Phantom Review 1/09/2008- Page 2

[jordangirl]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:00pm

oh..I would love to see this show on Broadway !

Probably in the near future..... I have never been to the MAJESTIC THEATER.

Me too j*!! I saw it on tour. I remember drooling outside the theatre (then freaking out when we realized Sarah and Michael had just walked by us) when I was up here on a high school United Nations trip...but I've never seen it in NYC.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:16pm

Phantom is always on TDF lately for $35.50 but not on weekends...besides I am fully booked with shows till March... I might just take some time off during the week...

but here's the dates... for TDF..

Available Dates
Tuesdays: January 15th 7:00PM, January 22nd 7:00PM
Wednesdays: January 16th 2:00PM, January 16th 8:00PM, January 23rd 2:00PM, January 23rd 8:00PM
Thursdays: January 17th 8:00PM, January 24th 8:00PM


******************

Thanks George ! I might take your offer one of these days and take jordangirl with me

J*
Updated On: 1/10/08 at 05:16 PM

[george95]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:17pm

just let me know jaystar and I am there.

Phantom is also discounted through broadwaybox.com, schooltix.com, and playbill.com.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:27pm

george, I agree with the 20 years of performances there are bound to be bad times/performances. But I saw it when it had only been open for about 2 years! I guess they can still have bad days that early in such a long run!

Updated On: 1/10/08 at 05:27 PM

[george95]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:30pm

Of course it can have a bad show that early on. Its not like in 1990 that they knew the show would still be going strong in 2008.......for all they knew the show could have been winding down by that point.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:34pm

Wel I doubt if they thought it would be winding down at that point! It was selling out. We had our tickets for over 6 months before we saw it and wanted to try to see it again thinking we would get a better performance but they were sold out way in advance.

[george95]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:37pm

good point; it continued to sell-out until around 1996.

[PhantomTango1]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 7:05pm

kec, I agree with you about David Shannon's acting as Raoul. Very genuine. I never got the impression that the man was acting for one moment - he just WAS that character. Not only was his performance very real, it was very likable. Same for Stephen Buntrock and Greg Mills (current Tour Raoul). That's an incredibly difficult role for actors to step into, because when everyone does their jobs, the audience still doesn't really want Christine to go with him. The audience pulls for the Phantom despite his flaws, so that leaves Raoul out there as the obvious yet somewhat unfavorable choice. I personally love that character and find it silly that some people possess nothing but disdain for him, but I suppose it's all left up to the actor. I've seen the role played quite badly, and given that type of performance, the character can become unlikeable rather quickly.

Thanks for sharing the review, george.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 7:19pm

It's been a while since I've seen it on Broadway--I just saw the ridiculously eye-poping Vegas version and might check it out again for comparison. I thought it was in pretty rusty shape when I saw it in 2003, but still enjoyed it. It may not be the greatest show, but I always enjoy it as spectacle and for the character of the Phantom. And despite the lyrics, you can't deny how insanely, aggrivatingly catchy the music is.

[PhantomTango1]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 8:41pm

I agree that the original production could use a fresh coat of paint, so to speak. Performance wise I've never been disappointed, but it'd be interesting to see if they could upgrade some of the effects to make them a bit more impressive (ie. the fireballs in Wandering Child). The 80's effects still work for me, but I wonder if it's time to dust it off a bit. I've yet to see the Vegas version, but it's certainly on my list. I can't wait to see the custom theatre and all the new effects!

[george95]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 10:36pm

oh god if they ever "dusted off" ANYTHING in the original New York production I think I'd die.
All of these phrases "fresh coat of paint" etc........there're totally totally wrong. If you go see the Broadway production tomorrow night, and you have never heard of it, and somebody told you it just opened a month ago, you wouldn't say "no way man that paint looks like its been there for 20 years) NOTHING in terms of paint, appearance, dust, etc looks old. The colors and lighting and all that appearance-wise are still fresh and bold.

[PhantomTango1]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 8:44am

I did not imply the entire show has to be revamped. Good Lord - I just wish that they would take a nod from the new Vegas production and perhaps infuse some of those new effects in with the older productions. You don't find the flaming scraps of paper in Wandering Child a bit...pathetic? If there existed a way to improve that effect, then I would like to see it. Will it happen? I doubt it. The show has been running for 21 years on the West End, 20 years on Broadway, and I doubt they're going to go through any sort of changes at this stage in the show's life. Vegas has a new and improved Mirror Scene. I'd love to see that incorporated.

Same with the chandelier - yes the speed of its descent is to ensure safety, and I would never sacrifice safety for thrills, but I do hear people mention on the way out they were a little let down. The press, for better or worse, sometimes makes it seem like a big spectacle, but in reality the lumbering prop only creeps down. Improving the chandelier is only a dream and I would never expect changes on that front, but again - if it were possible, I would like to see it. It's only too bad that sort of upgrade would require a refitting of the support structures and all the technical aspects of the chandelier.

I have a great love of this show and would see it every week in its current state if I had the opportunity, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see some aspects upgraded to add to the overall spectacle. I don't like the idea of non-replica productions (meaning I think the Hungarian version looks terrible, and I am not fond of the amateur rights being released, even if on a trial basis as they are now). Bjornson's designs have remained incredibly brilliant through the years and should never be messed with. Colors and lighting are fine. Nothing on that front "looks" old despite the very aged technology they incorporate, but when you incorporate certain effects (ie. the fireballs) into a heightened part of the drama, they should live up to expectations. As of right now we have a very dramatic scene in Wandering Child - a confrontation between the two lovers, and then the Phantom attacks Raoul with ...sparks? Oooo.

