#26
Posted: 11/22/13 at 1:13am
That wasn't irony.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
New Phantom tour — Page 2
#27
Posted: 11/22/13 at 11:43am
You did good PTOPhan! Glad I was able to help with the tip on the tickets. Row DDD is in fact the very front row. The orchestra pit is big so you won't be too close to the stage. I sat there for "Priscilla" and the seats were terrific. I have row DDD for "Phantom" too for what will be an amazing show. I just wish ticket sales were a little stronger. If you look at the Philly sales, there not that good yet. Hopefully by the start of the run, they will improve. It could also have to do with the fact that the show is there for a while and not just a week.
Updated On: 11/22/13 at 11:43 AM
#28
Posted: 11/22/13 at 7:11pm
this is my take on the new tour (though I would admit a strong bias) but from what I have seen online, I am sure most people going to see it would be fine with it, as is most people dont really care too deep about changes and all that, they just want to feel they got value for their money.
And I do hope they jacked up some of the new design knowing that the US audience may be somewhat less forgiving than the UK audience, but I am sure the main theme in the design from the UK tour will be intact.
But my issue with the new design is the same issue I had with the movie. When both first came out I was very optimistic in seeing a new interpretation, fresh eyes and all that, but regardless of what anyone says, Phantom owes ALOT of its longevity to the original design. The grandeur and yes spectacle, but the most important thing is that spectacle and grandeur was rooted in well thought-out design that is based on realism and real elements from a particular period, this gave it a taste level that the movie and this new tour just dont have. Because of Phantom's spectacle and grandeur and all that, for alot of regular people, going to phantom was like going to opera or something special, it was an occasion. This new tour still will be an occasion, but its the difference between going to a museum and looking at a famous masterpiece as opposed to going to a side show and seeing something tacky.
While i admire the idea of new eyes and a different approach, I just wish it was done with a design that reflected better taste levels and that was rooted in real historical design motifs and not just a bunch of tacky glitzy faux victorian mess. They took something elegant and made it less so (I would not say crass because it is not that bad)
I just think it was a missed opportunity to do something new but great, same with the movie.
But at the end of all this I do wish it well, employment and all, and hope to someday see it live as you can't really appreciate a show solely on bootlegs.
end of rant
p.s. I really hope they loose those harry potter candles
And I do hope they jacked up some of the new design knowing that the US audience may be somewhat less forgiving than the UK audience, but I am sure the main theme in the design from the UK tour will be intact.
But my issue with the new design is the same issue I had with the movie. When both first came out I was very optimistic in seeing a new interpretation, fresh eyes and all that, but regardless of what anyone says, Phantom owes ALOT of its longevity to the original design. The grandeur and yes spectacle, but the most important thing is that spectacle and grandeur was rooted in well thought-out design that is based on realism and real elements from a particular period, this gave it a taste level that the movie and this new tour just dont have. Because of Phantom's spectacle and grandeur and all that, for alot of regular people, going to phantom was like going to opera or something special, it was an occasion. This new tour still will be an occasion, but its the difference between going to a museum and looking at a famous masterpiece as opposed to going to a side show and seeing something tacky.
While i admire the idea of new eyes and a different approach, I just wish it was done with a design that reflected better taste levels and that was rooted in real historical design motifs and not just a bunch of tacky glitzy faux victorian mess. They took something elegant and made it less so (I would not say crass because it is not that bad)
I just think it was a missed opportunity to do something new but great, same with the movie.
But at the end of all this I do wish it well, employment and all, and hope to someday see it live as you can't really appreciate a show solely on bootlegs.
end of rant
p.s. I really hope they loose those harry potter candles
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27199361@N08/ Phantom at the Royal Empire Theatre
#29
Posted: 11/22/13 at 7:42pm
The thing about Bjornson's original sets is that they were based on the Palais Garnier, the opera house where the book is set.
Some of the costumes for the UK tour (which are apparently being used for the US version) were hideous! The Phantom has a bizarre Superman hairdo, the Il Muto ballerina costumes literally look like pillowcases, Christine's wedding dress is so plain, and the entire Masquerade sequence is bastardized. Instead of the crazy, lavish costumes that each have a different character that Maria Bjornson designed, all the men are dressed in tuxes and the woman wear the bodices of some of the old costume but with longer skirts and no accessories or wigs. Everyone wears ugly half masks that were literally bought online. Christine's dress is radioactive blue and pink and the Phantom's costume looks like Gaston and a Bedazzler had a baby.
