PHANTOM Current Tour vs Original

[mplstheatrefan]

Posted: 12/28/17 at 11:44pm

Hey there! Recently I saw the current Phantom of the Opera tour (actually twice), and I had a great time! I haven’t seen it in New York or London, so I can’t compare it to the original production, but what are your thoughts on the different productions? Have you seen either of them (or both)? What are some differences you noticed? Favorite part of either one? I’ve read on this board that many people aren’t super big fans of the new tour in comparison with the original, but I thought the staging was magnificent, dramatic, and clever. Hopefully I’ll make it to London or New York to see the other production some time. (I tried searching for a thread about this, but couldn’t find anything, so I apologize if this is a repeat)

[Justin D]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 7:22am

My main issue is with the 'look' of the show, like the movie, they can't seem to decide on a clear 'period' of style. It just looks campy, whereas the original is stylistically elegant throughout (even though I can see some people thinking it old fashioned) but that is part of the charm. I will however concede that the tour has a better chandelier crash (but back to the original point, the chandelier itself looks NOTHING like the one it is supposed to be based on.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 8:43am

I found the current tour to be a pile of dreck. Poorly directed and designed. It doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

[Buscee]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 8:52am

I have seen both productions. I enjoyed the tour. I liked the set with revolving tower, but I have to say that it pales in comparison to the Original. I have seen the original staging over 5 times, and some of the images (The boat ride) still fill me with awe.  There was nothing about the tour that did that for me. There is a reason why its running 30 years. It was a well thought out and constructed piece.

[mozgrrl]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 10:02am

The tour was MEH compared to the original IMHO. I wasn't a fan of the set or the fact that the Phantom throws Christine on the bed at one point (ewww). I saw it in Philadelphia a few months ago. I also saw the "tour" back in the 90's which WAS the original...I guess they changed it to keep things interesting.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 10:42am

What's interesting was that it was rumored that this new touring production would be easier to tour and be able to fit into smaller venues. However, that central set piece reportedly weighs in around 10 tons, and many venues, even ones that hosted the original, have had to do some major modifications to their stages to support that piece. The show also travels in about 20 trucks (I seem to recall that the original was around 22 or 24) so any reduction in the size is pretty negligible. 

[labellaragazza1]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 11:24am

mozgrrl said: "The tour was MEH compared to the original IMHO. I wasn't a fan of the set or the fact that the Phantom throws Christine on the bed at one point (ewww). I saw it in Philadelphia a few months ago. I also saw the "tour" back in the 90's which WAS the original...I guess they changed it to keep things interesting."

I saw the tour in the UK when it was first re-imagined and found it took a lot of the mystery and intrigue away, though I did like some of the changes to the prologue. Costumes were modified but not for the better, and the Phantom was clearly more of an angry character to say the least. I think because I love the staging of the original so much, a lot of it was lackluster in the tour. Still worth the view, in my opinion, but the tour doesn't really hold a candle to the original. There's nothing quite like the journey to the lair sequence for me, and the tour just didn't bring something special to that. 

[mplstheatrefan]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 1:09pm

I also enjoyed the prologue! I thought the transition between the prologue scene to the opera house was brilliant, with the backdrops coming down and the periaktoi turning. I think the giant curved wall on the turntable was used cleverly during the title song with the staircase that came out of it, and during “Poor Fool”. I guess I would have to see the original staging to add more, but this discussion has just made me want to see it even more. I personally thought the boat ride during the title song was a little lackluster, because there was just a fog and with a few candlelights. The pictures I’ve seen from the original looked more dramatic and elaborate.

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 1:26pm

Obviously I adore the original staging and nothing can come close to it. However, there are a few things about the new tour that I like. I like the Il Muti staging. There are definitely more laughs in the tour version. I love that you see the phantom actually hanging Joseph buquet other than it being implied that the clearly fake body is Buquet and that Phantom did it. That said, the center set piece is clunky and awkward. I hate watching the phantom go down the stairs because it makes me anxious that one of them won’t come out at the right time. I know he wears a harness but still. I also love the chandelier drop—-when I saw it with a friend last year he even asked if the set pieces falling along with the chandelier were a mistake because it looked so real. As much as I like the original, by the end of AIAOY, the audience forgot all about the opera and how Christine was taking over the role. So when the actors come out and bow, the audience is like ummmm ok I guess we clap now? And then the chandelier falls and it could be more clear as to why.

