Jordan Catalano said: "I know it's an unpopular opinion, especially with the die-hard fanbase of this show (and others), but I don't mind switching it up after decades. If it was any other show, it would be on it's 3rd revival, looking COMPLETELY different than it did in 1986 (the OLC). And don't get me wrong, I love this show but it does feel like a show from the 80's.
When they redid "Les Mis" in London last year, people were furious but I went to see the new one and..I kinda love it. It looks fresh and new and I think does breath some new life into it. I've seen the dark drab "Les Mis" (and I'm NOT knocking the original design) so many times that seeing it bigger with pretty awesome use of colorful projections made it exciting again for me to watch. Did they save money by doing that? Probably - but it honestly doesn't look cheap at all. So maybe that's what a new "Phantom" will be, too.
You liked it because they (deliberately) stopped caring for the original product. It was planned obsolescence. Original Miz was in a terrible state by the time it closed, but it didn't need to be that way. Had they kept up the levels of care they originally had done in the first 20 years of its run, then there wouldn't have been all this fascination with something new and shiny.
I have no problem with trying out a new production of Phantom if it's genuinely new; that's what most revivals do. But in this case, they market it as the original while changing it up for something blatantly cheaper. That's not only insulting towards the deceased creatives whose names they wrongly attach to the substandard output, but also very cynical and mendacious towards the paying public.
Phantom's look is not so much 1980s as 1880s, and that's something the London replacement gets very wrong with how it is lit (and, in some areas, staged).
Updated On: 4/16/23 at 02:33 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
