Phantom tour set

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 10:30pm

As always, I did a search for this but couldn't find anything.

I know that they have to make a lot of changes to shows when they try to tour. In my experience, these changes are usually very obvious.

I've seen Phantom, on tour and on Broadway, but didn't really notice anything different, but then I probably didn't know exactly what to look for.

Is there anyone who can tell me what they did so that Phantom would be able to tour?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 11:26pm

The most noticeable change would be the lack of trap doors on tour. The Phantom and Christine doubles did not go down into a trap door after the dressing room unit tracks offs, nor did Christine and Raoul come up through that same trap door for the rooftop scene. The candelabras during the boat ride in the title song slid on from the wings on tour as opposed to rising out of the floor.

The set on tour was also wider than it is on Broadway, though I assume they adjusted that from venue to venue. I only ever saw the tour in Cleveland, both in the State and in the Allen, and the proscenium in both of those theaters was wider than what is at the Majestic.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 11:29pm

Wow...now that you mention it I do remember a couple of those things on Broadway. Obviously they did a good job though if it was all still great.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 11:35pm

Depending on the venue, the proscenium was adjustable and had a few set layouts. They would look at each venue prior to the tour and then decide which layout they would use for the proscenium. One layout was for wider venues and the proscenium was a little more shallow. The others it was a little bit narrower and taller.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 11:36pm

I'm actually really impressed with how little they had to change to tour the show. It makes you wonder why shows like The Color Purple and 9 to 5 screw over their tour audiences with dinner theatre quality sets.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 12:10am

That would have to do with the fact that Phantom was a mega-hit by the time it opened on Broadway. There was no doubt that it would do very well on the road, and it's initial bookings were often sit downs of several months. Even when it finally closed it was still commanding a minimum of three to four week bookings. Load in and load out are pretty expensive, crew numbers are pretty large and you also have to deal with the teamsters in addition to the regular IATSE crew.

Because the tour was pretty much a sure thing in terms of making money when they planned it back in the day it was a lot easier to justify minimal changes to the physical production.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 12:21am

Now, now. ChiChi, I don't think that your last post was very fair.

First, one last thing to add. I know that on the Phantom tour, the rooftop scene also uses a painted drop rather than several dimensional scenic units as on Broadway. Changes such as that are VERY common. One common way for designers to make a show tourable without compromising visuals is to utilize soft goods for as many things as possible (prosceniums, legs / borders / portals, walls, etc).

Now Chi Chi, I understand your sentiment, but I must take issue with a few things.

9 to 5, for one, had a new production / creative team, so there was NO way that the tour would be based on what played on Broadway. The Broadway design was also completely un-tourable due to the large trap door and it's extensive use as well as several complicated automation elements.

In regard to Phantom vs Color Purple, the situations are not a fair comparison. Phantom is a MASSIVE hit and Color Purple was, obviously, nowhere near the money maker.

Touring a large turntable, such as the one used in Color Purple's Broadway design, is a huge undertaking requiring a large amount of truck pace and a very sizable chunk of time to load in and install. The turntable figured VERY heavily into the Broadway staging which, aside from that, was very scenically light.

Phantom, on the other hand, is a HUGE money maker. So much so that when the show began touring, many tour houses started to renovate and retrofit their stage houses and auditoriums in order to be able to just TRY to book the show, which often sat down in locations for lengthy (for a tour..) runs. Longer runs means that you don't have to pay for load in / out and transport as much, saving some money in the long term there. having such a such and the money that comes with that also allows the show to do things that very few other tours are able to do - they utilize a "jump set". A "jump set" is extra scenery that can be loaded into one theatre while the show is still playing in ANOTHER theatre so that the amount of downtime between venues is minimized.

While the Phantom tour is playing in theatre A, an advance crew is in the next city at theatre B, loading in the complicated and large elements of the set. That advance crew loads in the automated show deck (all cables that move scenery have to completely reinstalled at every venue), the solid proscenium arch and any alterations that it requires, installation of the chandelier in the theatre's structure (two winches within the proscenium and two winches that must be installed in the auditorium's ceiling) as well as installing the show's complicated 'travelator' elevator tower system.

Doing that requires the show to have extra crew staff, drivers and trucks and set pieces and maintenance that most tour simply can not afford and it also requires the show to pay for TWO venues at once - not a small cost. Off the top of my head, I think that the only tours utilizing such a method of touring right now are Phantom, Lion King and MAYBE the Wicked first national.