[Tag]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 2:53pm

Although the mirrored set for Masquerade is pretty, you REALLY do miss the staircase from the original version.

[mplstheatrefan]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 3:00pm

Tag said: "Although the mirrored set for Masquerade is pretty, you REALLY do miss the staircase from the original version.

I agree with you! Thank you for including that picture, I haven’t seen that set before. However, I knew about the staircase and the first time I saw this tour, I kept wondering where the staircase was! The mirrors are a nice effect, but it’s not nearly as dramatic to have the Phantom walk across the stage than if he descended the stairs. And Phantom4ever, I agree about Il Muto! It was a nice comedic moment to have
 

 

[bwayfan4life]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 4:29pm

I Have seen both. My impression was that the new touring version was designed so that it could Play in smaller theaters or theaters that the original had to skip, because it could not handle the sets.

When the original went on its first national tour, every theater it played had to be altered to actually fit the production. There was a surcharge on the tickets, to cover the costs.

It appeared to me, that the new Touring production was designed specifically so that it could fit into any theater without the theater having to be altered.

In other words, I think this is a classic example of you get what you pay for.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 4:33pm

The tour became super eh for me when the Phantom throws Christine on the bed. I figured this was their way of setting up LND potentially.

[dmwnc1959]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 4:48pm

This post below from another thread comparing the “Masquerade” ballroom scene. I haven’t seen the Broadway version, but the Phantom doesn’t just “walk across the stage” as mentioned above. He appears from behind the party-goers as the mirrored panels of the ballroom walls open, and the lightening goes from normal to red. I thought it rather a dramatic entrance. In person the set piece was gorgeous, and especially not bad for one that tours week in and week out cross-country.

 

"johannabarker said: "Masquerade is bland and I've seen high school productions better than that. " 



 

MovieInMyMind2 said: Masquerade isn't bland - it actually looks like a masquerade ballroom, now. The set for the masquerade is probably my favorite in the whole production. In reality, if one were to throw a masqiuerade ball, the majority of the dancing wouldn't be done on one giant staircase like in the Broadway production. In that regard, I do feel that the masquerade scene on Broadway is dated. A giant staircase with dummies can only go so far to convey the grandeur of a masquerade ballroom. Could the tour have made the ballroom more grand and with better quality sets? Sure. But it looks more like a masquerade ball than the Broadway version, even if it is a bit stripped down. It is a tour and it was very expensive to travel with an ensemble big enough to fill up a giant staircase. VS In my opinion, the Broadway masquerade scene is dated. There needs to be more than just a giant staircase that everyone is singing and dancing on. And likewise, the tour's masquerade scene, while lavish in its own way, could benefit from more quality propsto make the sets (not just the masquerade scene) look more rich and vibrant. In many ways, the Broadway production's sets look dated. And also, in many ways, the tours sets look cheap and flimsy. I feel that if they somehow revamped the Broadway version to have the grandeur of the Australian Love Never Dies production, then it'd be a completely different story.”

 

Updated On: 12/29/17 at 04:48 PM

[Tag]

Posted: 12/29/17 at 11:10pm

When the original went on its first national tour, every theater it played had to be altered to actually fit the production. There was a surcharge on the tickets, to cover the costs. 

The only alterations I've ever heard of for the original production, is that theatres needed to add front of house rigging points for the chandelier.  Basically if a theatre wanted to bring in the show, they had to have those points engineered and installed.  I have never heard of theatres having to alter anything space-wise to make Phantom "fit".

Consequently, as many theatres across North America did add the chandelier points, other shows that use front of house points - like the Wicked dragon, or Mary Poppins finale flying - know that if the theatre ever hosted the original Phantom tour, they can host those shows too.

