25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

going by those pics from the brochure, it seems the satyr in the il muto ballet is wearing the bottom half of the monkey costume from masquerade.

Thanks for posting those pics from the souvenir brochure, EarlFan. They shed some light for me on the description (or should I say desecration) of the costumes.

R.

The Il Muto Ballet is downright pitiful compared to the original. Seeing the scaled down costumes is disappointing and that's one thing, but the new ballet look is unforgivable.

Viscountess wrote:The Il Muto Ballet is downright pitiful compared to the original. Seeing the scaled down costumes is disappointing and that's one thing, but the new ballet look is unforgivable.

I forgot to say in my review that 'Il Muto' has also been butchered musically -- half the ballet music has been cut out.

Ok, call us "nitpicky" or whatever for us phans picking out small details, but Il Muto is nowhere near Maria's original design! And to hear half the music has been cut... unacceptable!

Viscountess wrote:The Il Muto Ballet is downright pitiful compared to the original. Seeing the scaled down costumes is disappointing and that's one thing, but the new ballet look is unforgivable.

I think the main problem I'm seeing with this (and indeed, a lot of the school productions) is that the design is incohesive. You have these great costumes in one scene, and then you get something like these Il Muto outfits or the not-Red Death that look like amateur night. It lacks a sense of unified vision, and that makes the production look spotty as a whole.

~LCD

There's a small EPK/trailerthingy now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5CxFmybx61c

It doesn't show that much...methinks for good reason. The shots are so close-up that I think the intention is to make things look bigger than they are. Watching that you'd think the chandelier was the same size as the Albert Hall one...but it's tiny in real life.

Scorp wrote:There's a small EPK/trailerthingy now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5CxFmybx61c

It doesn't show that much...methinks for good reason. The shots are so close-up that I think the intention is to make things look bigger than they are. Watching that you'd think the chandelier was the same size as the Albert Hall one...but it's tiny in real life.

Yeah, that EPK is a lot of faces and closeups, and lingers no more than two seconds on each scene. It doesn't reveal the look of the production at all.

I did come across a new review today, though - it has a rather lovely mausoleum scene photo:
http://www.guide2bristol.com/uploads/news/large/300512103806--Phantom%20of%20the%20Opera%20Bristol%20Hippodrome%20review.jpg

Anyone wanna bet the review that photo came from is a commission? It raves about most of what phans and theatre goers have been negative about. And it ends on a high note:

I enjoyed the Phantom of the Opera immensely. The story did leave me thinking that several questions were unanswered and with a feeling of wanting to know more, so if the Bristol Hippodrome could request that Sir Lloyd Webber creates a touring production of the sequel, Love Never Dies, and brings it to Bristol as soon as possible, that would be great.
http://www.guide2bristol.com/news/2160/Phantom-of-the-Opera-Bristol-Hippodrome-review?fb_comment_id=fbc_422269871127750_83143583_422526511102086

God, that is horrible. It literally looks like a cheap school production.

SenorSwanky wrote:God, that is horrible. It literally looks like a cheap school production.

The Il Muto ballet looks EXACTLY like a cheap school production...as in EXACTLY like a dance recital with homemade cheese-cloth costumes I saw at my school when I was in fifth sixth grade. And, believe me, my school spent no money and less effort on those recitals.

I had to stop looking through the pictures after that one....

The thing that bothers me about the pictures is how much the original production's visuals played such a role in my wanting to see the show in the first place. After I fell in love with the music, I practically wore out Perry's book and any magazine photos i could find back then...and those gorgeous images seriously fueled the need to see the show itself.

If it had been pictures like these new tour ones back then...well, I don't think my reaction would've been the same. There's just no magic to them.

Paula74 wrote:If it had been pictures like these new tour ones back then...well, I don't think my reaction would've been the same. There's just no magic to them.