My personal opinion is that designers need to take the possibility of tours into account when designing a show for Broadway. At the same time, streamlining a show is not exactly / always a bad thing... and a national tour is essentially a second draft, allowing the creative team to refine their work.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 1:54am

But, Broadwayguy2, you list Phantom as a current tour. Didn't it end?

Also, I know that some bigger shows have several touring companies out at a time. How do they differ from each other, especially if one has one type of set and the others have a different one.

[Sally]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 2:18am

Yes, the last US tour ended in Los Angeles in, I believe, October of 2010. Speculation was that the very things described---the two crews and so on---had gotten too expensive.

The last comment in a long article about Phantom of the Opera and the tours, Tim Martin Gleason, the last tour Phantom said,

"One thing is certain, “You will never see this replication of the Broadway show ever again.”

I think he meant that whenever a tour is again mounted, it will not be a replica of the original as all previous productions have been.

I've included a link to the article I mentioned.
LA TIMES ARTICLE

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 2:55am

Ah, my mistake. Yes, the Phantom tour did in fact end.

As far as multiple touring companies, it really just depends on the producers. Sometimes they are exact duplicates of one another, sometimes one is a bit streamlined to make it easier for the road and sometimes one is slightly smaller than the other...

To use a current example --

Lion King has / had two tours out and I believe that they were exact duplicates... so much so, in fact, that the two tours shared THREE show decks and the tour schedule was booked so that while tour 1 used show deck A and tour 2 used show deck, show deck c would be being installed for one of the tours in another house and they would essentially rotate decks...

Wicked, however has two tours and both have modified designs.

Both tours, for one, do not have a raked deck, as the Broadway production has (and both two share the same orchestration, which is different / smaller than that used on Broadway), but 2nd national tour is designed to travel in fewer trucks and have a shorter load in / out time so that the tour can play shorter engagements than the 1st national.

Some of those changes include:

1.) The large flown bridge that is seen before "One Short Day", when Elphaba sings "I'm Not That Girl" (Glinda and Fiyero walk across it..) and during "Thank Goodness" can be walked on, as stated, in both the Broadway and 1st national tour productions, but for the 2nd national tour, it is merely a flat profile scenic element.

2.) The staircase in the Witch's Castle and the staircase that leads into the Ozdust ballroom are both notably larger than on the 1st national tour.

3.) The Witch's beds don't move as much as they do on the first national tour and the students push the benches for Dr. Dillamond's class onto the stage...

4.) The 2nd national tour has an added well scenic unit for the Witch's castle that conceals the Elphaba reveal in Act Two.

There are numerous others in the design, but those are a few noticeable ones. The most NOTABLE changes between the two - and the first that you will see - is that the Clockwork proscenium arch is a MUCH more simple construction for the 2nd national, relaying more on soft good panels with clockwork drawings as opposed to solid clock works and truss.

Here are the two proscenium arches. Sorry if the images are large. Thank Google --

Wicked's first national tour:


Wicked's second national tour:


A more close up view of the snd national tour proscenium:


ChiChi, by your previous posting, I should be offended by the downsizing of the two tours compared to what is at the Gershwin, but my honest open is that the physical production of the first national is better than what is in New York and of the three, I hands down prefer the set for the 2nd national touring company.

Posted: 9/27/11 at 6:17pm

This all depends on the kind of tour, isn't it? I saw the first Canadian tour Livent did around 1990. It was a large tour that only had three or four stops--for several months (it was in vancouver half a year) at a time. I know they had trap doors, the candelabras coming out of the floor, etc--and remember reading how they had to install a fake stage floor on top of the existing stage...

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/27/11 at 6:40pm

Broadwayguy...no one ever said ANYTHING about being offended.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 12:19am

Sorry ChiChi, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Just a bit of hyperbole and not meaning YOU, but ME. I can be a bit nit picky and have been known to be offended at something slopped together. I do hope the Wicked examples were helpful.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 12:29am

They were. Thank you.

[JamesBroadwayWiner]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 4:46pm

Another difference in the 2nd tour of Wicked and the other production is that the stage/deck that is part of the production is thicker in the Broadway and 1st tour than the 2nd tour. Also, the Broadway production's dragon has different shaped wings than all the other productions. My favorite is the Broadway!

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:06pm

When Phantom first played Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and Toronto, was it part of the tour, or did the production just sit down for a while? Does anyone remember how long for?

