Phantom Closing?- Page 8

[quizking101]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:29pm

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)

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:33pm

joevitus said: "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."

But that Cam Mack's exact opinion. It would seem shady to do it while they were still alive so wait until they're dead. The remounted productions aren't being used to make the show viable, it's to transfer their royalties to himself. You're correct that nobody can be expecting to have a 35+ career on one show, but if you're looking at it and can clearly that the issues for why it's closing are not monetary (despite what they've "said" you can absolutely question the motives behind it. Phantom is not too expensive to run, he just doesn't feel it's profitable ENOUGH for HIM to continue to run even tho it literally takes no effort on his part except cashing his checks. The billion dollar man wants more dollars and that is the cut and dry of it.

[Scott R]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:33pm

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

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:36pm

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?

[Wick3]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:40pm

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. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:41pm

Someone asked at the box office earlier today and they didn’t have a specific on sale date yet 

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:45pm

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. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:51pm

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

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:52pm

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.

[bwaylvsong1]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:53pm

joevitus said: "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."

I see and agree with much of what you’re saying, but people in the industry seek out jobs at Phantom specifically for job security.  It’s not seen as the same sort of job as originating a role, etc.  They may find another job, but they took this job with certain expectations and for a reason beyond the typical reason those in the theatre take jobs.

 

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 2:59pm

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. 

[chernjam]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:16pm

I'm saddened by the closing announcement more for nostalgia than anything else - and the reality that probably in our lifetimes we won't see this type of grand-theater production again - with a massive cast/ orchestra/ stage craft.  The economics just don't seem to be there anymore.  To be honest, it was ALW and CM that were able to make the economics work 35 + years ago.  They were the most expensive things mounted, and they were marketed and produced in a way that made them financially viable to endure this long.  Someone mentioned that The Music Man with its $3million a week grossing hasn't recouped yet.  I find that hard to believe and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but even if it has, it will be a modest-recovery of investment.  The fact that POTO original "competition" when it opened in NY 35 years ago, Into the Woods has been revived what three, four times and I doubt made its investment back is the hard truth of the economics of the theatre industry.

Hey if I win Mega-Millions, one dream is to revive Sunset Boulevard with its original sets, with that symphonic orchestra they had in the 2017 revival, get some A-listers to star in it, even if it only plays for a week (and you can be damn sure it would be professional filmed even if I could never air it).  But those are pipe dreams for sure...

Its a business and an industry.  ALW and CM when they mounted this 35 years ago employed a heck of a lot of people especially at a time when theatre and NY itself were not in the best of shape.  You can argue they helped attract Disney and others to have a new look and attracted other talent to take their chances on the stage.  So I get both extremes of opinions here - but find it hard to be overly critical to CM  (even if he does ultimately bring back a pared-down sub par version....)

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:32pm

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. 

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:48pm

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

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:52pm

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. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:54pm

TheatreFan4 said: "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."

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.

[joevitus]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 3:55pm

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,

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 4:14pm

No one's being dumb and no one is twisting your words. You said what you said. 

And the numbers don't lie, he's not losing any money in its current form. 

[BETTY22]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 4:17pm

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

 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 5:55pm

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. 

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 6:06pm

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. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 6:13pm

Here's hoping the whole thing crashes and burns and they're just forced to bring back "the brilliant original." 

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 7:01pm

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! 

[NOLAguy]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 9:21pm

Just found the time to come to this thread. First show I saw on Broadway. Had seen other shows on tour, big city sit-down productions, etc. Phantom, when I saw it on Broadway, blew my mind. The music, the stage craft, and everything else. So sad to see it go.

Thankfully I was able to see it again in 2016 when a friend was playing Raoul and again June of this year with the same Raoul. I thought it was in excellent shape this past June. The Christine was incredible too.

Have a trip planned for the first week of February, so hoping to be able to snag a ticket to see this staple of broadway one more time.  

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 10:25pm

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?