[tourboi]

Posted: 12/30/17 at 11:02pm

Many theatres had to rebuild stage houses for PHANTOM - Buffalo, and Memphis immediately spring to mind but there's many more. Beyond having to reinforce in the ceilings for the chandelier, they had to expand their stage areas to accommodate the larger decks that PHANTOM (original and current) used. They also often had to reinforce the stages from underground to hold the weight. 

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 11:51am

Justin D said: "I will however concede that the tour has a better chandelier crash"

When I saw the tour, the chandelier did not "crash" at all. It just shook a little and made some sparks.

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 12:01pm

For me, there's simply no comparison; the tour was a huge letdown. Give me the "brilliant original" any day.

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 1:21pm

This was my understanding too.  The chandelier rigging points are now almost standard requirements in touring houses and other productions use these as kind of a "given."

I saw the "New Production" twice when it played the Pantages.  Once as subscription and second taking my parents.  The first time I was seriously annoyed at that scaled down show and I spent the entire time comparing it to the original.  The second time a few weeks later, knowing walking in it would be a stripped down production, I enjoyed it much more.


That said, after probably seeing the show many times in London, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, I finally saw the original on Broadway, and I called it my purging the "new Production" 

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 1:29pm

RemlapLBC said: "...I finally saw the original on Broadway, and I called it my purging the "new Production"".

Exactly! After seeing the tour twice, I couldn't wait to see it in New York again to restore my perception of the show.

[tourboi]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 6:18pm

Lot666 said: "Justin D said: "I will however concede that the tour has a better chandelier crash"

When I saw the tour, the chandelier did not "crash" at all. It just shook a little and made some sparks.

"

Perhaps there was a malfunction that day. It doesn't "crash" onto the stage like the original (which I LOVE dearly but lets be honest, depending on where you see it... the 'fall' is quite... slow), but it does impress. When the Phantom shoots it from Box 5, it explodes, jerks back and forth, then free falls very, very fast, stopping quite close to the audience during a blackout during which an explosion is heard and fake glass shatters on top of the audiences heads. 

So to say it simply shakes and sparks isn't quite accurate. But as I said, maybe it malfunctioned? I remember seeing the Original once on tour and the Chandelier didn't move at the end of act one... it just kinda stuck there at the top of the theatre while the Phantom laughed. Oops! Live theatre!

 

[bowtie7]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 6:49pm

As for the original tour fitting into theatres--as I remember it, the 1st national tour (which started in chicago) required a fairly deep stage (I seem to remember about 36 feet) while the 2nd national tour (i think starting in Seattle) wasn't as deep (I recall 29 feet). Both tours were huge compared to most other shows and required the front of house rigging points discussed in previous posts and had an extended loadin time. (with some items duplicated for pre-loadin and the show generally closing on a saturday in one city and having its first performance on wednesday in the next city.

As for making changes to theatres. The story I heard about the Fox theatre in St Louis was that the first engagement of the 2nd national tour was so successful they really wanted to get the tour back again as soon as possible and rebuild the back of the theatre to add more depth and be able to get the 1st national tour sooner than the 2nd was available. (though the expansion probably was also to better fit future shows (especially Miss Siagon).

[Tag]

Posted: 1/2/18 at 7:46pm

with some items duplicated for pre-loadin

For those that are interested, it's called a 'jump set', Lion King used (or uses) one too.

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/3/18 at 8:14am

tourboi said: "Lot666 said: "When I saw the tour, the chandelier did not "crash" at all. It just shook a little and made some sparks."

Perhaps there was a malfunction that day."

I saw the touring production twice and the chandelier did the same thing both times (it essentially did what the one at the Royal Albert Hall did for the London 25th).

tourboi said: "...it explodes, jerks back and forth, then free falls very, very fast, stopping quite close to the audience during a blackout during which an explosion is heard and fake glass shatters on top of the audiences heads."

There was no "free fall" when I saw it (there was no "fall" at all). Perhaps the effect was "enhanced" at some point further into the tour.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 1/3/18 at 10:03am

^When the current tour was in Philly a few months ago, the first few days the chandelier didn't drop due to safety concerns but they eventually got it up and running and I was able to see it fall. The drop is very quick and I can definitely see why they would want to make sure nothing goes wrong because it does get VERY close to the audience below it.