PS:
It's interesting to me that when we discuss "talent", much of the focus centers on actors, and their abilities to act, sing, dance, or to do all three. Most of the time, we speak as if a show's success/failure (or even whether/not we'll go see the show) depends on its cast. I've read posts where the decision to buy a ticket for a repeat viewing depends on an understudy's performance.
With Broadway's "Beetlejuice", my feeling is that the tech, and in particular, the projections play as much a starring role as any of the actors. I can't imagine how much less interesting this show would be without its tech (and I'm including the props, the lighting, *and* the projections). IMO, Peter Nigrini's (and others'
work should be mentioned in the same breath, and with the same respect as the actors themselves, as without the support of the tech, the actors would not be able to carry this show. I like how this article describes Nigrini's work as, "a chimerical melding of digital projection and stage lighting".
Now is a really great time for young people to be considering stagecraft as a career. Although "Chromolume #7" did not exist at the time "Sunday in the Park..." opened on Broadway, it does now (see: the YouTube channel for disguise).
I hope that colleges and universities are purchasing disguise hardware so that up and coming techies have the opportunity learn and play in that world.