phantom fit up at Curve. View this full size and you will see a circular chandelier with vertical rigging. Image LinkThis is a vertical drop show and anyone sat in the front 5 rows will completely miss it, in it's entirety. I paid good money on the belief this was "the Brilliant Original". I selected specific seats for a group of people who havn't seen the show and sat them specifically where I believed they'd get the best impression of the show. I feel like I've wasted my money. To know now some of the pivotal action from the production has been restaged and will be happening behind us, feels like my trust has been abused. I'm so angry, first world problems and all, but this is so insulting to people who paid honest money to see this show.  |
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 29, 2020 10:23:42 GMT
That’s annoying. I’ve put my group on the 3rd and 4th rows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 10:28:58 GMT
Hmmm, perhaps I am being slow - but I can't even see the chandelier in this picture. And surely you can't tell exactly how the chandelier will work from this pic?
I see why there is concern about it being called "The Brilliant Original." But advertising has never exactly been an 100% honest industry and so long as it's close enough, I'd say they can get away with it.
And anyone on here will know that there are constraints in touring musicals that mean it's never gonna be EXACTLY the same as a sit down production from the 80s.
I am sure it will be spectacular enough! Whatever the chandelier does/doesn't do. The musical is also more than just the chandelier....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 10:35:15 GMT
And even if you CAN see the chandelier in that pic, there's no way you can hypothesise which rows will/won't be able to see it!
|
|
1,323 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jan 29, 2020 10:51:26 GMT
I didn't book for this until late November and my ticket says - Message for Stalls D
Please be advised that Row C may go on sale at a later date, as so Row D will no longer be the front row
|
|
|
|
Post by FrontrowverPaul on Jan 29, 2020 11:42:43 GMT
I didn't book for this until late November and my ticket says - Message for Stalls D Please be advised that Row C may go on sale at a later date, as so Row D will no longer be the front row They changed my row D for row C with no hassle or charge. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 12:13:15 GMT
And even if you CAN see the chandelier in that pic, there's no way you can hypothesise which rows will/won't be able to see it! To me, I can see a big gold circle almost in the middle of the picture, which appears to have 4/5 rows in front of it (in the context of the picture) and 4 very straight steel drops to it. That looks, to my eyes, like vertical rigging in the middle of the auditorium. Whilst 2 + 2 + 2 could = 5, to me it looks very much like this chandelier only moves in one direction and anyone sat in the front stalls is going to have to turn round to see it, should they know when to. However, I may be able to provide some light (pun intended) on the situation later. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 12:21:58 GMT
And even if you CAN see the chandelier in that pic, there's no way you can hypothesise which rows will/won't be able to see it! To me, I can see a big gold circle almost in the middle of the picture, which appears to have 4/5 rows in front of it (in the context of the picture) and 4 very straight steel drops to it. That looks, to my eyes, like vertical rigging in the middle of the auditorium. Whilst 2 + 2 + 2 could = 5, to me it looks very much like this chandelier only moves in one direction and anyone sat in the front stalls is going to have to turn round to see it, should they know when to. However, I may be able to provide some light (pun intended) on the situation later. Haha, please do :-) Agree it may be a straight drop - but to land on the stage it would therefore need to be kinda at top of proscenium; where the angel/statue thing is that comes down for the All I Ask Of You reprise at end Act 1 with Phantom on top of it. So everyone will see it. OR, if it was 4/5 rows back, and a straight drop, it couldn't then land on the stage so would need to stop mid air. Which I agree would be a bit meh. Though not on it's own a reason to be demanding refunds that it's not the brilliant original! Can anyone with a better memory than me recall if the chandelier in the 25th tour moved at all? I can't remember. Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. |
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 29, 2020 12:39:49 GMT