Yep. My comment above was specifically about the graveyard set, but a lot of it looks cheap. And Maria's costumes no longer fuse with the scenery as one vision. They seem totally out of place, what few of them are left intact.

Having seen the tour I generally concur with the comments about the lack of a cohesive vision in this production. What irritated me most were the simplifications to a lot of the costumes: Christine's dressing gown is left almost unadorned with the embroidery work I expect to see (for want of a better description; I know very little about costuming); Carlotta's dresses in both Notes scenes are very stripped down, and for some reason the black one is worn for the second scene and the red one for the first scene now. The black one is adorned with some hideous purple tassles which seem to serve little purpose than to be garish and clash with the already gaudy set for the Notes scenes. Also, for some reason, the Phantom's hat is used when he "recites" the Note in the first Notes scene, and yet is not used elsewhere - very inconsistent. A get-out clause seems to be listed in the brochure for costume alterations, namely that apparently this production makes use of designs intended for the original production but ones that were never used. Hmm. I'm not sure this can sufficiently explain some of the changes - for example, the costumes for Firmin, Andre, Raoul and Piangi in the first Notes scene were different to the original.

I fear I may be a creature of habit when it comes to set design but, however impressive the drum was (and I thought the proscenium arch and boxes were done well), nothing really matches the original production design for me. The journey to the lair, although with good use of the drum, lacks the urgency, danger (Christine doesn't even struggle!) and excellent darkness/light contrast of the original. The boat almost appears as an afterthought, as it's only used for the fourth verse - so much for the "vast, glassy lake". Again, I am biased: the journey to the lair in the Björnson/Prince staging ranks among the most stunning use of imaginative staging I have seen. Another particular misfire was the Notes set: far too busy and squeezed into a tiny area of the stage. I understand that the production team want to highlight on the backstage aspects, and the hanging of Buquet was quite effective. Yet there was a sense of cavernous space created by the drum revolve, which dwarfed the rather small individual set pieces. This created the opposite of what I associate with the atmosphere of Phantom - one of claustrophobia, mystery, oppression, and shadow. Indeed, these set pieces are rather earthbound as this production does not exploit the expanse of space onstage in the same way as the Prince/Björnson staging - take Wandering Child, where the Phantom just strolls around the graveyard, on the same level as everyone else. This is hardly menacing as Raoul then proceeds to pin him against a wall before the Phantom defends himself by throwing some fireballs. Equally, the Phantom's entrance in Masquerade does not inspire fear in the over-the-top manner the original does and is, furthermore, a major disservice to the Leroux novel.

In actuality I did enjoy the show, but for me it seemed to be a very "literal" approach to the story, which I'm not sure really benefits the material, as it is, after all, heightened and melodramatic (do we need to know how eclectic the Phantom's taste in home furnishing to such a detailed extent?). I find the more abstract, black box approach both more intellectually and emotionally satisfying, as it aids immersion, and I'd even go as far to say it suits the medium of musical theatre far better (the act of bursting into song requires a significant degree of suspension of disbelief, and therefore a non-naturalistic approach to the production facilitates this).

Away from the production side, the cast impressed me. John Owen-Jones is probably my favourite Phantom and, despite some odd direction - although I didn't really mind Music of the Night at all! - he really brings across the deep suffering of the character. Although not internally logical within the character, the act of dabbing his seeping wounds on the deformity, half-buckled over in pain, humanised him and I did feel for him - although the general trend within the production was to strip the Phantom of his mystery and allure. Nonetheless, his commendable acting, combined with his magnificent vocal performance, make for an ideal Phantom. It makes me wish I saw him more at Her Majesty's. As for the deformity, sitting in the front central stalls it was difficult to make out much of it - it came across as twisted flesh, centred about a gnarled ear (much like the Australian/World Tour design). The original design is far more striking, I dare say.