And don't get me started on some of the godawful staging.
To see some pictures of costumes (if you dare): http://operafantomet.tumblr.com/post/44472910508/i-can-sense-it-i-have-some-bitching-in-me-that
Some of the costumes for the UK tour (which are apparently being used for the US version) were hideous! The Phantom has a bizarre Superman hairdo, the Il Muto ballerina costumes literally look like pillowcases, Christine's wedding dress is so plain, and the entire Masquerade sequence is bastardized. Instead of the crazy, lavish costumes that each have a different character that Maria Bjornson designed, all the men are dressed in tuxes and the woman wear the bodices of some of the old costume but with longer skirts and no accessories or wigs. Everyone wears ugly half masks that were literally bought online. Christine's dress is radioactive blue and pink and the Phantom's costume looks like Gaston and a Bedazzler had a baby.
And don't get me started on some of the godawful staging.
To see some pictures of costumes (if you dare): http://operafantomet.tumblr.com/post/44472910508/i-can-sense-it-i-have-some-bitching-in-me-that
#30
Posted: 11/22/13 at 7:46pm
Wow those ballet costumes are wretched, and not even remotely historically accurate...
#31
Posted: 11/22/13 at 11:03pm
Marway, I think the Philly sales will skyrocket starting today, 11/22, when the individual tickets go on sale -- before today, there were only subscriber and group sales, and sales to folks that knew to click through from the official POTO site. (Thanks again for letting me know they were already available).
Lizzie Curry, I had written that "they'd better keep the boat and "Music of the Night" or I'm going to curse the day they did not do, all that the Phantom asked of ... them," which I said was an attempt at irony. You said, "That wasn't irony." Merriam-Webster on line includes, under the definition of irony, "a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning; b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony; c: an ironic expression or utterance." I intended my statement to fit into b. I thought it was obvious that I meant it tongue in cheek because of my quote from one of the Phantom's songs, somewhat turned around. Just curious: did you say that my comment isn't an example of irony because it doesn't fit the definition, or because it wasn't particularly clever or funny?
NoHSMisNotAMusical, I think the Phantom's hairstyle (or wig style, depending) is designed to look more like Lon Chaney's. I think they also copied Chaney's dark circles around the eyes. The death's head mask and the half masks in the "Masquerade" scene are reminiscent of the 2004 film version.
Lizzie Curry, I had written that "they'd better keep the boat and "Music of the Night" or I'm going to curse the day they did not do, all that the Phantom asked of ... them," which I said was an attempt at irony. You said, "That wasn't irony." Merriam-Webster on line includes, under the definition of irony, "a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning; b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony; c: an ironic expression or utterance." I intended my statement to fit into b. I thought it was obvious that I meant it tongue in cheek because of my quote from one of the Phantom's songs, somewhat turned around. Just curious: did you say that my comment isn't an example of irony because it doesn't fit the definition, or because it wasn't particularly clever or funny?
NoHSMisNotAMusical, I think the Phantom's hairstyle (or wig style, depending) is designed to look more like Lon Chaney's. I think they also copied Chaney's dark circles around the eyes. The death's head mask and the half masks in the "Masquerade" scene are reminiscent of the 2004 film version.
You alone can make my song take flight.
#32
Posted: 11/22/13 at 11:29pm
Just what we need, a reminder of that movie! I know the original look for the Phantom was based off of Rudolph Valentino, and I just really like that look better.
The thing that offends me the most is that they are claiming to use Maria Bjornson's designs, when they are clearly not.
The thing that offends me the most is that they are claiming to use Maria Bjornson's designs, when they are clearly not.
#33
Posted: 11/23/13 at 1:27am
"The thing that offends me the most is that they are claiming to use Maria Bjornson's designs, when they are clearly not."
This is what really gets me. These costumes are NOT Bjonrnson's designs. They are crappy knockoffs of her designs. In some cases, they are crappy knockoffs of the film's designs, which were already sh!t to begin with. Have you seen the Phantom's masquerade costume for the British tour? It is a total rip off of the unimpressive film version.
Hopefully they fix some of this for the US run.
