The London production 2

Oh dear it appears Peter was off last night with a throat infection and will be off again tonight. He has missed a few performances already and he's only been there 3 weeks.

Stuff happens... John Owen-Jones missed his first two-weeksish of his 2010-2011 contract due to illness. I mention this because, whilst it is important to have excellent stamina in the theatre, I caution not just others, but myself, for assuming inability.

MajesticPhantom wrote:Stuff happens... John Owen-Jones missed his first two-weeksish of his 2010-2011 contract due to illness. I mention this because, whilst it is important to have excellent stamina in the theatre, I caution not just others, but myself, for assuming inability.

Oh I wasn't criticising Peter at all or suggesting that he couldn't handle the role, I meant nothing by it. I just meant it's a shame that he's missed that many show so early into his run. Peter is my new favourite Phantom I've seen him twice already, I think he's awesome as the Phantom.

MajesticPhantom wrote:Stuff happens... John Owen-Jones missed his first two-weeksish of his 2010-2011 contract due to illness. I mention this because, whilst it is important to have excellent stamina in the theatre, I caution not just others, but myself, for assuming inability.

On the other hand he was told to basically change the sound of his voice. His sick days might be quite by accident, that he's been hit by a virus or similar early in his run, but I am concerned he's pushing it. He's been singing one way for the last 35 years, and his "muscle memory" has adapted to this. Suddenly singing another way will confuse the "muscle memory" and might strain a lot more on the vocal chords than his regular singing does.

But again - not saying this necessarily is the case with Peter Jöback now. All I'm saying is that I hope he won't experience it. Especially not with the grand musical tour he's planned for the autumn.

Ah! Thanks for the clear up!

And who is on tonight and the next days?

SweetChristine wrote:And who is on tonight and the next days?

Scott Davies was on yesterday, I assume he'll be the one performing the coming days as well. If not him, it's probably... understudy Simon Shorten?

operafantomet wrote:

SweetChristine wrote:And who is on tonight and the next days?

Scott Davies was on yesterday, I assume he'll be the one performing the coming days as well. If not him, it's probably... understudy Simon Shorten?

Thank you, he is on and I am not in London! Not good

This was posted on Peter jöback's FB-site https://www.facebook.com/peterjoback :

Godmorgon. Efter vila och medikamenter är Peter bättre och kommer att spela kvällens föreställning av Phantom. 23, 24, 25 april kommer han dock behöva ta 3 semesterdagar. Hälsar team Peter.

(Good morning. After rest and medication Peter is better and will be performing tonight's performance of Phantom. At the 23rd, 24th and 25th of April, though, he will need three days off. Greetings team Peter)

We finally have the first two production photos of Peter Joback!:
http://www.thephantomoftheopera.com/sights-sounds/photos?album=2&gallery=11&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PeterJobackPhotos&utm_content=18042012&utm_campaign=PeterJobackPhotos
OG

They look pretty good, hopefully it won't be long before the brochure is out.

He looks great, but they really need to stop photoshopping. The lack of connection between people in photoshopped images is really, really blatant, and negates archival work. I don't understand why archiving, properly, the history of a company is so ignored.

MajesticPhantom wrote:He looks great, but they really need to stop photoshopping. The lack of connection between people in photoshopped images is really, really blatant, and negates archival work. I don't understand why archiving, properly, the history of a company is so ignored.

Yeah, their photoshopping seems to be more and more vital to the photos. And I'm not really a fan.

That said, the two new ones doesn't look bad. The one on the angel is rather cool. The MOTN is cool enough. But the flat light of Michael Le Poer Trench's photography style combined with the photoshopped background makes them way less eerie than in elder brochures I have. The only recent one I've truly loved is the Catherine Ashmore one (featuring Gina Beck). She managed the delicate balance between well lit and eerie.

ETA: after looking closer at the photos, Sofia Escobar's head in MOTN totally looks re-used from the previous one with JOJ. And Peter Jöback is giant compared to that golden angel statue!

What's the freakin' point of photoshopping these? They have the actors there, in costume, they take a picture on stage in a pose (take multiple shots if needed) but this whole take the picture then switch out the head for someone else, the body, whatever...that doesn't seem cost-effective to me because of having to find the right head/body/set piece at the correct angle, then spend time with the image to make it look like it wasn't photoshopped that takes time. Lots of time. Time is $$$. It just really frustrates me.

I'd like to know what the actors think, if they don't care or if they're a bit annoyed at this.

ETA:

Wanderingchild on tumblr got these side-by-side comparision pics ready we didn't have to post them:
http://wanderingchild.tumblr.com/post/21333075407/whoops



Thanks wanderingchild!

PhantomsGhost wrote:What's the freakin' point of photoshopping these? They have the actors there, in costume, they take a picture on stage in a pose (take multiple shots if needed) but this whole take the picture then switch out the head for someone else, the body, whatever...that doesn't seem cost-effective to me because of having to find the right head/body/set piece at the correct angle, then spend time with the image to make it look like it wasn't photoshopped that takes time. Lots of time. Time is $$$. It just really frustrates me.

I'm no expert, but I'd think it has to do with costs for the photographer, lighting setup, makeup, prop and set preparation (including paying the stagehands to do so), fees for actors to come in for additional hours for the shoot, etc. All adds up pretty quickly. That being said, I prefer proper photoshoots rather than poor photoshopping.

R.

Raphael wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote:What's the freakin' point of photoshopping these? They have the actors there, in costume, they take a picture on stage in a pose (take multiple shots if needed) but this whole take the picture then switch out the head for someone else, the body, whatever...that doesn't seem cost-effective to me because of having to find the right head/body/set piece at the correct angle, then spend time with the image to make it look like it wasn't photoshopped that takes time. Lots of time. Time is $$$. It just really frustrates me.

