25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

I think I may have just created a real-life scenario of "Notes" lol but in my defense...if you love it, you protect it. And from the response, the archive was told that her costumes would remain completely unchanged, which as we know couldnt be further from the truth, I personally feel the team wanted to "ride the coat-tails" as it where of the Bjornson name, without having to shell out the time, effort and funds to use the real-deal on this new tour.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:I think I may have just created a real-life scenario of "Notes" lol but in my defense...if you love it, you protect it. And from the response, the archive was told that her costumes would remain completely unchanged, which as we know couldnt be further from the truth, I personally feel the team wanted to "ride the coat-tails" as it where of the Bjornson name, without having to shell out the time, effort and funds to use the real-deal on this new tour.

I think that sums it up really well, I never thought of it like that but that is exactly what they're doing. It's lazy and it's one thing if they absolutely need to downsize the tour because of money issues, but it's downright rude to continue saying that these are her original designs.

I'd really hate to see RUG try and blow this all out of proportion by saying the phans "tattled" or something else childish like they did with LSD.

Viscountess wrote:
I'd really hate to see RUG try and blow this all out of proportion by saying the phans "tattled" or something else childish like they did with LSD.

My response to that is simply this. RUG had no legal obligation to NOT make Love Never Dies. Fans might not have liked that they made the sequel, but RUG was still free to do so. Thus, RUG had a right to assert the validity of the production. (How they did it, at the expense of objecting fans, however - well, I'll reserve judgment as to the legal implications of the company's conduct in that regard.)

By contrast, the production company behind the new UK tour arguably made legally-weighty representations (both to the Archives and to the Public) that it would use Maria Bjornson's costume designs; un-altered and un-edited. If you're scamming the Estate of the original designer, and the theatre-going public, that goes way beyond just annoying a few fans of the show.

~Madame~

I want to believe the Archive will do something, but at the same time I can't believe the RUG or Mackintosh would be reckless enough to say one thing and do another. Perhaps there was an agreement for a certain amount of change to the costumes, or so many costumes could be changed

Mistakes are made by big wigs sometimes. ALW did get in trouble for painting the facade of the Adelphi... Human error. Nevertheless, I hope this issue, if there turns out to be one, officially, is cleared up.

So, although I have no idea what direction this will go in, and I do hope it's resolved; just for the record here is my original inquiry to the archive

Hello, I write to the Maria Bjornson archive today to pose an inquiry on the recent misuse of her designs and name in the current Phantom of The Opera U.K. tour. Upon viewing the production it seems they have taken great liberty at dismantling her design of the costumes and even some beyond recognition; I am a huge fan of Marias work, particuarly in \"Phantom\" and although her name appears on the credits of the tour I feel they have seriously misued her material and it is not being represented in the best light. I only hope to make the archive aware of this situation

and the reply

Thank you very much for your email. We have not managed to view the latest touring production of PHANTOM yet and are alarmed to hear what you say.
We do know however that the set has been completely re-designed. We were told that the costumes were unchanged.
I will let you know more when I have spoken to the touring company producer. Thank you again,

Olivia Temple
The Maria Bjornson Archive

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:FINALLY GOT A REPLY FROM THE MARIA BJORNSON ARCHIVE

The response reads;

Thank you very much for your email. We have not managed to view the latest touring production of PHANTOM yet and are alarmed to hear what you say.
We do know however that the set has been completely re-designed. We were told that the costumes were unchanged.
I will let you know more when I have spoken to the touring company producer. Thank you again,

Olivia Temple
The Maria Bjornson Archive

Im very happy this is being taken seriously

This warms my heart more than I can say.

I don't object to a newly designed Phantom. I know that is the story RUG/ALW/whoever will toot if this turns messy, but I think many phans are intrigued with getting a brand new Phantom. But to take someone's life work, chop it to pieces, and pretend like nothing has happened? Imagine they did the same with the score. I'm thinking Andrew Lloyd Webber would not be a happy camper if they did the same cut-and-paste work with his music as they've done with the costumes...

