451 replies to this topic

[Zippy]

.

[Titan]

It's definitely selling slower than previous times its toured, Southampton has loads of seats left for January still, which normally it would have sold quicker. That said in sure nearer the time it will sell out. I would say no chance of discounts, these big tours rarely do even if not sold out. Another recent Cameron tour, Oliver, didnt sell out venues and that still didn't discouny

[The Scorpion]

I think it would have sold a lot better if it was a decent, solid production. Cameron hasn't done very well in trying to hide the fact that this is a second-rate job and his lack of interest in it is evident in the paucity and drabness of the marketing. With the Les Mis tour, much was made about how the production was supposedly brand new (even though Connor and Powell basically copied what Nunn and Caird did and just took away the turntable), but here hardly anything has been said, and I think it's because there isn't much to rave about. The regional reviewers' positivity is towards the material and the excellent cast, who are better than their West End counterparts, but the production itself, particularly in terms of the direction and the design, leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.

[JimmyB3000]

The Scorpion, on 16 August 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

I think it would have sold a lot better if it was a decent, solid production.

I fully agree. I think that the idea of having a production of the Phantom of the Opera without a falling chandelier is laughable. It is probably the most iconic sequence of the show.

Having said that, I am pleased to see the show touring. I just wish the design hadn't been so intent on keeping costs down.

[SimonAitken]

JimmyB3000, on 15 August 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

What do we think the chances are of this show discounting?

I already have tickets for Edinburgh but would like to catch it a couple of times.

Having looked at availability on the Playhouse website, it appears that the show is not selling especially well.

Anyone managed to get a discount for a previous venue?

The performance on the 29th, JOJ's last has very few stall, & circle seats left. Though it maybe due to the fact that it is a cast member's last, I dunno.

[djp]

The Scorpion, on 16 August 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

I think it would have sold a lot better if it was a decent, solid production. Cameron hasn't done very well in trying to hide the fact that this is a second-rate job and his lack of interest in it is evident in the paucity and drabness of the marketing. With the Les Mis tour, much was made about how the production was supposedly brand new (even though Connor and Powell basically copied what Nunn and Caird did and just took away the turntable), but here hardly anything has been said, and I think it's because there isn't much to rave about. The regional reviewers' positivity is towards the material and the excellent cast, who are better than their West End counterparts, but the production itself, particularly in terms of the direction and the design, leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.

Depends entirely on how much people want the expected or think the alternative works,  or in some cases works better.It doesn't recreate the  original, but it never set out to,  and has a cast that can do things many casts of the orifginal  can't.  ln some cases (chandelier) thats because seemingly its not technically possible (so the alternative is no show), In some,  the new production deals with the bits of the original that don't work,  and in some the changes seem inexplicablly worse. Personally,  i agree the touring  leads are stronger,actually  rather special,  and I am booking accordingly - just in case they don't have the sense to put the cast back together in London. The Phantom is the best around and can display the complete range of the Phantom's character,  and they have a Christine who can sing and act the  character convincingly without fighting (often unconvincingly)  to act  someone much younger. That helps develop the  whole story, thats  there in the lyrics, without the pitfalls of a mature looking Christine,  or  one who can't get over the changing and developing   emotions,   or a Phantom thats just  remote and strange,   or so  old that  the audience thinks he's just a dirty old man alongside any striking  but insecure young female.  Thats cast so right, and its sung so well, that  I I don't care about chandeliers falling  or whats happened to the elephant. Those scenes still seemed to work judging from the startled people around me when the Chandelier did do its thing, and the reception of Hannibal .A bit more smoke on the chandelierscwne  to match the sound might make things work even better.   I still though have no idea what they were thinking of changing the Phantom's costume for Masquerade - the alternative is just bland -but not bland enough to be inconspicous. I just sat there thinking why,  and still have not thought of a good answer - but by the end the show was getting a big standing ovation for everything else, so does it matter?

I didn't get the impression of cheapness either. The new set is pretty striking,  and I think the old one works so well because its in a theatre thats so old and unmodernised that it does much of the job for the  show  itself. The older effects work partly because they look right for the theatre which looks like the one in the  plot would.  Not sure if you can  recreate the original in all the more modern  theatres its playing at - although when i saw them in London the leads worked well in the old  setting  too. Bristol was full for the saturday matinee when i went,I  booked Milton Keynes too long ago to tell how its selling - if Southampton is still selling i might treat myself to a  final run there too. Not sure you can compare it to Les Mis as thats very clearly something Cameron has put massive effort into  - with a tour, concert, cast recording, dvd and film to keep it going for another 25 years. .