Katie Hall had a nice character arc as Christine as an isolated, exploited girl. I enjoyed the detail of her constantly wearing the locket with her father's picture on it. The direction did leave her repetitively clasping her head in her hands in "I am such a damsel in distress/helpless heroine" fashion. Vocally, she has a sweet voice but is a little too light for my taste - Katy Treharne, for me, has the perfect voice for Christine - but she gives the impression of a young, vulnerable girl both physically and vocally. Unfortunately she wasn't fully secure on the high C in Think of Me, but her vocal performance was otherwise fine - though I wasn't a fan of the belted "hate" in the Final Lair which was accompanied by a bit of scooping.

Simon Bailey was masculine yet caring as Raoul, the latter a trait I found lacking in Killian Donnelly's interpretation. The managers were a little colourless and interchangeable, I'm sad to say. Simon Green, as Andre, was consistently half a beat behind the orchestra in both Notes scenes which was distracting and disappointing. I had the feeling the supporting characters were less fully realised, although the parts are generally underwritten.

Overall, I'm glad I've seen the tour, though in the future I'll be heading to Her Majesty's - although I am curious as to how Earl Carpenter will do come September time.

Lycanthrope wrote:Having seen the tour I generally concur with the comments about the lack of a cohesive vision in this production. What irritated me most were the simplifications to a lot of the costumes: Christine's dressing gown is left almost unadorned with the embroidery work I expect to see (for want of a better description; I know very little about costuming); Carlotta's dresses in both Notes scenes are very stripped down, and for some reason the black one is worn for the second scene and the red one for the first scene now. The black one is adorned with some hideous purple tassles which seem to serve little purpose than to be garish and clash with the already gaudy set for the Notes scenes. Also, for some reason, the Phantom's hat is used when he "recites" the Note in the first Notes scene, and yet is not used elsewhere - very inconsistent. A get-out clause seems to be listed in the brochure for costume alterations, namely that apparently this production makes use of designs intended for the original production but ones that were never used. Hmm. I'm not sure this can sufficiently explain some of the changes - for example, the costumes for Firmin, Andre, Raoul and Piangi in the first Notes scene were different to the original.

I fear I may be a creature of habit when it comes to set design but, however impressive the drum was (and I thought the proscenium arch and boxes were done well), nothing really matches the original production design for me. The journey to the lair, although with good use of the drum, lacks the urgency, danger (Christine doesn't even struggle!) and excellent darkness/light contrast of the original. The boat almost appears as an afterthought, as it's only used for the fourth verse - so much for the "vast, glassy lake". Again, I am biased: the journey to the lair in the Björnson/Prince staging ranks among the most stunning use of imaginative staging I have seen. Another particular misfire was the Notes set: far too busy and squeezed into a tiny area of the stage. I understand that the production team want to highlight on the backstage aspects, and the hanging of Buquet was quite effective. Yet there was a sense of cavernous space created by the drum revolve, which dwarfed the rather small individual set pieces. This created the opposite of what I associate with the atmosphere of Phantom - one of claustrophobia, mystery, oppression, and shadow. Indeed, these set pieces are rather earthbound as this production does not exploit the expanse of space onstage in the same way as the Prince/Björnson staging - take Wandering Child, where the Phantom just strolls around the graveyard, on the same level as everyone else. This is hardly menacing as Raoul then proceeds to pin him against a wall before the Phantom defends himself by throwing some fireballs. Equally, the Phantom's entrance in Masquerade does not inspire fear in the over-the-top manner the original does and is, furthermore, a major disservice to the Leroux novel.

In actuality I did enjoy the show, but for me it seemed to be a very "literal" approach to the story, which I'm not sure really benefits the material, as it is, after all, heightened and melodramatic (do we need to know how eclectic the Phantom's taste in home furnishing to such a detailed extent?). I find the more abstract, black box approach both more intellectually and emotionally satisfying, as it aids immersion, and I'd even go as far to say it suits the medium of musical theatre far better (the act of bursting into song requires a significant degree of suspension of disbelief, and therefore a non-naturalistic approach to the production facilitates this).

