Phantom Broadway v West End / Vegas - any opinions?

[diabhal2]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 6:58am

Hi all,

Can anyone who has seen the Broadway show say how it compares to London or Vegas? I'm travelling to NY in November and am wondering whether I should put it on my to-see list. It will obviously take up precious time that could be spent going to a show I haven't seen before. Is it different enough or would it be for completists only?

Thanks for your advice!

[Justin D]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 8:46am

It all comes down to a matter of tastes really.

I have not seen the Vegas version so can not comment on that one. Set wise it is similar but expanded in some areas and has more of a wow factor, but as you may know it is greatly shortened.

As for NYC vs London, the show is the same. But there are small differences.

(You didnt mention if you saw London or Vegas already)

London is in a smaller theatre (distance from stage to back of auditorium) so there is more intimacy and even if youre at the back, you are closer than you would be if you were at the nice cheap seats in the bacl of the balcony of the Majestic.

London however has more obstructed seats, particularly in the top balcony if you are sitting to the sides. Majestic has great sight lines (unless you are at the back of the orchestra section)

The set in London is also alot smaller and almost cramped into the theatre, where as the Broadway one is bigger and has room to breathe. But this is a difference only a die hard fan would notice.

Lastly, the performances itself (all this is totally a metter of opinion) It has been said that London has more energy because the cast is changed often where as Broadway the cast hardly changes (but there was a recent change) so the Broadway verison can seem a bit stale. I prefer to see it as being the same and spot on all the time. Also as a matter of opinion, I have always found the Broadway vocals to be better than London. The London principals almost seem like regular singers who can 'sing high' (particularly Christine), where the Broadway vocals seem more operatic.

[diabhal2]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 10:19am

Thanks for the reply Justin - sorry I should have explained that I have seen Vegas once and the London show many times as I am from London :)

You're right that Her Majesty's is quite an intimate theatre. Nice to hear that the Broadway show is larger in scale and also interesting about the cast change. Would you recommend the current Broadway cast? I have been spoiled by seeing Ramin Karimloo in recent years and have found him hard to top as Phantom.

[Rabekriegerin]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 11:02am

Well, the current Broadway Phantom is Hugh Panaro... you could hardly wish for better on this side of the pond!

Ryan Silverman used to play Raoul; I had the opportunity to see him (last summer) and was quite taken. I do believe there is a a different Raoul now, however, whom I have yet to see.

[Justin D]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 11:17am

The cast is excellent, you will have 2 brand new managers. I saw the new carlotta back in April when she was just filling in and was one of the best Carlotta's I have heard.

Hopefully when you go you will get the main Christine (Sarah Jean Forde) she has an excellent voice also.

Hugh is also a very good Phantom. But I do giggle at the way he pronounces 'Insolent Fool'

regarding the set. Yes it is the same but the proscenium has more room around it so it looks more graceful. In the lair the candelabras are painted silver so they show up more than the ones in London. The Staircase seems grander and the set up for the graveyard is a bit bigger too, more vines, bigger headstone thingy.

Just avoid sitting too far past row K in the orchestra, the whole chandelier and angel will get cut off. Or too far back in the Mez, unless because youve seen it before you dont really mind. Broadway Box usually has some nice discounts, and you can also look at getting a box ticket from the Box Office, excellent and interesting view from the box, and you can watch the orchestra play too.

[winston89]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 11:39am

Marni Raab (the Christine alternate) goes on on Monday's and Thursday's. Every other day Sara Jean Ford ( one of the best Christine's I have seen in a while) does the role. So if you want to catch Ford in the show (which I highly suggest) then you should do it on those days.

Personally, if I were visiting London, I wouldn't waste my time or my money seeing Phantom. Or, for that matter, any other show that is playing both on Broadway and in London. To me, there is just so much more that I would want to see if I were to be visiting London, That I would't want to waste a trip to the theatre on something that I can see at anytime when I am home. But, that is just me. I do know that there are people who would want to see the same show on Broadway and in London for casting reasons etc.

[KylePKJP]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 11:44am

Vegas is quite the spectacle, but I say go with an original production. The Vegas set - hell, even the theatre - is quite spectacular. However, being a phantom fan, I'm not wild about the cuts they made to make it a 90 minute show. And as cool as the Vegas chandelier is I don't like the use of the movie plot line which has it fall later in the show.

JustinD said everything best. See the full show in NY at the Majestic if you can. It's an experience, and the Majestic is surrounded by so many other theatres (Shubert, Booth, St. James, Helen Hayes, etc.) that you'll be in close proximity to any other show that might be on your list. NY Phantom currently has a terrific cast.

Good luck and enjoy your trip!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 4:32pm

I've seen Phantom on tour and on Broadway, then in Vegas. I had the BEST TIME EVER in Vegas. It's fantastic, it's stupid, it's energetic, it got rid of most of the clunkier parts, it's big and dumb and GREAT GREAT FUN. I don't know if I could see Phantom elsewhere unless it were a non-replica version.