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:19pm

The Phantom first national tour, the Christine Company, only played Los Angeles and San Francisco for 10 years total. While it was the 1st National Tour, it was a full sit down production equal to the Broadway production, including trap doors, everything came up from the floor vs coming in from the sides, etc. (i'm sure the orchestra was smaller but the physical elements of the show were the same as Broadway.

We (LA) also got Michael Crawford. :)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:19pm

The Toronto production which was recorded was an open run, one of the first big Livent successes. It opened in 1989 and ran just over ten years, its closing largely due not to lack of attendance but Livent's collapse. The theatre it was performed in was massively restored/renovated for the production and it was a full on staging. In 1990 a major Canadian tour (with Jeff Hyslop) happened which was essentially a sitdown one. I believe it played Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver where it ran over 6 months (I saw it in Vancouver when I was ten). More recently some of the American tours have come to Canadian cities but those are the slightlys caled back touring productions.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:21pm

I still have the hour TV special about the Toronto production on tape, I should upload it to youtube.

[tourboi]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 6:28pm

Eric, please do! Any chance you have the "Dreamcoat Special" Livent made about their JOSEPH? I've been hunting for years. Memories. :)

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 6:59pm

Wow, Phantom of the Opera sat down in Toronto fort over 10 years?

How long did Phantom sit down in Los Angeles, Chicago, Bosto and San Francisco for?

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 11:28pm

Per CTG's website, Phantom played LA: May 31, 1989 – August 29, 1993
It then moved north to San Francisco.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/3/11 at 11:33pm

I interviewed the Advance Manager when the final "Phantom.." tour was in Denver for Broadwayworld-Denver called "The Technical Side of Phantom". Here is the interview with a few backstage photos. Enjoy if you have not already read it:

https://denver.broadwayworld.com/printcolumn.php?id=50803

Updated On: 12/4/11 at 11:33 PM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 5:48am

Phantom did not sit down in Boston. Its first Boston engagement was in 1992 from August-late October/early November (likely the latter) (by the Raoul Company, starring Kevin Gray).

[My Oh My]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 6:41am

Back when I was a Phantom nut, I was greatly fascinated by the touring productions and obsessively tried to look for ways the 2nd & 3rd national U.S. tours did not equal the Broadway experience. It was just too hard to believe such a massive show could travel and not be drastically scaled down.

By the time I finally got to see the Broadway production in 1997, I was more than just a little impressed by how incredibly well the tours replicated the full scale Broadway production on the road. In short, it was not scaled down at all. It was the exact same show.

I used to consider the candelabras coming in from the wings and the tour chandelier only being decorated on the side facing the audience as "scaled down," but is that really considered "scaled down"? I say no. Wisely cutting corners that don't really matter and thus saving some production costs while respecting the original's integrity in all its splendor is more like it.

I've seen the 1st national tour (Los Angeles 1992 & 1993; San Francisco 199, 2nd national tour (Los Angeles 1997 & 199, the third national tour (Costa Mesa 1994 & 2008; Los Angeles 2003, 2009, and the 2nd to last perf. on 31 October, 2010), and the Broadway production (1997, 2000, & 2007) and I can honestly say all four productions were physically identical to each other. None of them ever looked or felt cheaper than another or scaled down in the least.

Being a detailed obsessed nut since childhood, I especially loved the way the lighting design was perfectly replicated every time. It was especially notable and very impressive in the dressing room scene with the way every production aimed the lights just perfectly to get that familiar blue glow to hit the door ever time it was opened and the "Stranger Than You Dreamt It" it scene shining that misty spot from the wings, fading in at precisely the same exact second and always achieving a familiar effect that had a way of squeezing a tear or two from my eye for that whackjob ghost murderer.

It is sad that the impressive advances made by the Phantom and Les Mis tours for touring musicals have been dumped in recent years for a throw back to the times when it was expected that a touring version of a show was "not as good" as the Broadway production. And before I get accused of being "offended," I think that's baloney. Who wouldn't like to have a show they love travel to their city and be mounted with all the bells and whistles the folks over on Broadway enjoy night after night? I know I did, especially with Les Mis. My mood was always up a notch or two every time that tour came around, because it was such a privilege to get such a faithful reproduction, with equal or better talent, and just as great an orchestra so far from what was once thought of as the definitive place to see a Broadway musical: The Great White Way.