Away from the production side, the cast impressed me. John Owen-Jones is probably my favourite Phantom and, despite some odd direction - although I didn't really mind Music of the Night at all! - he really brings across the deep suffering of the character. Although not internally logical within the character, the act of dabbing his seeping wounds on the deformity, half-buckled over in pain, humanised him and I did feel for him - although the general trend within the production was to strip the Phantom of his mystery and allure. Nonetheless, his commendable acting, combined with his magnificent vocal performance, make for an ideal Phantom. It makes me wish I saw him more at Her Majesty's. As for the deformity, sitting in the front central stalls it was difficult to make out much of it - it came across as twisted flesh, centred about a gnarled ear (much like the Australian/World Tour design). The original design is far more striking, I dare say.

Katie Hall had a nice character arc as Christine as an isolated, exploited girl. I enjoyed the detail of her constantly wearing the locket with her father's picture on it. The direction did leave her repetitively clasping her head in her hands in "I am such a damsel in distress/helpless heroine" fashion. Vocally, she has a sweet voice but is a little too light for my taste - Katy Treharne, for me, has the perfect voice for Christine - but she gives the impression of a young, vulnerable girl both physically and vocally. Unfortunately she wasn't fully secure on the high C in Think of Me, but her vocal performance was otherwise fine - though I wasn't a fan of the belted "hate" in the Final Lair which was accompanied by a bit of scooping.

Simon Bailey was masculine yet caring as Raoul, the latter a trait I found lacking in Killian Donnelly's interpretation. The managers were a little colourless and interchangeable, I'm sad to say. Simon Green, as Andre, was consistently half a beat behind the orchestra in both Notes scenes which was distracting and disappointing. I had the feeling the supporting characters were less fully realised, although the parts are generally underwritten.

Overall, I'm glad I've seen the tour, though in the future I'll be heading to Her Majesty's - although I am curious as to how Earl Carpenter will do come September time.

Your thoughts, for the most part, match my own (the only disagreement is that I thought MOTN was very poor), so it's nice that it's not just me who feels this way. I especially concur with your comments about the descent to the lair; why people have complimented it so much is beyond me; it really removes a lot of the menace, pulse and momentum from the song/scene.

I noticed the 'get out' clause as well, but I don't buy it (plus the press always talks about how the original costumes have been 'retained'). Some of these costumes were clearly NEVER designed by Maria; they've not showed up in any of her designs, and I feel confident I've seen most of them. If they really had used ones that she never used, might that not be because she REJECTED them? Using someone's rough draft as a finished costume and then crediting it to them is not ethical. I honestly think Maria would be horrified by the costumes in this production -- especially given how much of a perfectionist she was.

Question: where did the Phantom read the notes from? I didn't see that at all. I have a feeling that the overhang from the next level up might have blocked my view of that.

Oh, and surprise, surprise, ANYONE who dares make any of these points on Facebook gets subjected to the usual 'omg ur a hater just SHUT UP ur such a negative person omg' attacks from the 'I love everything blindly and without question' crowd. So ridiculous. Making valid criticisms does NOT make someone a "hater", whatever the hell that is, and comparing the two productions is not illegitimate either. Connor and Mackintosh do exactly the same thing in the souvenir brochure. So they're allowed to make favourable comparisons, but we're not allowed to make less favourable ones?

P.S. This photo of the tour chandelier posted by an teenage überfan of the production (who tolerates no criticism of it) made me LOL...for the wrong reasons.



