25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

operafantomet wrote:

Scorp wrote:What's the time gap between Act 1 and Act 2? Is it still 6 months? If so, that would place AIAOY in the middle of summer, since Act 2 begins with with the New Year's party......so should it really be snowing?

I believe there's a 12 month gap, like in the 2004 movie. Someone commented on it in a review, about it being more believable that Christine was so terrified in Masquerade, when the Phantom appears, because she felt safe when it seemed he had definitely disappeared. Hence, AIAOY takes place during winter, and the show is not as OOT as it seems.

I don't know, somehow I doubt Christine and Raoul would wait around a whole year before they got engaged (or married, for that matter). And if she thinks she's safe, why hide the engagement? Makes no sense.

~LCD

Wasn't it six months in the stage show, and three in the movie?

TheFinnishPhantom wrote:Wasn't it six months in the stage show, and three in the movie?

Yeah it was 6 in Hal's production, and 3 in the filmthatshallnotbenamed.

TheFinnishPhantom wrote:Wasn't it six months in the stage show, and three in the movie?

Yes, I believe so.

The year makes sense, to some extent, and not in others. For a relationship to develop I can see courting for about a year before getting engaged (Raoul and Christine, that is lol), but at the same time, if the Phantom is so obsessed over Christine how in the heck would he let her go for THAT long? And was Christine singing the whole time, or was she back in the chorus/ballet?

6 months is the perfect time frame for the Phantom to not have been around, IMHO. Too bad they've changed this.

operafantomet wrote:Sometimes I get a little grumpy on the online world. Like now. I found those two pictures overneath, no-one in the online Phantom world had seen them or commented on them before. I post them here. I site where I found them.

Then people grab them like crazy, and no-one cites back where they found them. Is it too much to ask that people either say "I found them over at Deserted Phantoms" or "They came from this article"? Source. A very good thing, folks.

I've noticed this, too. There are a LOT of lurkers here, I've noticed. C'mon out you guys, join in on the conversation.
*waves to all of them*

I guess too for me I have always wondered, If I love someone who is presumably loaded, therefore with means to spend, and I am threatened by someone up to this point has never left the opera house. I would have bolted with my rich suitor after the whole chandelier debacle.

But I guess then there would be no act II, lol

operafantomet wrote:Sometimes I get a little grumpy on the online world. Like now. I found those two pictures overneath, no-one in the online Phantom world had seen them or commented on them before. I post them here. I site where I found them.

Then people grab them like crazy, and no-one cites back where they found them. Is it too much to ask that people either say "I found them over at Deserted Phantoms" or "They came from this article"? Source. A very good thing, folks.

:offtopic:
That sucks. I see a lot of my own scans going around in tumblr, with no source whatsoever, makes me a "bit" mad too. I thought of starting watermarking every picture I post with "desertedphans" or something.

TheFinnishPhantom wrote:

operafantomet wrote:Sometimes I get a little grumpy on the online world. Like now. I found those two pictures overneath, no-one in the online Phantom world had seen them or commented on them before. I post them here. I site where I found them.

Then people grab them like crazy, and no-one cites back where they found them. Is it too much to ask that people either say "I found them over at Deserted Phantoms" or "They came from this article"? Source. A very good thing, folks.

:offtopic:
That sucks. I see a lot of my own scans going around in tumblr, with no source whatsoever, makes me a "bit" mad too. I thought of starting watermarking every picture I post with "desertedphans" or something.

Do it. Then you can track its starting point.

I'm on Tumblr, and although I love it, I do see stuff show up from here all the time within hours. I know of at least one person who sources material pretty regularly, but I don't think she's a member here. She should be, because she's a wealth of information.

PhantomsGhost wrote:I'm on Tumblr, and although I love it, I do see stuff show up from here all the time within hours. I know of at least one person who sources material pretty regularly, but I don't think she's a member here. She should be, because she's a wealth of information.

Glassprism, right? She's a regular lurker... And very good with citing sources.

I did actually put in a secret marker in the Rooftop picture. Just because I spent a lot of time trying to get a full size copy out of the article, and I suspected people would pass it on without reference to origin. And it was.