To me, I can see a big gold circle almost in the middle of the picture, which appears to have 4/5 rows in front of it (in the context of the picture) and 4 very straight steel drops to it. That looks, to my eyes, like vertical rigging in the middle of the auditorium. Whilst 2 + 2 + 2 could = 5, to me it looks very much like this chandelier only moves in one direction and anyone sat in the front stalls is going to have to turn round to see it, should they know when to. However, I may be able to provide some light (pun intended) on the situation later. Haha, please do :-) Agree it may be a straight drop - but to land on the stage it would therefore need to be kinda at top of proscenium; where the angel/statue thing is that comes down for the All I Ask Of You reprise at end Act 1 with Phantom on top of it. So everyone will see it. OR, if it was 4/5 rows back, and a straight drop, it couldn't then land on the stage so would need to stop mid air. Which I agree would be a bit meh. Though not on it's own a reason to be demanding refunds that it's not the brilliant original! Can anyone with a better memory than me recall if the chandelier in the 25th tour moved at all? I can't remember. Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. I think it wobbled a bit and some bits of shiny paper fell down accompanied by the sound of glass smashing. I don’t think most people even realised, maybe if you were in the upper levels you would. it was a damp squib either way! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 12:58:23 GMT
I think it wobbled a bit and some bits of shiny paper fell down accompanied by the sound of glass smashing. That's not a special effect, that's New Year's Eve round our way... Brilliant 😂🤣! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 12:59:41 GMT
Haha, please do :-) Agree it may be a straight drop - but to land on the stage it would therefore need to be kinda at top of proscenium; where the angel/statue thing is that comes down for the All I Ask Of You reprise at end Act 1 with Phantom on top of it. So everyone will see it. OR, if it was 4/5 rows back, and a straight drop, it couldn't then land on the stage so would need to stop mid air. Which I agree would be a bit meh. Though not on it's own a reason to be demanding refunds that it's not the brilliant original! Can anyone with a better memory than me recall if the chandelier in the 25th tour moved at all? I can't remember. Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. I think it wobbled a bit and some bits of shiny paper fell down accompanied by the sound of glass smashing. I don’t think most people even realised, maybe if you were in the upper levels you would. it was a damp squib either way! Yeah that’s kind of what I remember. I think it might have descended a bit and stopped quite a long way above the stalls, but I couldn’t swear on it. |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jan 29, 2020 18:30:30 GMT
mm,thanks for posting the fascinating photo.Looking forward to this version of the immortal POTO.
I do love the fact that the Curve has such an open-door policy where you can often see the set,scenery and costumes on show through the backstage areas which are surrounded by the winding circular public walkways.The huge photo and artefact displays that are often displayed are great photo opps.A very welcoming and user-friendly venue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 21:33:56 GMT
However, I may be able to provide some light (pun intended) on the situation later. Haha, please do :-) May have to eat my words... |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jan 30, 2020 0:27:49 GMT
Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. I wouldn't exactly say the chandelier, falling the way it has since 1986, existed for for 33 years simply for "fabulosity"'s sake. If we're talking about the original West End production, Hal Prince himself described it as very much of a "black box" set, with only the most essential elements included/set pieces selected so the audience can fill in the rest. IMO, the staging of the "brilliant original" was perfect at letting the show spill out into the auditorium at the right moments (the chandelier rise from the stage, the surround sound effects); or conversely, drawing the audience in onto the other side of the proscenium (Think of Me sequence, chandelier crash), while still managing to strike a very elegant balance of minimal and extravagant, depending on scene. If Hal didn't skimp on the chandelier, why do new productions think they have the right to revise his vision? My biggest complaint about the restaged tour was how literal everything had become, the sets becoming more sumptuous at first glance, every scene happening where it looks like it's supposed to, everything being "filled in" for you. All the lavishness contained within each set creates a very clear boundary between what's happening onstage (the Performance) and what's outside of it (us the audience). The chandelier then becomes a mere gimmick, not really being part of the stage, already on the ceiling from the beginning, being uncovered in a dramatic swoosh of fabric because the auction scene mentions it, or dropping a few metres for a bit of shock value because the audience expect it. Why reduce the chandelier to a special effects prop when it arguably plays such a big role in the plot of the story? I could go on and on but you probably get my point  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 9:18:44 GMT
Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star.