Contrast how it looks above, in reality, to how they try and make it look big in the new EPK (below):

Thanks for the reply, Scorp. First a comment about the chandelier: yes, it is surprisingly small - and made even more so by the size of the auditorium in the Hippodrome. However, it was genuinely frightening at the end of the first act, I have to say - a feeling the London chandelier has never inspired in me. That being said, the Overture doesn't have the same impact without the chandelier rising. As for MOTN, I kind of get what they're going for - stressing the Phantom's role as a composer - although its staging, with the set cramped so far upstage, really doesn't help (I was disappointed with the lair set, and most of all its lighting - far too bright, though not on a 2004 movie scale). However, it was poorly executed and a lot of the blocking was muddled. I still can't work out why JOJ was clasping a candlestick for half the song. It really missed the sensual tension evident in the London production, which was a great shame, as that tension/chemistry makes the show much more interesting.

Having not seen the costume designs, I can only say I was sorely disappointed by the simplifications in place. Even the Star Princess costume was lacking - not even any stars on her skirt, which defeats the point. As for the Notes scene, the Phantom appears in the walkway on the outside of the drum revolve directly above the Notes set and "recites" (in fact, this image is present in the souvenir brochure where the hat can clearly be seen - see here: https://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll260/Maryblue89/25th/?action=view&current=P1040161.jpg) I was surprised that this was not consistently implemented (ie. in the second Notes scene), as it was a nice touch. Were the voiceovers still playback though? I can't tell. However, I can categorically state that the title song is playback - which is curious as the leads are present and also far more downstage than in the Prince/Björnson staging. The lack of doubles would presuppose live singing, bar the cadenza, but evidently not.

It's rather childish for those on Facebook to assert that constructive criticism of the tour cannot be taken. I feel this production is quite aware of the fact it stands in the shadow of the iconic Björnson design, which might account for the confused approach (wanting to break from those famous images - the lake, the Masquerade staircase) - and still harking back to them in the costume design. I would much rather a director not associated with the original production of Phantom to come up with a completely *new* concept. I feel this version has de-mystified Phantom, which kind of misses the point, as Phantom is really a metaphor for theatrical illusion. That being said though, as a tour production it is still fairly lavish - compare that to the tour of Elisabeth through Germany, which seemed far more stripped down with a bank of video screens and small set pieces.

Lycanthrope wrote:Thanks for the reply, Scorp. First a comment about the chandelier: yes, it is surprisingly small - and made even more so by the size of the auditorium in the Hippodrome. However, it was genuinely frightening at the end of the first act, I have to say - a feeling the London chandelier has never inspired in me. That being said, the Overture doesn't have the same impact without the chandelier rising. As for MOTN, I kind of get what they're going for - stressing the Phantom's role as a composer - although its staging, with the set cramped so far upstage, really doesn't help (I was disappointed with the lair set, and most of all its lighting - far too bright, though not on a 2004 movie scale). However, it was poorly executed and a lot of the blocking was muddled. I still can't work out why JOJ was clasping a candlestick for half the song. It really missed the sensual tension evident in the London production, which was a great shame, as that tension/chemistry makes the show much more interesting.

Yes, I didn't understand why he kept clasping on to the candelabra either. I can see they were trying to stress his role as a composer, which they did at the end with him clutching his score (a touch I liked), but directing the scene as a 'lecture' sucked a lot of life out of it. Christine does very little and she has little to react to; she might as well become the now-gone mannequin for all she does. And yes, too many scenes were crammed in certain areas of the stage -- same case for the scenes with the managers.

Having not seen the costume designs, I can only say I was sorely disappointed by the simplifications in place. Even the Star Princess costume was lacking - not even any stars on her skirt, which defeats the point. As for the Notes scene, the Phantom appears in the walkway on the outside of the drum revolve directly above the Notes set and "recites" (in fact, this image is present in the souvenir brochure where the hat can clearly be seen - see here: https://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll260/Maryblue89/25th/?action=view&current=P1040161.jpg) I was surprised that this was not consistently implemented (ie. in the second Notes scene), as it was a nice touch. Were the voiceovers still playback though? I can't tell. However, I can categorically state that the title song is playback - which is curious as the leads are present and also far more downstage than in the Prince/Björnson staging. The lack of doubles would presuppose live singing, bar the cadenza, but evidently not.