The worst part is that the changes aren't even done for the sake of money. They already had a fair stock of costumes at hand which they've used. But instead of using them as they were, they have heavily altered some (the Masquerade ones) and totally replaced others (Il Muto ballet). This means a lot of sewing.

If the MB archive really didn't know about this, and has not approved, someone has taken way too much liberty. I wonder who, in the end, holds the actual rights to the design. I hope this is resolved in a fair matter, either by going back to the original costumes, or to credit the ones in use in the UK tour "based on Maria Bjørnson's envisions" or similar (think RAH concert).

PhantomsGhost wrote:I want to believe the Archive will do something, but at the same time I can't believe the RUG or Mackintosh would be reckless enough to say one thing and do another. Perhaps there was an agreement for a certain amount of change to the costumes, or so many costumes could be changed

It really does seem odd. But at the same time, Cameron Mackintosh and his crew has not mentioned re-design of costumes anywhere. In all interviews and press releases they've been careful to tell they're using the beloved original costume design. I almost get the feeling someone within the production did the changes without clarifying it to the top? I don't want to point fingers, however, I'm just glad the people who ought to know now know.

I don't object to a newly designed Phantom. I know that is the story RUG/ALW/whoever will toot if this turns messy, but I think many phans are intrigued with getting a brand new Phantom. But to take someone's life work, chop it to pieces, and pretend like nothing has happened? Imagine they did the same with the score. I'm thinking Andrew Lloyd Webber would not be a happy camper if they did the same cut-and-paste work with his music as they've done with the costumes...

Well, as I've said before I welcome new attempts to interpret the work even if they don't pan out--but the misrepresentation here is rather inexcusable. Better to get someone to do entirely new designs rather than do a half-a**ed version of the original (again, countless high schools have proven the latter almost never works out well).

~LCD

Apparently Simon Aitken over at the What's On Stage board thinks we're THAT crowd.

"Lurking over at the 'Deserted Phans' boards, you know, THAT crowd."
http://www.whatsonstage.com/board/index.php?/topic/39478-phantom-of-the-opera-2012-uk-tour/page__st__250

The person also writes that "This further PROVES the fact that these Phans are soo closed minded to new ideas or new deisgns." (because someone wrote to the Maria Bjørnson archive). However, by this he seems to miss the main point. A brand new costume design to match the brand new sets would be very cool. But remodeling existing costumes is not "new design", and changing them without permission raises the question of what can be done or not with someone's intellectual property.

I wonder if the same person would be OK with the score being altered to the same degree that the costumes has. Removing a verse here, adding a refrain there, cutting a song, replacing violins with tubas... Yes? Something tells me Andrew Lloyd Webber would not be too pleased. Why treat the costumes differently than the score, just because the costume designer is not around to speak her mind?

I have no idea who that is.

Simon who?

Simon sez "I'm self-important."

Whoever he is, he is entitled to his opinion. I think he's missing the point concerning the costume issue, but that does not mean he should not be allowed to speak his mind. Even if it is to poke at "phans". In this he's in good company. Andrew Lloyd Webber has already labeled Phantom fans (through the dossier he gave Daily Telegraph) as crying, mentally instable housewives. Yet they keep seeking us out, don't they?

Trying to write about POTO gives me a feeling of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". If I like anything Phantom it's just because I'm a phanatic "phan". If I say something negative it's just because I'm a phanatic "phan". So...

If this turns into a big thing I just know we 'the crazy phan people' will get the blame for it

but at the end of the day, weather you like change or not, it is not about that but about misrepresentation.

I guess selective reading and skewed interpretation of THAT crowd's views isn't unique to Lord Andy.

Absurd. Utterly.

~Madame~

Hey Simon, why don't you come out of hiding and actually, I don't know, post something?

Good job, STUDI. Maybe this will make them find someone who will actually put in the work for the costumes instead of ripping apart Maria's.