ThePhinnishPhantom, you're quite right. I just thought "Snow? Same as the movie", and directly translated the time gap as well. My mistake!!

operafantomet wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote:I'm on Tumblr, and although I love it, I do see stuff show up from here all the time within hours. I know of at least one person who sources material pretty regularly, but I don't think she's a member here. She should be, because she's a wealth of information.

Glassprism, right? She's a regular lurker... And very good with citing sources.

lol! Yep, Glassprism.

operafantomet wrote:ThePhinnishPhantom, you're quite right. I just thought "Snow? Same as the movie", and directly translated the time gap as well. My mistake!!

I meant to comment on the snow earlier. Kind of a nice touch, actually...but I'd *hate* to be the one who has to clean that up every night.

PhantomsGhost wrote:

operafantomet wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote:I'm on Tumblr, and although I love it, I do see stuff show up from here all the time within hours. I know of at least one person who sources material pretty regularly, but I don't think she's a member here. She should be, because she's a wealth of information.

Glassprism, right? She's a regular lurker... And very good with citing sources.

lol! Yep, Glassprism.

operafantomet wrote:ThePhinnishPhantom, you're quite right. I just thought "Snow? Same as the movie", and directly translated the time gap as well. My mistake!!

I meant to comment on the snow earlier. Kind of a nice touch, actually...but I'd *hate* to be the one who has to clean that up every night.

Funnily enough, whilst there was snow, I never actually saw it hit the ground! In terms of timing, there isn't much more I can add. I had pretty much the same thoughts as operafantomet.
OG

Is it a projection? Snow falls after Valjean rescues Young Cosette in the new Les Mis tour, but it's projected on the scrim.

SenorSwanky wrote:Is it a projection? Snow falls after Valjean rescues Young Cosette in the new Les Mis tour, but it's projected on the scrim.

Well it sort of fell around Apollo, and there was nothing to project on really, so it looked pretty real.
And, I don't know if this was cleared up, but the curtain is real. Well, in the pictures you see that the bottom is all ruffled/folded like the Garnier one but the pattern is just painted on, it doesn't sit like that.
Funnily enough, I don't remember much projecting. And when there was, it was always just small little features, like a little moon that I personally liked in AIAOY.
On a side note, I really disliked Carlotta's il muto dress. It was this horrible electric pink, and the back had no real structure, so it was essentially like a big pink cape...
OG

thephanfullerton wrote:

SenorSwanky wrote:Is it a projection? Snow falls after Valjean rescues Young Cosette in the new Les Mis tour, but it's projected on the scrim.

Well it sort of fell around Apollo, and there was nothing to project on really, so it looked pretty real.
And, I don't know if this was cleared up, but the curtain is real. Well, in the pictures you see that the bottom is all ruffled/folded like the Garnier one but the pattern is just painted on, it doesn't sit like that.
Funnily enough, I don't remember much projecting. And when there was, it was always just small little features, like a little moon that I personally liked in AIAOY.
On a side note, I really disliked Carlotta's il muto dress. It was this horrible electric pink, and the back had no real structure, so it was essentially like a big pink cape...
OG

Oh no... the more I hear about it, the more I like the sets and the less I can deal with what they've done to the costumes. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

What I don't understand is why they decided to do what they did to the costumes in the first place. Is it because they needed maintaining and they couldn't be bothered to do it properly? Why go to such lengths as claiming her costumes have been retained, and presumably pay the Björnson estate for using them, and then do that to them?!

Yet another rave review of the tour from Manchester talks about how her original costumes have been kept too. I wonder if any of these local reviewers have even seen the original production.

Scorp wrote:Yet another rave review of the tour from Manchester talks about how her original costumes have been kept too. I wonder if any of these local reviewers have even seen the original production.

Well, to be fair a grand and dazzling musical production is a lot to take in even at the second and third viewing. The general audience probably don't even notice what the cast wears, and I doubt professional reviewers are that much more observant on particulars. If they've been told the costumes are the original ones, it's what they go by.

But I wish someone would stop saying it's "Maria Bjørnson's costumes" they use in the tour. One reviewer got it right, writing it was a "reinterpretation" or thereabout. But as far as official statements and your general reviewer, it's the original costumes.