[The Scorpion]

djp, on 16 August 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Depends entirely on how much people want the expected or think the alternative works,  or in some cases works better.It doesn't recreate the  original, but it never set out to,  and has a cast that can do things many casts of the orifginal  can't.  

Not sure what you mean. John Owen-Jones, Earl Carpenter, Katie Hall and Simon Bailey all performed in the original.

Quote

ln some cases (chandelier) thats because seemingly its not technically possible (so the alternative is no show), In some,  the new production deals with the bits of the original that don't work,  and in some the changes seem inexplicablly worse.

What bits of the original don't work for you that you feel the tour "fixed"? I struggle to think of any. The few improvements I noticed were very minor.

Quote

I didn't get the impression of cheapness either. The new set is pretty striking,  and I think the old one works so well because its in a theatre thats so old and unmodernised that it does much of the job for the  show  itself.

Really? I think it screams cheapness. The wonderful performances aside, the general 'look' of the show makes it seem like a very good college production from the states. It's not the level of professionalism that I had come to expect from Cameron Mackintosh. As I said earlier, it feels more Kenwright than Mackintosh.

Quote

Not sure you can compare it to Les Mis as thats very clearly something Cameron has put massive effort into  - with a tour, concert, cast recording, dvd and film to keep it going for another 25 years. .

Surely if any musical can be compared to Miz, it's Phantom? True though, Cameron clearly has a lot more time for Miz...and I think the subpar quality of this production demonstrates that.

[djp]

I thought they were outstanding  in the original London version too. Not sure which production I prefer overall with the same  cast (or with Killian as Raoul)  The setting helps a lot in London and smaller means more intimate  -  but if its a choice of sets or the  cast, singing  and effectiveness of the  story,  I go with the cast I like more.

Agree most of the fixes don't matter that much -  swings and roundabouts between the two productions I thought.

Not seeing the cheapness. London can be  quaint and  get away with looking old fashioned because its in an old theatre where  it fits what would have been happening in the story . I don't think you could  recreate the  feel or look of her Majesty's  on a tour even if you wanted to spend more. The main set seemed to impress most of the audience - if it was a bit slow moving at times. I think the Chandelier scene is undermined by the size of the thing which does arguably look a bit cheap, but the bang factor worked well judging by the response. If they say they couldn't do the London production's chandalier trick on tour for technical reasons  I just have to believe thats  true.  Perhaps a bigger chandelier and smoke budget would help,  but the audience were still ducking around me.  As i said,  I have no idea why  the Phantom's masquerade costume also ended up so much less impressive - you could argue it looked cheaper but there may have been some profound reason for that and other changes  that escapes me.

I agree these two musicals are the most comparable, but Les Mis does seem to get more attention (though also more name casting) In the Phantom  case the tour is after the anniversary and its not building attention for  a concert or film. There's not even signs yet of a cast recording - which it  deserves.  There's clearly been a lot of effort put into the tour though and   the casting  and the orchestra is excellent . Its certainly done better than ALW's other shows that  are being shown off currently - Starlight has a great cast but is on a much smaller scale  tour,  and JCS has Chris Moyles.

[JimmyB3000]

djp, on 16 August 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

If they say they couldn't do the London production's chandalier trick on tour for technical reasons  I just have to believe thats  true.  

djp, on 16 August 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

  ln some cases (chandelier) thats because seemingly its not technically possible (so the alternative is no show).

I think we are all forgetting that the falling chandelier has toured the UK before. It is technically possible. Clearly, it wasn't deemed necessary.

[Wandering Ranger]

Technically possible isn't just to do with "can we make the thing fall safely". Clearly they can do that. It is also to do with "can we make the thing fall safely with a reasonable financial outlay for a rig, chandelier, insurance etc.". Things like insurance are much higher than they were when POTO last toured and it may well have been that the cost of having a falling chandelier on tour was higher than was deemed necessary for what they would be getting.