Phantom Closing? — Page 8

ACL2006 said: "The fandom for this show is deep. Ticket sales for the last few weeks are already limited."

Not sure where you are seeing the last weeks up for sale already since Telecharge has only through 1/21/23 up for sale.

I will say I bought my tickets for January yesterday and, in peeking back today, I notice they’ve already begun to quietly raise prices (analogous seats I bought for the same performance are now $25 more)

Any word on when the final shows will go on sale?

joevitus said: "Is he actually supposed to pour his own personal savings into shows so that people who have already seen them 10, 20, 30 times can keep going indefinitely, seeing them exactly as they saw them....for almost forty years already?"

I'd think it's to keep actors, musicians, backstage folks, front of house folks, etc. employed.

If the show can at least pay its rent and employee salaries each week, then keep the show open especially when the show already recouped.

RippedMan said: "joevitus said: "RippedMan said: "Exactly. He's kicking people out of their 35 year old job just to get himself more money."

But...no one in theater can expect their job to last forever. He employed them for 35 years, which is extremely rare, and extremely lucky for them.

I can't speak to the estate issues. If Prince or Bjornson or Lynne were alive, I'd see an issue. But really? He owes their kids and grandkids an easy living? And won't they have an easy life just based on the money already generated?

It just seems a bit silly."

People losing their jobs because a billionaire wants more money seems silly to you?"

Expecting someone to finance the lives of others forever is extremely silly. Almost no job in the theater lasts anywhere this long, and I'm sure there are people who have been with the show and retired and been replaced. There's no way the show can last indefinitely just to make sure everyone who ever joins the company is employed forever--and they will surely find other jobs, and people in theater do.

Your argument is melodramatic and, yes, silly.

joevitus said: "Expecting someone to finance the lives of others forever is extremely silly. Almost no job in the theater lasts anywhere this long, and I'm sure there are people who have been with the show and retired and been replaced. There's no way the show can last indefinitely just to make sure everyone who ever joins the company is employed forever--and they will surely find other jobs, and people in theater do.

Your argument is melodramatic and, yes, silly."

So closing a Broadway institution and Broadway staple that brings people to Broadway, layoffing a couple hundred employees, ending a 35 year run not because it's monetarily unfeasible anymore but just because you don't feel like you're getting enough profit from it is not silly? Like Cam Mack can do whatever he'd like, clearly, but that doesn't make it silly for people to criticize the cheap hollow reasons he has to do it.

CATSNYrevival said: "How many weeks can they shut down if they want to move theatres and still count performances as part of the original run? I’m trying to think of other examples and the only recent ones that come to mind are Mamma Mia and particularly Beauty and the Beast which very similarly moved from the Palace to the Lunt, significantly downsized the physical production, and still continued to count performances as part of the original run. Is that not part of the plan in this instance?"

My understanding, and if we're assuming much of what's been discussed about "downsizing" is true, the biggest issue with closing for a few weeks or months wouldn't be the physical set -- it would be with the music unions. The pretty-much iron-clad contracts don't allow for a production to close temporarily and cut down on the number of orchestra members. They would have to completely shudder the production, create new orchestrations (with less players), and re-enter into negotiations for a new production contract. And if this bold-faced money grab happened, you can bet the musician's union wouldn't back down easily. Any resulting performances would be considered a new, separate production and not have any effect on the originals numbers.

The reason Cam Mack ultimately chose the Majestic for Phantom, even though Bjornson didn't want it because you can't see the chandelier from the back half of the orchestra seats, is because the Shuberts agreed to pay for the insane amount of construction needed to make the show a copy of the London version. The London Phantom had all of that machinery already in the stage floor. At the Majestic, they had to blow up solid bedrock in order to get the candleabra to fit under the stage. They had to move structural beams backstage to fit the show. No other theater on Broadway is going to be able to accommodate the show in its current form. Which is why when the inevitable revival (ugh I hate even saying that word about Phantom) comes, it will be with candelabra tracked in from the side like on tour, and projections of the Opera roof, the porticullis, all of the backdrops instead of real pieces flown in. Cam Mack will herald himself as the savior of Phantom and his henchman Seth Skylar Heyn will enthusiastically market the revival as one that "speaks to today's audiences" and is a "Phantom for the 21st century". Jersey Boys and Avenue Q both waited til right around their closing performance to announce they were moving off Broadway. I could see Cam Mack waiting til then for ultimate dramatic effect. Isn't the 3rd National Tour set still in storage somewhere? They could use that and hack it up some more to avoid paying Bjornson.

As we keep repeating now, Cam Mack is still making money off of Phantom, but not as much as he would make if he could cut out the Prince Bjornson and Lynne estates. We know he wouldn't bargain with them after what he did to Trevor Nunn and John Caird with Les Miz because they said if he had asked them, they would have figured out a way to keep the original staging at a cheaper price. He wants to cut them out, but the only way to do that is to shut the show down now. He knows that the VAST majority of Phantom's audiences have no idea who Prince or Bjornson are and half of them think New York is just another stop on the tour and they could see the same exact show the next time it shows up in Wichita or Columbus or Sao Paolo for that matter.

RippedMan said: "Having sympathy for people losing their job of 35 years is silly. Cool, copy that."

Not what I'm saying, but be a drama queen.

You make it sound like they can never possibly work again.

MysteriousLady said: "I was waiting for joevitus to chime in with his usual brilliance and he didn't disappoint. I'll just leave it at that."

You are allergic to logic and common sense. Got it,

I laughed so hard reading the comment - "how long before it's at New World Stages....."

TheatreFan4 said: "joevitus said: "
If in fact the show is no longer making a profit, yes that's what you do. You know this. Stop being ridiculous. No one who joined Phantom in 1988 said, "And now I'll be employed for life."

It's one thing to have empathy for them they they are losing a job. It's another to say Mackintosh is an evil person because he won't employ them forever when he's rich. It's just dumb. Don't be dumb."

Keep letting the Billion Dollar man lie to your face when you can see quite plainly (the numbers are very much available to you) that he's full of ****. That's the reality. This is not the first or second time he's done this. This is now the THIRD time he's screwed creatives out of their royalties to line his own pockets more in the last decade alone. He's not interested in keeping these art pieces alive, he just wants more money."

To wade into this passionate discussion, part of what bothers me so much is that the contributions of the deceased have proven to be pivotal to the success of "Phantom" -- look at the versions without those sets and meticulous direction; how'd they do? So, those contributions are essential, and dead or not, they (or their estates, to be precise) must be compensated for the blood, sweat, and tears that made this production the 35-year old stalwart that it is.

I coincidently had tickets for this weekend prior to the announcement and it pains me to say that the show is in rickety shape. I have great memories of the show, and Broadway will be different without it, but it’s time has come. Let’s celebrate it’s success and be excited for the future of what is next for the Majestic. Here’s to Phantom!

It's been years since I was last in the Majestic. How is the interior of the house, lobby & bathroom space, etc? Does it all need a facelift, or should we be expecting a new tenant on the heels of Phantom?