To be honest, I don't notice or really care about the details of most of the costumes. And yeah, obviously reviewers don't have pictures they're comparing when they're writing about their impressions of the show they've just seen and are trying to get it in under the deadline.

I hope I can tell you more...I´ll write a review after visiting some shows.

Does anyone know if souvenir brochures are ready yet? I'm going to the tour tomorrow and was hoping they would be but haven't seem them mentioned anywhere (bar JOJ saying a few weeks back they'd be ready "soon.")

Don't know if anyone saw this yet, but from phantomoftheopera.com someone wrote a nice side-by-side description of the tour and the West End show.
Direct link to blog: http://chewingthescenery.com/2012/04/19/the-phantom-of-the-opera-2012-review-comparison-uk-tour-vs-west-end-april-2012/

I thought that was a nice review, seemed very ballanced too.

I wish I could find a good complete, somewhat thenical review of the new design, spoilers and all, since it is very unlikely I will ever be in a position to see this. Someone who can explain in detail this drum thing, how it works, scene by scene discriptions and all that.

Also, I am started to really get ticked off by people constantly saying that the oridinal couldnt tour when it obviously has, yes the US has more regional houses that are more like mega theatres, but surely the first and second UK tours didnt only play Manchester and Edinburgh. Just come out and say it that some changes were made to save money.

Thanks, Justin. Thank you too PhantomsGhost for sharing the link in this fan community. I used to regularly visit forums such as this one (I forget which one it was - operafantomet, you probably remember? Hvordan går det btw?!) when I was a bit younger - actually, it is how I first spoke to my future partner, eight years ago and we've been together since. We Phantom phans are a loyal bunch, eh?

To address your question there Justin, there are a number of factors to take into account when considering which venues 'receive' which shows. Our local theatres, the Leeds Grand Theatre, Bradford Alhambra, Sheffield Lyceum are all extremely well equipped to receive the biggest AAA productions. With the previous tour of Phantom, in order to 'receive' the show, the theatre was required (at their own cost) to install a huge permanent dedicated fly rig system on the ceiling of the theatre to house the chandelier. This was an extremely expensive and disruptive undertaking. Many did, as the show was practically guaranteed to sell every single seat due to its popularity and appeal. When 'selling' the show to venues, the producers also said that a benefit of a permanent rig is that when the show tours again (touted within five years of the previous show touring - yeah right!) that they could receive the show at no additional expense. Unfortunately, the current touring production uses a completely different rigging system so Bradford Alhambra, among other theatres, are left with a very expensive rig that they never use.

There are two types of shows; one which the theatre is desperate to book and one which the producers are desperate to sell. Phantom is a show which sells itself by reputation and so the producers can afford to choose which venues they would like to take the show to, based on their costs, convenience (such as the get in/out facilities) and profit margins. If a show has a 12 month initial engagement period, the production managers will sit and carefully schedule every venue in the most profitable way to ensure that in those 12 months they sell the maximum number of seats possible. Leeds Grand, as a hypothetical example, might offer a more attractive, modern theatre and facilities than say, the Alhambra, and therefore it is worth the few hundred less seats sold over the course of the run for the convenience. Playing two houses within 10 miles in West Yorkshire is out of the question, so someone has to lose. On the other hand, some shows producers are desperate to sell and are ringing all day 'promoting' their show to theatres, trying to secure a booking at a mid-sized venue.

Then there are issues like alleged conflict of interest; would it be cynical to suggest a Lloyd Webber produced production is more likely to go to a Lloyd Webber owned theatre than, say, a Ambassador Theatre Group or Nimax venue?

To answer your question directly, I believe they could easily have staged another production of the tour with the same sets (which were loaned to Australia or somewhere for a recent production!) but they have made the artistic decision to try something new for the anniversary. I don't believe it is a budgetary choice; the large drum revolve set they tour with is certainly not a 'cheap' option. In fact, I'm pretty certain it would've been much cheaper to tour the previous production again. The previous tours did only play the very largest venues due to the installation costs for the theatre compared to the size of the houses they would play. The show was available to smaller venues, but profitability was the issue more than technical limitations for most.

There's no artistic reason to create a new production, especially one that's inferior. So there must have been some cost savings in licensing and royalties or something.