He is missing the big picture, my inquiry to the Bjornson archive was simply that...an inquiry, and his argument of me being a "phan that is too close minded" to change is invaild...why? Because I actually liked LND (Aus.) so...trust me I'm not "close minded" to change...HOWEVER I am confused, and a little miffed that Maria's name is being used in print for this new tour as costume designer when they have obviously butchered the majority of her work, THAT is not being close minded, that is calling a production team out for not being faithful to her original work, if you want to use her name please use her real work, she was a true artist and NO artist wants to see their work watered down to a lesser than format, be it a painting, piece of music, or costume.

operafantomet wrote:Andrew Lloyd Webber has already labeled Phantom fans as crying, mentally instable housewives.

Ummm....How did he know? Pretty much sums me right up.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:He is missing the big picture, my inquiry to the Bjornson archive was simply that...an inquiry, and his argument of me being a "phan that is too close minded" to change is invaild...why? Because I actually liked LND (Aus.) so...trust me I'm not "close minded" to change...HOWEVER I am confused, and a little miffed that Maria's name is being used in print for this new tour as costume designer when they have obviously butchered the majority of her work, THAT is not being close minded, that is calling a production team out for not being faithful to her original work, if you want to use her name please use her real work, she was a true artist and NO artist wants to see their work watered down to a lesser than format, be it a painting, piece of music, or costume.

Perfectly put (I too am in the camp that really likes the Aussie LND) It is all about artistic representation. Unless (shudder to think) one of Maria's past associates re-designed the costumes and still put her name on them. I hope however that would not be the case.

That's jut it, the Bjornson archive was told "the costumes would remain unchanged" and even from the official production stills that have been released, it is very obivious that they have been dramatically changed, not tweaked, in ways to which some no longer even resemble their original deisgns. So I figure if the archive is "alarmed" then they had no idea this was happening.

A new tour picture here:


From this review, here:
http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/Magnificent-bound-impress/story-15656360-detail/story.html

The reviewer praise the Phantom's disappearance in the end, and the overall cast and visuals, but laments the less impressive chandelier. All in all a very positive review.

That shot looks better, much better...except the hair curl thingy on JOJ, and from this angle, I like the mask.

I wanna see that bed. Looks quite comfy

ETA: I just noticed. It looks like Katie's wearing a necklace? Maybe a locked with a pic of her father, or Raoul in it? Kind of a cool idea, IMHO, if that's what it is..




(narrow-minded indeed! HA!)

I love Katie's look in the role, I really do.


I think what is unconsiously throwing alot of us is the combo of the saturated lighting/colours, the Phantom's curl and that LND mask. It looks too much like the London LND production.


I'd love someone to comment on the deformity (so far no one seems to have sat close enough to tell)

Is it like the traditional one?
Is it like the London LND one? (which is interesting, but looks very fake in close up photos, people just dont scar so swirly and artfully) I recently stumbled accross some HD shots of it (but they are all B&W)
Is it an all new deformity?

Side note.....Totally bummed they dont show it at all in the LND DVD (but from the little that is shown it is loosely based on the Aussie deformity not the standard one)

justin-from-barbados wrote:I think what is unconsiously throwing alot of us is the combo of the saturated lighting/colours, the Phantom's curl and that LND mask. It looks too much like the London LND production.

Yes, exactly, which is why I'm still "meh" on it. And it's not unconscious. It's very clear that it's the Phantom's look and particularly the oversaturated lighting that I dislike.

Katie looks pretty identical to how she looked in the original, so of course she looks good.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:That's jut it, the Bjornson archive was told "the costumes would remain unchanged" and even from the official production stills that have been released, it is very obivious that they have been dramatically changed, not tweaked, in ways to which some no longer even resemble their original deisgns. So I figure if the archive is "alarmed" then they had no idea this was happening.

For all I know the costumes might give the same feel to the audience. But "remain unchanged" is a term loosely applied.

Red Death is apparently heavily altered, though I have seen no pictures of it so I cannot judge. The Il Muto ballet costumes are replaced with Antiquity inspired white robes. The soldiers in Hannibal is stripped of their armour. All the male Masquerade costumes are gone, and the female Masquerade character costumes have been given long skirts, pumps instead of boots, and white gloves and gold masks. Plus, all original Masquerade wigs and head garbs are gone. SOME costumes are the same as before, but the costumes for the grand ensemble numbers definitely look altered throughout.