Just my opinion. I don't expect them to do a damn thing about it, though, so no need to get upset.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 9:00am

Good to hear that people who have seen it very recently are thinking and feeling it's in good shape

Is, was and always will be my second favorite show (after LES MIZ)

[george95]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 9:50am

I sincerely hope they don't tinker in ANY WAY with the original 1988 production in New York. That's great they have new, more updated elements in the Vegas show---but that is a different show! That is Phantom-the Las Vegas Spectacular, because audiences in Vegas are more "duhhh" than New York audiences in general, so they'd need more visuals. And yes, technology has improved.

I shudder to think at what would happen if they listened to your suggestion---every time I'd see Phantom, it would be different, depending what the new "thing" is I guess. And no, the fireballs in "Wondering Child" are not "pathetic". They do their job, they're effective, and they are part of the ORIGINAL production.........not something that was added.

Going to see Phantom is kind of like eating Kraft Macaroni and cheese---its comfort food. If I went to the market one day and saw that they changed Kraft mac and cheese because there is some new flashy mac and cheese out there----no way man! And besides, if you want something different, there is the microwave mac and cheese-as there is the Vegas Phantom.
However
DO
NOT
TOUCH
THE
ORIGINAL
NEW
YORK
PRODUCTION
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[PhantomTango1]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:03am

Are you going to be ok there, george?

[george95]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:18am

I don't know....I take my phantom quite seriously.

But, I hear you eponine amneris........over the past 20 years, I have actually gone back and forth between Les Mis and Phantom myself. Actually, for a while there in the early 2000's, when Diana Kaarina played Eponine, I was thoroughly obsessed with that show......and when the revival came back, the main reason I didnt like it is because they did what PhantomTango1....they changed it and "refreshed" it, cuz apparently the 1987 version was just not good enough! grrrrrrrrrr!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:41am

All of these phrases "fresh coat of paint" etc........there're totally totally wrong. If you go see the Broadway production tomorrow night, and you have never heard of it, and somebody told you it just opened a month ago, you wouldn't say "no way man that paint looks like its been there for 20 years) NOTHING in terms of paint, appearance, dust, etc looks old. The colors and lighting and all that appearance-wise are still fresh and bold.

Well I TOTALLY disagree with that statement. You walk into Phantom and you realize right away its a show plucked right out of the 80s. All of the effects that they use in the New York production every tourist has seen used in smaller Disney World theme park rides. The effects, while still cool, are not nearly as impressive as they were in 1988. And if you have a family with teenagers coming in to see it, most likely the teenagers will say "this looks really cheap compared to Wicked, Mary Poppins, or [insert whatever high budget show you like here]".

[PhantomTango1]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 11:15am

But, I hear you eponine amneris........over the past 20 years, I have actually gone back and forth between Les Mis and Phantom myself. Actually, for a while there in the early 2000's, when Diana Kaarina played Eponine, I was thoroughly obsessed with that show......and when the revival came back, the main reason I didnt like it is because they did what PhantomTango1....they changed it and "refreshed" it, cuz apparently the 1987 version was just not good enough! grrrrrrrrrr!

You are completely missing my point. I'm talking about (realistically) updating one or two bloody effects in the whole show, and touching nothing else (which will never happen anyway, so do NOT alarm yourself. Yikes). The Mirror could use a little help, and while the fireballs seem to suit your needs just fine, I think they could do with a little improvement as well. I wouldn't touch anything else because I love the look of the show very dearly and would hate to screw with it. While us die hard Phantom fans may not want to admit it, bjh2114 has an excellent point. Phantom's effects pale in comparison to the new shows.

But fear not, because I'm sure it'll be a cold day in Hell before any changes are ever put in the older productions. I want it to run forever, but I wonder if perhaps it'd be nice to update some small, yet significant aspects of the show to keep it technically a little fresher. The casts have always been good despite some serious "revolving door" action between companies.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 12:04pm

george95, Diana Kaarina is my fvaorite Eponine (aside from Frances/Lea)

Back to POTO- The Vegas show is quite different from "THE" show on Broadway. They built the stage/theatre for it and yes, technology has changed after 20 years. It would be very difficult to incorporate the additions/changes the Vegas production was able to use in the Majestic.

They are not planning to nor should they consider inplimenting changes of any kind aside.

NO SEQUEL.

[george95]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:23pm

Wow eponine amneris i could not agree with you more you really rock out.

Now for the problems.........

"And if you have a family with teenagers coming in to see it, most likely the teenagers will say "this looks really cheap compared to Wicked, Mary Poppins, or [insert whatever high budget show you like here]".

So bjh, you claim that teenagers would say "like oh my god like wicked and poppins are like totally better like for sure"
Welllllllllllll bjh, as I've mentioned before, I am a high school teacher who takes many, many groups to see Phantom every year (its the most commonly requested show) and yes sometimes there are one or two teenagers in the group who dont' like it, but generally they come back to school telling everyone else to see it. And this is an inner city, drive-by shooting type of school that I teach at : )
My students have also gone to see the new whippersnappers like Poppins and Lion King, etc, and they have NEVER said "oh man phantom needs to CHANGE to compete with that stuff!" So I guess you are making generalizations about teenagers there.