This is what really gets me. These costumes are NOT Bjonrnson's designs. They are crappy knockoffs of her designs. In some cases, they are crappy knockoffs of the film's designs, which were already sh!t to begin with. Have you seen the Phantom's masquerade costume for the British tour? It is a total rip off of the unimpressive film version.
Hopefully they fix some of this for the US run.
#34
Posted: 11/25/13 at 7:30am
I agree Jimmy. The Red Death outfit looks exactly like the movie and I was not a fan of that change at all. I'm curious if the "Phantom" will have the magical powers he has on Broadway but not in the movie. That was a turn off in the movie for me. Actually, the entire movie was a big turn off for me. That brings me to another point. No one has said anything about the make up. Whereas in the movie, it looked like a scar form a burn, I hope the tour employs the Broadway make up. It's important for everyone to see the gruesome face. In these huge venues I hope everyone even in the last rows of the house will be able to see the make up.
#35
Posted: 11/25/13 at 11:22am
This is a little off topic, however I saw Phantom of the Opera for the first time on Broadway this past October. I have been going to NYC for years, however there were always other shows I wanted to see, so Phantom was never high on my list. I assumed it would be playing forever and I would catch it one day. Well, I did on my last trip. I had a great seat, front row, aisle. But, I have to say I was not blown away and at times bored. I appreciated the the set, the staging, the costumes and the singing, but the story left me cold. I also didn't understand why people where 'cheering' for the Phantom. He didn't come off as a mysterious brooding romantic lead...he came off as an a**. I left the theatre not understanding why people have loved this show and the score for so long.
Then last week, PBS broadcast the 25th Anniversary staging with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggus. I decided to TiVo it and I watched it over the weekend. My entire opinion of the show changed. I picked up many more plot points, I was completely moved by the story and I LOVED the score and the leads voices. Sierra was stunning, both vocally and visually and I actually believed that she was torn between the Phantom and Raul. Ramin was AMAZING. His voice was unbelievable and he made me completely want Christine to choose the Phantom. It made me so excited to see him in Les Mis this spring. I ended up ordering this recording and dvd from Amazon.
I think some shows take more then one viewing to fully appreciate. For me, the chemistry of the leads totally changed the way I viewed the show and the score. Did anyone else like the 25th Anniversary production?
Then last week, PBS broadcast the 25th Anniversary staging with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggus. I decided to TiVo it and I watched it over the weekend. My entire opinion of the show changed. I picked up many more plot points, I was completely moved by the story and I LOVED the score and the leads voices. Sierra was stunning, both vocally and visually and I actually believed that she was torn between the Phantom and Raul. Ramin was AMAZING. His voice was unbelievable and he made me completely want Christine to choose the Phantom. It made me so excited to see him in Les Mis this spring. I ended up ordering this recording and dvd from Amazon.
I think some shows take more then one viewing to fully appreciate. For me, the chemistry of the leads totally changed the way I viewed the show and the score. Did anyone else like the 25th Anniversary production?
#36
Posted: 3/21/15 at 12:01am
I just got back from this tour as it made it's stop in Buffalo. The two week run is essentially sold out based on the Phantom brand. However, what a cheap looking hot mess of a show. It's in terrible shape. We have yet another "Voice" finalist on stage and he plays the Phantom like Constantine in Jekyl & Hyde. No heartbreak, no fragile core. The sets and costumes are cheap and hideous. I mean, the Phantom is still huge-did they need to cut corners? The audience was visibly dismayed at the changes and discussed them at intermission. Many were bringing teens and kids to have them experience the show they loved and it was different.
I'm all for reinvention, but Phantom is one show that needs no tampering. The songs are pretty, the orchestrations moving. The book is weak and you need the original elements-they worked so perfectly. The chandelier was ineffectively used (for all the press about its weight and construction) and the missing staircase at the top of Act 2, there were audible grumblings.
The group numbers were inaudible. The talent was less than stellar-seemed like a non-equity show.
If its coming to your town, save your money.
I'm all for reinvention, but Phantom is one show that needs no tampering. The songs are pretty, the orchestrations moving. The book is weak and you need the original elements-they worked so perfectly. The chandelier was ineffectively used (for all the press about its weight and construction) and the missing staircase at the top of Act 2, there were audible grumblings.
The group numbers were inaudible. The talent was less than stellar-seemed like a non-equity show.
If its coming to your town, save your money.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#37
Posted: 3/21/15 at 1:35am
BettyBoy72, I loved the tour version when I saw it in Philadelphia last year. I saw a cover as the Phantom and the afternoon Christine. They were both excellent, but I did miss the staging of the "Masquerade" scene, now that the staircase is gone. I also thought the Phantom spent too much time punching people and physically threatening Christine.
I'm seeing the tour again in Los Angeles in July. I, too, would rather see an actor with a great voice than a singer trying to act. I never did understand why Peter Joback played the Phantom on Bway for awhile, after Hugh Panaro left. I didn't see Joback, but I heard him. I thought his singing was annoying. I'm not sure how he got the role.
The main problem with the tour is that, other than the spiral staircase around what looks like a lighthouse, the new set isn't very good. How I miss that angel descending! The crazy thing is that the production still costs a fortune to mount, because of the set's complexity.
I wish they'd go back to the old costumes, the staircase for "Masquerade," and the angel. The chandelier, however, was fine in the U.S. touring version, except that I did miss it dancing and wiggling as it gets set to rise after the auction scene.
I'm seeing the tour again in Los Angeles in July. I, too, would rather see an actor with a great voice than a singer trying to act. I never did understand why Peter Joback played the Phantom on Bway for awhile, after Hugh Panaro left. I didn't see Joback, but I heard him. I thought his singing was annoying. I'm not sure how he got the role.
The main problem with the tour is that, other than the spiral staircase around what looks like a lighthouse, the new set isn't very good. How I miss that angel descending! The crazy thing is that the production still costs a fortune to mount, because of the set's complexity.
I wish they'd go back to the old costumes, the staircase for "Masquerade," and the angel. The chandelier, however, was fine in the U.S. touring version, except that I did miss it dancing and wiggling as it gets set to rise after the auction scene.
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
#38
Posted: 3/21/15 at 1:55am
My poor heterosexual middle-class, college educated older brother saw Phantom and didn't like it because he "doesn't like to think" to understand a show. So, there is precedent for deep confusion here.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#39
Posted: 5/30/15 at 1:53am
I'm with Bettyboy on this...
This production has one thing going for it... it's not as bad as the new Les Miserables (both productions happen to be directed by the same person, too). That being said, what an uninspired, insipid, lifeless, dull, and boring production of what should be a spectacular show. I am a huge Phantom fan. I have never once been bored while watching Phantom (this was my ninth time seeing the show), but I could not wait for the night to end with the production.
The set is ugly, cheap, and tacky. The massive rotating walls were absolutely hideous eyesores that were onstage the entire show and crowded and confined the action into small spaces. The lighting design was by far one of the worst lighting designs I have ever seen. The costumes, like the set, were ugly, cheap, and tacky. The new chandelier was borderline pathetic.
I won't even bother going into detail about the cast. No one was horrible, but no one stood out either. There was very little chemistry between the leads.
Overall, this is a pretty horrific mess of a production. I went in with an open mind, but walked out incredibly disappointed.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#40
Posted: 5/30/15 at 2:13am
^Aren't they using Björnson's original costume designs on this tour?
#41
Posted: 5/30/15 at 5:04am
Yeah it's pretty embarrassing to Bjornson's memory to claim these are hers. They ARE based on hers. But rather cheaply--which is how the whole production comes off to me (Hal Prince apparently has commented on them using without his credit a lot of his direction as well--but hasn't been as adamant about it as Nunn was about Les Miz and Miss Saigon. I do think it's shameless that CamMac claims these are important new visions from important young directors needed to keep the works up to date... The director used has been an assistant director on all past productions and is hardly a new voice.)
#42
Posted: 5/30/15 at 1:09pm
Not only has Laurence Connor directed other productions of the show in the past, but he has also faced some pretty bad backlash from the fanbase for his directing choices even back then. It feels like a lot of these new changes to the show were made just for the sake of making changes, and quite honestly they would have been much better off just doing another replica tour of the original London/Broadway productions.
"Was uns befreit, das muss stärker sein als wir es sind." -Tanz der Vampire
#43
Posted: 5/30/15 at 1:20pm
^ Exactly. These "reimagined" productions are doing nothing to improve upon the original productions. They are just cheap low quality productions that pale in comparison to the originals.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95