If this had been the designer's choice, or in accord with her estate, fine. But if we've understood it correctly, these changes has been applied without the consent of her estate. It's not a matter of making the ballet girls wig straight instead of curly, or giving the Phantom that Superman hairdo. Those are cosmetic changes. What has happened here is a serious alternation of someone's design. I'm more inclined to call them a paraphrase over Bjørnson's work than her actual design.

Pardon the meagre photo stock I have to go by, but here are some examples of what I mean:



The "Butterfly" in Masquerade. To the left the costume design and a version from Las Vegas. To the right the UK tour version. It has a long purple/pink skirt, black stockings and shoes, white gloves and a gold mask, and the ornamental wings and head gear is gone. Unaltered?



The "Flower girl" in Masquerade. The petal skirt is gone, instead the new costume has dotted red/black skirt. The painted stockings and red shoes are replaced with black stockings and shoes, the coloured gloves with white ones, and the head garb is gone. Unaltered?



Another "Flower girl" from the UK tour, or at least the bodice. This skirt seems to be inspired by the "Fall lady" and her layered bloomers, except here it is featured as a long skirt. Very little is left of the original costume anyhow.



Christine's "Star Princess" Masquerade costume. Her turquoise boots are replaced by black stockings and shoes, as all the other female costumes. They've also replaced the arm ruffles with long white gloves. At least this one has bodice and skirt (and I think) tiara still in place, so the costume is recognizable. But unaltered?



The "Gold Fish" from Masquerade. The long tails has been replaced with a golden drape, the fish headgarb is gone, and the high black boots are replaced with flat golden shoes. This costume has some of the spirit of what was designed, but again - unaltered?



A Hannibal soldier. I don't mind changing the spears into bow and arrow. But removing all the metal armour makes it look like the soldiers are only wearing green T shirts. They haven't been altered as such, but they've been stripped down to the point where it's obvious.

PhantomsGhost wrote:It looks like Katie's wearing a necklace? Maybe a locked with a pic of her father, or Raoul in it? Kind of a cool idea, IMHO, if that's what it is.

It is a great idea... if you could do a close-up so the audience could see the (alleged) picture in the locket. And that's not being narrow-minded, that's just being logical

And I still say the changes to Maria's costumes look a lot more like high-end versions of what could be put together for a high school production.

R.

PhantomsGhost wrote:I want to believe the Archive will do something, but at the same time I can't believe the RUG or Mackintosh would be reckless enough to say one thing and do another. Perhaps there was an agreement for a certain amount of change to the costumes, or so many costumes could be changed

Firstly, well done to Stranger to alerting the archive - they DO have the right to know about this if this isn't what they agreed to.

Secondly, I wouldn't put it past either RUG or Cameron to be reckless. The former is recklessness defined and has never been competent IMHO. As for the latter, he allowed Connor practically to plagiarise Caird and Nunn's direction for Les Mis without seeking the permission of Sir Trevor first (according to Sir Trevor himself, though Cameron denies this), so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

operafantomet wrote:Christine's "Star Princess" Masquerade costume. Her turquoise boots are replaced by black stockings and shoes

To whoever came up with this combination... Seriously, black stockings and silvery shoes??? Why?? It really doesn't look pretty and is definitely not flattering for Christine.

phantomfett wrote:

operafantomet wrote:Andrew Lloyd Webber has already labeled Phantom fans as crying, mentally instable housewives.

Ummm....How did he know? Pretty much sums me right up.

MAKE ME A SAMMICH!

operafantomet wrote:


The "Butterfly" in Masquerade. To the left the costume design and a version from Las Vegas. To the right the UK tour version. It has a long purple/pink skirt, black stockings and shoes, white gloves and a gold mask, and the ornamental wings and head gear is gone. Unaltered?

Honestly, this feels LESS like an adaptation of Maria's Flower Girl costume and more of an allusion to the LND peacock outfit.