I'm no expert, but I'd think it has to do with costs for the photographer, lighting setup, makeup, prop and set preparation (including paying the stagehands to do so), fees for actors to come in for additional hours for the shoot, etc. All adds up pretty quickly. That being said, I prefer proper photoshoots rather than poor photoshopping.

But the odd thing about London is that they have a photoshoot for (almost) every new brochure they make. It's usually the dress rehearsal for the new cast, where a photographer takes photos during the whole show. And I think that's what PhantomsGhost meant, that when they are doing these kind of documentations, why photoshop the pictures so much afterwards there were no point in taking new pictures to begin with?

Point taken. One of the great things about the London production is their turnover when it comes to their souvenir brochures. Are the extensively photoshopped pics in question during times when there's a small change in the cast (and therefore less of a reason to reshoot everything) or otherwise?

R.

Raphael wrote:Point taken. One of the great things about the London production is their turnover when it comes to their souvenir brochures. Are the extensively photoshopped pics in question during times when there's a small change in the cast (and therefore less of a reason to reshoot everything) or otherwise?

R.

Yes, new brochures for each new cast is a really nice element in the West End production. But it feels like all their brochures has been heavily photoshopped since 2005/06 sometime. Before that there were elements of photoshopping, but it was more the exception than the rule. I wanna say the heavy photoshopping correspond with Michael Le Poer Trench becoming their main photographer, but I have to double check the brochures to see if that really is the case.

For whatever it's worth, the new UK tour pictures are also heavily photoshopped (or at least the four officially published), and those feature a brand new cast in a brand new production. That means brand new pictures had to be taken no matter what. Which makes me think their photoshopping is more an artistic expression of sorts than a necessity. The tour pics also seems to be by M.L.P.Trench.

Maybe they're photoshopping just to keep us occupied with discovering and discussing it?

I still really like his angel photo, nice to see them use a slightly different pose. I wish i could get someone at dewynters to email me the backgrounds they use though, particularly the rooftop one so I can build that into my model

justin-from-barbados wrote:I still really like his angel photo, nice to see them use a slightly different pose. I wish i could get someone at dewynters to email me the backgrounds they use though, particularly the rooftop one so I can build that into my model

Will this be of any help? I've saved it in my Canada files, but I think someone said long ago that it wasn't the Canadian rooftop set depicted here. Anyway:

It's always looked batik'd or like a woodcut to me.

ok thanks for that, i think i can probably make up what goes on at the 2 ends that are cut off.

I always thought it a very odd design for this scene, the womewhat translucent effect and all (I think the world tour the rooftop is solid)

I'l still trying to fogure out how excatly it is stored off stage, the tours just fly it out but I think NYC it goes down under the stage.

justin-from-barbados wrote:
I'l still trying to fogure out how excatly it is stored off stage, the tours just fly it out but I think NYC it goes down under the stage.

I don't know if these are any help:






These are from one backstage video from Scheveningen, I believe these aren't against the rules.

wonderful thanks, I guess like masquerade, each production has their owh way of doing it.

So it's a solid piece plus a backdrop? Always thought it was just one backdrop.

SenorSwanky wrote:So it's a solid piece plus a backdrop? Always thought it was just one backdrop.

The opera parts are solid pieces, of a sort of see-through... plexi glass or metallic substance. And then there's the backdrop, with the Paris skyline. There's also blinking stars, and clouds passing by. The Vegas one is a bit different, both in looks and executions. But I don't remember the particulars.

I might be the only one, but I've always been very fond of this set. It just never translates well into pictures, and it's used for one of the dullest scenes in the musical. Cute, yeah, but it draaaags out. It's amazing when the golden angel is lowered and the Phantom comes to view, though.

I've also always been very happy about there not being a moon there. It would be so easy to slap one on to make it atmospheric. But I've seen that in sooooo many night sets. So cool to make an atmospheric one without it.

Would this include the (now defunct) US Tour(s)? I was under the impressions those were all one backdrop...

PhantomsGhost wrote:Would this include the (now defunct) US Tour(s)? I was under the impressions those were all one backdrop...

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the difference was that the Vegas one is two layers, while the others are one layered?

I;ve always thought it could use a moon, like in cats, lol


well the essen production used 2 drops, one for the roof line and one for the skyline and stars.

I think Esses was based on the touring set so the US tour probably uses drops too, (a hard drop that is assembled from pieces and flown in)

I'm still not 100% sure what happens in NYC, (and maybe London) in the dark you can see the roof top cut out sliding in from the sides, It looks almost like it expands out from the side. But you can also see right before buquet falls, a large trap open extending accross the stage aswell. Unless they also keep the house tops understage, those look rather substantial too.

Hahaha! This is... entertaining. Peter Jöback denies that the new photos are photoshopped:

"funny I was there - and I can't see that they've photoshopped it ... Isn't that strange ???? Please relax - enjoy instead !! Life is to short ! Much love Peter And a follow up: "Show your face so I'll know who you are - Where you there when they did the photoshopping ?????? just curious to know !"
https://www.facebook.com/ThePhantomOfTheOpera

Is he joking? Or am I mistaken? Is Sofia Escobar's head NOT taken from the photo with JOJ?


Jöback to the left, JOJ to the right. She can't be that good with repeating that pose. Even the shadows are the same. And the two dots over her head in the Jöback one? Looks like a heritage for a candelabra in the background in the JOJ one. And it's not like it's unprecedented, to swap heads and bodies in the London Phantom brochures. MOTN with Katie Knight Adams/Leila Benn Harris, anyone?




I also think Jöback is unnaturally large compared to the golden angel. It would tip over from his weight, wouldn't it? That, plus the angle looks identical to the golden angel appearing in the photo of David Shannon: