Phantom: Broadway vs US Tour

[TheSassySam]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 7:43am

What are the current differences between the Broadway and US Tour Phantom? I am trying to figure out if I should catch it when it's in Chicago this Winter or go see it on Broadway next year. 

 

Thank you!

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 7:49am

Why not do both and compare?  But if have to pick one, choose the Broadway Phantom 

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 9:12am

The overwhelming consensus is that the current tour version is inferior to the Broadway version (distinct differences in staging and content, not comparing performances). 

However, the inevitable factor in this decision is what shows currently on Broadway you might miss in order to see Phantom. So the question sorta' becomes: Tour Phantom vs Broadway Phantom vs Broadway Show X. If nothing else on Broadway appeals to you, go to Phantom. If you're sacrificing something that you really want to see, then a "lesser" Phantom on tour (still the basic show and score in a well-produced equity production) and a top-tier Broadway show X might be your best bet.

Only you can decide.

Updated On: 9/9/16 at 09:12 AM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 10:05am

I agree with the above BUT... if you've never we seen THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA then by all means, you MUST see the Broadway production as its still in its full original 1988 form, unlike the current tour which has been heavily reduced and modified - it's not a recreation of the original Broadway staging.  Also, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on Broadway is the last surviving glimpse of what opulent big full-scale Broadway productions looked like before shows became way too expensive to produce and started incorporating minimalistic sets, etc.  I always suggest this show whenever a newbie to Broadway asks what to see.  The Broadway incarnation of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA should be your introduction so you can see how shows were once done.  Everything else should come after.  

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 10:06am

See it on Broadway. The original is an absolute classic. The current tour is absolute garbage IMO - poorly directed, designed, and acted (although I'm sure the cast has changed since I have seen the tour). You can't beat the original staging.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 11:03am

I must say, I didn't hate the touring production.  It's different from the Broadway production, yes, but I don't think the design looks particularly inferior  (at least not from the mezzanine).  I do think that if you have a choice, go see the broadway production instead however.  The set and orechestra are quite extravagant.

[TheSassySam]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 12:42pm

Thank you for the help everybody! 

I was planning on going to the Thursday matinee since, at the moment, the only show that shares that time is Paramour so it won't interfere with any other shows I am planning to see. I am also anticipating it being on TKTS or TodayTix. I may even try to win the online lottery. If I can't grab cheap tickets for the show, no sweat off my back. 

Broadway in Chicago typically does $25 on the 25th of every month, so I may just grab one for the Phantom tour and see it twice! I am a late bloomer when it comes to seeing Broadway shows, so I, of course, want to check off this show off my list. 

Again, thank you everybody for your input, it really helps! 

Updated On: 9/9/16 at 12:42 PM

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 9:59pm

The national tour is weak tea. The vocals are less strong- the actors are encouraged to speak their lines more than anyone does in the Bway company. This production encourages more of a pop approach as well. The set design is uninspiring, and the costumes are mostly lifted from the original- an odd but telling choice. Masquerade where everyone is in basically the same costume? Zzzzzz... Not saying that Phantom is an untouchable property, but it really does make one realize how elegant, spare, and well-constructed the original production is. 

[thedrybandit]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 10:55pm

I know you've already replied, but I'm just throwing this in there. I would see it on Broadway. If you see the tour too, you'll be able to get your own comparison, but it pales in comparison to what is on Broadway today. The costumes have been taken from the old tour and Vegas productions and modified slightly just to make sure the tour designer can get credit, and the direction of the tour is what you would expect from a high school production, and the director doesn't quite seem to understand the show. Even when he was the resident director for the London production, long-time fans have pointed at that time period as being a weak point for the show. The Broadway production had the perfect creative team. The tour does not, and it highlights the weaknesses of the show more than the strengths.

[morosco]

Posted: 9/9/16 at 11:41pm

Broadway.  Twenty six musicians in the pit.  Glorious and quite rare these days.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 9/10/16 at 12:03pm

Has the Broadway production ever had to cancel a performance because of automation problems?

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/09/phantom-opera-show-dcpa-canceled/

Updated On: 9/10/16 at 12:03 PM

[thedrybandit]

Posted: 9/10/16 at 1:02pm

trpguyy said: "Has the Broadway production ever had to cancel a performance because of automation problems?

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/09/phantom-opera-show-dcpa-canceled/"

Not to my knowledge, although I have heard of a performance when the angel statue got stuck in the down position, and so the chandelier couldn't fall. They had to end act one with the angel just hanging there, and the actor still inside it until they could manually winch it up. That's the biggest tech issue I know of. Otherwise, it's been a surprisingly smooth 28 years.

[bear88]

Posted: 9/10/16 at 8:55pm

This thread is certainly relevant to me, because the Phantom tour is coming near me later this month. No, I don't have another Broadway trip planned soon, but Phantom probably isn't closing anytime soon either. 

My wife and I saw it on Broadway in 1990, and while it's not my favorite show, it does offer impressive spectacle and some nice songs. I'd rather not see a cheapskate version that leaves me feeling ripped off. 

Is the tour version just not worth seeing? 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 9/11/16 at 8:16am

bear88 said: "Is the tour version just not worth seeing? "

 

I, personally, do not think that this tour is worth sitting through. Especially if you still have memories of the original. 

 

[BaileyOnBroadway2]

Posted: 9/11/16 at 1:15pm

I saw the tour and it was not worth it! They take out everything that makes Phantom worth seeing, like Masquerade. They don't go down the stairs and the Phantom enters weird. If you can, go to NYC! 

[thedrybandit]

Posted: 9/11/16 at 11:04pm

I've heard of the boat happening, but that one is pretty rare now. Hasn't happened for years as far as I know. I've always wanted to be there for one of those performances. I have seen the other two you mentioned though. About two years ago I saw the final effect fail, and it definitely deflates the end of the show a bit. The candle has sputtered out a couple times that I've seen it over the years.

My original answer though was just show-stopping problems. That was the biggest one I know of, and that was just a delay mid-show. Have you seen anything bigger?

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 9/12/16 at 12:47am

I recall stories from the sit-down production at the Curran in SF around 1995 or so. The boat kept breaking down. I think that they had an alternative blocking and may have walked through the fog. (Not unheard of in SF!)

 

Updated On: 9/12/16 at 12:47 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 9/12/16 at 1:37am

The boat isn't automated, it's remote controlled.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/12/16 at 12:45pm

The Broadway version is definitely the more phan-tastic of the two but they both have merits. The Broadway version is a more romanticized telling of the story while the tour is a more gritty & real version (as is the trend with many movies these days). The grittiness of the tour works best in the backstage scenes, effectively showing the differences between the on-stage vs back stage. The lighting of these scenes is less golden than the original version and is more stark. The revolving cylinder and the managers' office works better in the tour as well. I personally like the rooftop scene from the tour too. However, in everything else, the original version bests the tour. 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Posted: 9/12/16 at 4:26pm

I will add my vote against seeing the tour. However, if you want to see a true prequel to "Love Never Dies," then you should see the tour as the story does fit into that show. The original plot is still there, but the direction changes do nothing and I don't understand why unless it was just to change things. There are a few clips on YouTube. I talked a friend out of seeing it when it comes to Las Vegas as I didn't want her to waste her money on a 2nd rate tour that isn't even a good representation of the original show.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/12/16 at 7:50pm

While I do actually like a lot of ALW's score, what makes Phantom work so well is that nearly perfect original Hal Prince/Maria Bjornson production.  Frankly, I wouldn't bother with the tour.

[Justin D]

Posted: 9/13/16 at 10:05am

Quite simply, the original production is Beautiful,

easiest way to describe it.

The new tour just isn't. Kind of reminds me about how I feel about the movie. the "look" of the tour is closer to the "look" of the movie. Their attempt to make it more 'realistic and gritty' what ever that means. Basically what they did in both instances was to throw all references of period accuracy out the window.

[ageorges3]

Posted: 9/16/16 at 11:38pm

Haven't gotten a chance to see the revamped tour yet, but based on pictures I've seen - and I don't want to denigrate the guys responsible for the new design, for all I know its a completely different experience live, sets don't always translate well to photos - but I don't think you can compare it fairly to the original show playing at the Majestic.  

 

One of my favorite things - and I'm one lucky dude, been able to see it more than a few times - sitting in the audience of the Majestic is taking in Bjornsons design work.  Each time I saw it I focused on different elements of the set in certain moments when I wasn't watching a performer - and there was so much detail and intelligence in what she came up with.  Without the Bjornson proscenium and her design of the Lair, it's really not fair comparing the two.  

 

Cam Mac is a brilliant producer, but what he did with the revamp of the tour - and I don't have all the facts here - was kinda selfish, I'm sad to say.  He billed it as "reinventing" and "refreshing" the look of the show - and in reality, it was probably to avoid paying royalties (not sure what the specifics of the contracts were, just taking a guess) to all of the creatives behind the original production.  Part of it may have been that the original set was a beast to tour - and that's a valid motivation on his part, the cost of physically setting up and breaking down a show of that scale might have been immense - but I'm still saddened - don't want to denigrate the man though - that touring audiences wont get to see all of that marvelous original design work.  

[FiddleMeThis]

Posted: 9/17/16 at 6:23am

You're 100% right. That's exactly what CM wanted to do- cut the royalties and have a cheaper production tour. Sadly he didn't really succeed all that well- it's not that much cheaper to tour and he still ended up using Maria's costume designs for most of it. 

[PattyO'Furniture]

Posted: 9/17/16 at 11:36am

Oooooh, guess I'm in the minority.  I thought the tour was wonderful and many, many things made much more sense than the original: hopefully some of these aren't spoilers - the transition/flashback sequence from the auction to the rehearsal of Hannibal, the descent to the lair, "Prima Donna" moving the plot along, the staging of Bouquet's death - all were so spot-on/smart.  When the chandelier fell, there was a very loud "bang" that scared me to hell, and "glass" pieces exploded into the audience - some pieces hit me in the face, and I was sitting there smelling gunpowder, shocked - me and the lady next to me, looking at each other in silence; don't even thing we remembered to applaud we were so stunned.  Things are more poignant and make more sense: in the end, when the POTO says, "Christine, I love you," Christine has crept back onstage to return the ring, but his back is to her; he doesn't know she's heard him say this, yet she still leaves...which is how it should be/more believable; a man like the POTO who's concealed his entire being would never tell someone his true feelings.   

Yes - "Masquerade" = a dud.  Bland, no magic.  Costumes are very bad, no visual appeal; they are really "non-costumes" if such a thing exists - especially the Phantom's; it's uninteresting, especially if you've seen it on Broadway or even a prior tour/sit-down; missed the staircase/opulence.  I did miss some of the magic of the lair/candles/boat.  I hated that wig on the Phantom; too long - and I can't remember if that wig came off in the Final Lair...?

Saw the prior tour many years ago - the one on B-way 15 years ago - the recent tour 2 years back.  To me, the tour performance I saw, it would be false and disrespectful to say it is "terrible" and that it should be passed up.  There is still spectacle and magic, not to mention the acting and singing.