Agree that it is playback; I wonder why. Force of habit?

I would much rather a director not associated with the original production of Phantom to come up with a completely *new* concept.

Yes, the minute I heard that this was all being orchestrated by Cameron with Connor was director, I knew this wasn't going to be a complete reinvention of the show as, say, Evita and Sweeney Todd (both Prince shows originally) were under Michael Grandage and John Doyle respectively. I don't think it'll happen until the original ceases to play anywhere...if that happens.

I feel this version has de-mystified Phantom, which kind of misses the point, as Phantom is really a metaphor for theatrical illusion.

YES I feel you captured the point of the Prince production perfectly with those few words. You've nailed it perfectly. The show works at Her Majesty's because it is all about theatricality and old-fashioned illusion. Hal Prince once said he wanted the audience literally to smell the incense and the fabric. I think the Phantom as a metaphor for theatrical illusion is exactly what he was aiming for and succeeded in achieving.

Lycanthrope wrote:I still can't work out why JOJ was clasping a candlestick for half the song.

Perhaps he was clandestinely auditioning for "In the Next Room (or, The Vibrator Play)"?

And I recall reading somewhere (might even have been here) that one of the recent London Phantoms at Her Majesty's was instructed to play "MotN" like a lecture? Maybe somebody on staff has got a thing for that take on the material.

It's rather childish for those on Facebook to assert that constructive criticism of the tour cannot be taken.

Sadly, that seems to be how society in general acts nowadays. It's just extremely evident in fan circles like ours.

I would much rather a director not associated with the original production of Phantom to come up with a completely *new* concept. I feel this version has de-mystified Phantom, which kind of misses the point, as Phantom is really a metaphor for theatrical illusion.

Precisely. In fact, perhaps since most are in agreement that a completely fresh take on the show would be in order, perhaps we could set up a thread in the "Creative Corner" for phan artists to re-imagine the costumes on their own (I'd suggest sets too, but there's a whole other level of stage logistics that comes into play there).

R.

Raphael wrote:
Precisely. In fact, perhaps since most are in agreement that a completely fresh take on the show would be in order, perhaps we could set up a thread in the "Creative Corner" for phan artists to re-imagine the costumes on their own (I'd suggest sets too, but there's a whole other level of stage logistics that comes into play there).

R.

I like this idea! I have no talent for design myself, but would love to see and discuss other possible visions.

~LCD

There's "unofficial"Video recordings of several scenes from the tour on you tube, interesting to watch. Hopefully I won't get a telling off for mentioning that they're on there, I'm not posting links or anything.

Point of No Return... was just way too odd. I actually loved the random tango parts they had thrown in there, and I liked the unmasking at the end as well. But everything else was so... odd.

I don't mean to trash particular performers, but.... it might have worked if Katie Hall was a good dancer. She ain't. Or at least she ain't no table dancer. Or flamenco dancer. It was just a lot of kicks and arms in the air. And apart from the tango parts, there really wasn't any connection between her and John Owen Jones. Felt like they didn't quite have a plan for this number. Despite all the attempts to sex it up, it came off as more awkward than sexy.

More tango, less solo dancing, and I might actually believe there's supposed to be passion there!

Video quality was too crappy to really determine the staging. Not too thrilled with the Final Lair though. Wish PONR didn't cut off so abruptly before the unmasking.

I thought Simon Bailey's work in the Final Lair was pretty gorgeous... very vulnerable and heart breaking from the very beginning... loved his fear, as if he was realizing how in over his head he was.

New interview with JOJ: http://entertainment.ie/Theatre/feature/Interview-|-John-Owen-Jones-|-The-Phantom-of-the-Opera/10/2812.htm

And a photo of the man himself with Beverley Humphreys, host of World of Music on BBC Radio Wales: http://ow.ly/i/GXZs

That is one seriously shaded mask...