If we're talking about the original West End production, Hal Prince himself described it as very much of a "black box" set, with only the most essential elements included/set pieces selected so the audience can fill in the rest. IMO, the staging of the "brilliant original" was perfect at letting the show spill out into the auditorium at the right moments (the chandelier rise from the stage, the surround sound effects); or conversely, drawing the audience in onto the other side of the proscenium (Think of Me sequence, chandelier crash), while still managing to strike a very elegant balance of minimal and extravagant, depending on scene. If Hal didn't skimp on the chandelier, why do new productions think they have the right to revise his vision? My biggest complaint about the restaged tour was how literal everything had become, the sets becoming more sumptuous at first glance, every scene happening where it looks like it's supposed to, everything being "filled in" for you. All the lavishness contained within each set creates a very clear boundary between what's happening onstage (the Performance) and what's outside of it (us the audience). The chandelier then becomes a mere gimmick, not really being part of the stage, already on the ceiling from the beginning, being uncovered in a dramatic swoosh of fabric because the auction scene mentions it, or dropping a few metres for a bit of shock value because the audience expect it. Why reduce the chandelier to a special effects prop when it arguably plays such a big role in the plot of the story? I could go on and on but you probably get my point Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed? |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jan 30, 2020 11:44:56 GMT
Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed? My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 12:56:37 GMT
Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed? My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica. Yeah good point, get where you’re coming from. It is indeed written in to the story. Unlike the Starlight bridge or Les Mis resolve.... |
|
316 posts
|
Post by ABr on Jan 30, 2020 13:20:54 GMT
My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica. Yeah good point, get where you’re coming from. It is indeed written in to the story. Unlike the Starlight bridge or Les Mis resolve.... The entire opening scene with the auction would not make sense if there was no chandelier, its one of the few things that I felt the film did really well, was setting up the scene with the chandelier raising back into its original place, and the theatre transforming back as it takes you back to that time. Where like you mention the bridge for Starlight or the resolve are just theatre staging that were used to create the show, which some people will always mourn if they are replaced. So I think the chandelier needs to featured, its just it may not be in the same capacity as in London, with it being on tour! |
|
14 posts
|
Post by onair on Jan 30, 2020 19:29:30 GMT
The chandelier in the Phantom is such and iconic scene. It amazes me how many current production are destroying so many iconic scenes from musicals when on tour.
Worst offender The current Priscilla Uk tour which cheapest set and bus and costumes they could find. This 2019 / 2020 will be remembered for this.
Next up We will rock you uk tour which had its heart ripped out with an awful video screen set.
Now we have a budget Phantom tour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 9:19:41 GMT
The chandelier in the Phantom is such and iconic scene. It amazes me how many current production are destroying so many iconic scenes from musicals when on tour. Worst offender The current Priscilla Uk tour which cheapest set and bus and costumes they could find. This 2019 / 2020 will be remembered for this. Next up We will rock you uk tour which had its heart ripped out with an awful video screen set. Now we have a budget Phantom tour.Sorry, I've been very nervous about this tour and possibly the cause of some panic about reductions in the production etc but need to confirm that my fears have been eased after conversation with the producers. Hopefully they won't mind my posting if it helps ease criticism: |
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 31, 2020 11:51:33 GMT
“The chandelier will rise”
But not necessarily fall!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 12:24:45 GMT
I'm a tad suspicious of that wording too. It will rise, but from where? Given the rehearsal video shows the model set, and we can see the chandelier already hanging but covered in a sack, I don't think it's going to start on the stage. Or fall as far as the stage.
I guess we don't have much longer to wait.
|
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Jan 31, 2020 13:13:19 GMT
On the most recent UK tour, the chandelier started (as I recall) hanging above the front stalls, approximately 2/3 of the way towards the ceiling, covered in a sack. During the auction scene, when they are talking about the chandelier, it slowly lowered, and then at the start of the overture the sack pulls away revealing the chandelier, lit in all of it's sparkly glory. It would then rise vertically to the ceiling during the overture.
At the end of Act I, Erik would appear in the fake box, fire his magic shooty wand stick towards the chandelier, it would wobble, kinda pop and some sugar glass would fall to the floor.
In the US tour (which used the UK set) the chandelier actually falls vertically towards the stalls, but still doesn't go anywhere near the stage. (there is footage of this on a well-known video sharing site. I won't link to it for copyright reasons but it's easy enough to find).
As for what will happen with this tour, given how angry people were to see now chandelier drop, I would like to think that they would implement the US-style vertical drop, but equally I wouldn't be surprised if we get the same sequence as the last UK tour.
|
|