That's all I have to say.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 4:41pm

I saw it on Broadway in 1989 and then again during the final tour 2 years ago. I was most impressed with the new sound system. They installed it both on Broadway and on the tour. I don't know if it is installed in London. I really want to see it again on Broadway.

[diabhal2]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 5:29pm

Thanks for all these great responses! I think you've all convinced me that it wouldn't be a terrible thing to go and see the Broadway show. I LOVED the Vegas show and thought it was absolutely incredible. I know Broadway is unlikely to measure up to that in spectacle terms but the cast sound very good and worth seeing.

If I'm at a loose end and can't get tickets for shows on my must-see list then I will definitely give Phantom a whirl.

(Although having said all this my partner might not be so game as I will have just dragged him to the 25th Anniversary concert at the Albert Hall, ha!)

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 6:48pm

Welcome to the board, diabhal2! I completely understand your dilemma. During our recent trip to London we only had time to see 2 shows. We were tempted to see Les Miserables again (for the umpteenth time), because we had never had the pleasure of seeing in at the West End, where it all started. However, we opted to go to 2 new shows instead (Betty Blue Eyes and Ghost). We were pretty happy with our choices, but seeing that grand marquee of Les Miz at the Queen's Theatre sure made me wish that we had had a slot available for another show.....

As for Phantom, I'm really probably not the right person to ask because it was never my cup of tea (to each his own!) If you have time, maybe you could see Phantom and something else?

[phantomvegas2]

Posted: 9/7/11 at 10:31pm

Tony Crivello, who plays the Phantom in Vegas, is worth the price of admission. Such a performance that hasn't been seen before, in this particular part. I've seen the original 24 times... but never seen someone, til Crivello, that makes me question how a human being could put themselves through that pain night after night (sometimes twice a night.)

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 12:26am

Replacing the sound system on Broadway was a godsend. I saw it before the upgrade and hearing the tinny speakers was just offensive.

I'm not the biggest fan of Phantom, so I can't say I cared about the adjustments made for Vegas. But I loved the Vegas show and was happy to see it a second time there. The production itself is spectacular, and the way they cut it down to 100 minutes is pretty stunning itself. All the songs, a lot of the other crap cut - all killer no filler!

[Little-Lotte]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 4:37am

I've seen both the Vegas and Broadway versions. I actually have tickets to see the Broadway production on Friday. Hugh was my first Phantom and the last time I've seen the Broadway production was for his "final" performance in October of 2005 so I can not wait to see it again.

I personally preferred the Broadway version to the Vegas one. Granted the theater in Vegas was so beautiful and the chandelier was spectacular and man did that sucker drop fast! The Broadway chandelier is very slow in comparison. However I did like some of the added bits in the Vegas version, particularly in regards to Buquet's death scene that I almost wish they would add to the Broadway version.

But yes, Hugh is an AMAZING Phantom, I recommend everyone to go see him if they can!

[AlfieByrne]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 5:09am

I recently saw the Vegas production and Crivello's voice was underwhelming for the part, I thought.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 2:14pm

according to the audios i've heard on youtube... don't they use different lyrics in the London and Broadway versions? most notably in Think of Me and Wandering Child?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 2:44pm

uncage, I may be wrong, but I believe London was the first to get a sound system overhaul, prompting the changes for New York and the North American tour after it proved to be quite a boon to the sound of the show.

Posted: 9/8/11 at 10:18pm

The lyric thing always confuses me. I grew up with the Canadian cast album, and while none of the lyrics are amazing, I MUCH prefer those Think of Me lyrics to the London original. I can't remember what I heard on tour, but since it was the first Canadian tour it was probably the same--but then the movie went back to the original lyrics...

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 11:18pm

The lyric changes are odd indeed. I never understood why that varies from production to production.

[KylePKJP]

Posted: 9/8/11 at 11:35pm

EricMontreal - The lyrics on the Canadian tour were the same as in Toronto and the Canadian cast album.

As I understand it, when London opened and the original cast recording was made, many of the lyrics were still a combination of Richard Stilgoe's and Charles Hart's. Lyric changes were made to follow Hart's lyrics as he took over from Stilgoe as main lyricist. Basically, some of Stilgoe's lyrics in some songs did not fit with Hart's whose lyrics were primary in most songs. Some of Stilgoe's work remains, but not much.

In some cases preceding lyrics were too much to sing/too many syllables to go with the score before following lyrics.

Example: Think of Me, Original

"Recall those days, look back on all those times
Think of the things we'll never do
There will never be a day when I won't think of you."

Became (Think of Me, Canadian)

"Think of me. Please say you'll think of me
What ever else you choose to do.
There will never be a day when I won't think of you."

That's one example I read about some years back. Mostly, it was simple things though. ALW did not want to tinker with POTO much at all in those days.