I agree, I had no idea it was so shaded! It's more shaded than the Japanese masks. I never thought I would see that. Not that it looks bad on stage, I'm just so surprised when I see those masks offstage.

In the mean time JOJ has done a new interview, this time with Entertainment.ie. He tells how this new version more or less tells the story from a new angle. He also talks about the sets:

Cameron [Mackintosh] wants to breathe new life into the show, so he’s arranged for a new set design, bigger than the West End set, and technically incredibly intricate.
I still wonder if the "drum" is easier to tour or not, and how cost effective it is. I suspect it's not all that cheaper to tour, to be honest. In the beginning it was all about "making it easier to tour", but after they launched the tour it's been all about "bigger than West End" and "very grand". Yes, I assume installing the chandelier and proscenium and candle deck was quite a hassle, and that the original IS more expensive to tour. But every new interview I read gives me the feeling of the changes being an artistic choice rather than an economical one. And I still wonder just HOW cost effective the tour is.


If you could play any role in the show, other than The Phantom, who would it be, and why?

You know, in all the years I’ve been playing the role I’ve never been asked that question! I suppose, if I was a woman, I’d like to play Carlotta, the opera singer.
I WOULD PAY SOOOO MUCH TO SEE THAT!!!

http://entertainment.ie/Theatre/feature/Interview-|-John-Owen-Jones-|-The-Phantom-of-the-Opera/10/2812.htm

operafantomet wrote:
If you could play any role in the show, other than The Phantom, who would it be, and why?

You know, in all the years I’ve been playing the role I’ve never been asked that question! I suppose, if I was a woman, I’d like to play Carlotta, the opera singer.
I WOULD PAY SOOOO MUCH TO SEE THAT!!!

Oh, so would I!

operafantomet wrote: But every new interview I read gives me the feeling of the changes being an artistic choice rather than an economical one.

It is without question an economical choice. The interviewees will inevitably deliberately give the impression that it's an artistic choice more than anything else, because they're not exactly going to tell potential ticket-buyers that this is a cheap version of the show. If the interviews are giving you that feeling, it's because they're supposed to. Doesn't make it true, though.

Raphael wrote:
Precisely. In fact, perhaps since most are in agreement that a completely fresh take on the show would be in order, perhaps we could set up a thread in the "Creative Corner" for phan artists to re-imagine the costumes on their own (I'd suggest sets too, but there's a whole other level of stage logistics that comes into play there).

R.

I could kick that off... http://artistkae.tumblr.com/post/21186175387/3-of-my-scenic-designs-for-phantom-still-working

Just don't pay attention to the fact that I posted it a few months ago... he he he

artistkae wrote:

Raphael wrote:
Precisely. In fact, perhaps since most are in agreement that a completely fresh take on the show would be in order, perhaps we could set up a thread in the "Creative Corner" for phan artists to re-imagine the costumes on their own (I'd suggest sets too, but there's a whole other level of stage logistics that comes into play there).

R.

I could kick that off... http://artistkae.tumblr.com/post/21186175387/3-of-my-scenic-designs-for-phantom-still-working

Just don't pay attention to the fact that I posted it a few months ago... he he he

I haven't seen it before, and I must say I like it. I've been wanting to see a single-set design for this show, but (not having the talent for it) didn't know how to translate it into practical terms. This looks like a good way of using a basic structure while still finding ways to convey the specific character of the various environs.

~LCD

^love those designs, I too think a one-set design could really work, with smaller pieces being used to incorporate other settings; really wish the new tour had done something like this

John Owen-Jones is guest tweeting from the Phantom account this week until the end of the Bristol run on Saturday.

charleygirl wrote:John Owen-Jones is guest tweeting from the Phantom account this week until the end of the Bristol run on Saturday.

And he's rather fun to follow! "Is the deformity the same as LND?" "No, it's better".

Also quite a few rare backstage and mask pics so far.