SenorSwanky wrote:There's no artistic reason to create a new production, especially one that's inferior. So there must have been some cost savings in licensing and royalties or something.

I hear what you're saying, SenorSwanky (nice username), I know it is very tempting for us all to be extremely cynical with these things and jump to conclusions about why certains decisions are made, be it why one actor is cast over another, or why a football referee gives a penalty. I don't believe they set out to produce an inferior production; the production is a rather lavish and visually impressive one and, artistically, I believe it is ambitious enough to merit an update - a proper update, unlike the Vegas production which was truly disappointing on my visit.

It is the first new production in the UK in over twenty five years. I think the production team, headed by Lawrence Connor who, whatever people may have to say about him, is a popular man in Lloyd Webberland and carries a lot of clout as an RD and a director now in his own right, and was seen as the perfect man to take this new Phantom production on. I don't doubt the majority of what we see on the tour is his vision. I've met him a few times and he is always very proactive with the shows he works on; a lot of it gets rebuffed but he will try and push the envelope when he is allowed.

The show has toured twice, played all around the world and, for those who want it, the West End is on hand for all of our original production needs. I really don't think this comes down to money or royalties; there has been a lot of rubbish talked in the past about copyrights on the blocking etc. which are entirely untrue.

Didn't realize RUG/CamMac would be sending a PR team to our board. They never did that with LND.

SenorSwanky wrote:Didn't realize RUG/CamMac would be sending a PR team to our board. They never did that with LND.

Can I ask why you believe an employee of RUG would advertise the show by ironically mocking so many aspects of each production?

Where have you done that?

PhantomsGhost wrote:Don't know if anyone saw this yet, but from phantomoftheopera.com someone wrote a nice side-by-side description of the tour and the West End show.
Direct link to blog:

justin-from-barbados wrote:I thought that was a nice review, seemed very ballanced too.

I wish I could find a good complete, somewhat thenical review of the new design, spoilers and all, since it is very unlikely I will ever be in a position to see this. Someone who can explain in detail this drum thing, how it works, scene by scene discriptions and all that.

Also, I am started to really get ticked off by people constantly saying that the oridinal couldnt tour when it obviously has, yes the US has more regional houses that are more like mega theatres, but surely the first and second UK tours didnt only play Manchester and Edinburgh. Just come out and say it that some changes were made to save money.

Have you read the review? There is a link above.

SenorSwanky, nice to see some things don't change! Here's the link to Mr Zing's review, you will likely enjoy the LND review too...

www.chewingthescenery.com

harryzing wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote:Don't know if anyone saw this yet, but from phantomoftheopera.com someone wrote a nice side-by-side description of the tour and the West End show.
Direct link to blog:

justin-from-barbados wrote:I thought that was a nice review, seemed very ballanced too.

I wish I could find a good complete, somewhat thenical review of the new design, spoilers and all, since it is very unlikely I will ever be in a position to see this. Someone who can explain in detail this drum thing, how it works, scene by scene discriptions and all that.

Also, I am started to really get ticked off by people constantly saying that the oridinal couldnt tour when it obviously has, yes the US has more regional houses that are more like mega theatres, but surely the first and second UK tours didnt only play Manchester and Edinburgh. Just come out and say it that some changes were made to save money.

Have you read the review? There is a link above.

After seeing your username, it seemed obvious to me that you were the author of that review Thanks for writing it, it addressed many issues some phans have had to the new tour in a far less explosive manner that many of us tend to use in these isolated forums. I think a lot of the confusion we are feeling is that we were told that here in the US, the national tour was shut down due to how expensive it was to operate. And assuming that the new UK tour would eventually be the basis of a new US tour, the apparent size and scope of this new version apparently contradicted that reasoning. I am curious to see this new tour and will at least give it a shot should it visit my area, but as you say in your review, it feels like the changes cause the show to lose some of the magic.

I had read your Las Vegas review previously, and while I disagree with many of your comments in that post (in comparison to the Broadway, San Francisco, and multiple US tour casts I've seen - who were all wonderful, I might add - the Las Vegas company has routinely impressed me over the past 6 years; so here's where we roll out the old "You must have seen them on a bad night" chestnut), I respect your thoughts on it.

R.

Didn't realize that was your review. I'll give it a read when I get a chance.