Phantom to change to "re-staged" production in flagship productions? — Page 10

If it proves true that the chandelier no longer rises during the overture and crashes to the stage at the end of act one, then they will have effectively eliminated any reason for having a chandelier at all. Without these sequences, the chandelier has no relevance to the plot.

This is the same complaint I had with Mackintosh's "reimagined" U.S. tour, in which the redesign created several plot holes. I know some claimed that the chandelier in that production rose and fell (slightly, and not from/to the stage), but this was not the case when I saw it. I attended two performances during the tour's stop in my area and the chandelier didn't move at either of them; it behaved exactly as it did at the Royal Albert Hall (i.e., sparks shot out of it, but nothing more).

---

MattieIce2018 said: "Maybe the chandelier movement depended on the tour stop? I saw the tour in early 2019 and the chandelier started, covered, atits highest point (it was hung above roughly the fifth row of the orchestra), then came down slowly during the prologue after the line “lot 666” and the change in underscore, putting it in place to be uncovered andrise back up with the overture. Then it crashed and stopped about 10 feet above the fifth row."

This is correct.

The first time the re-staged tour was on tour in the UK, the chandelier didn't move, but it did shoot sparks out of it.

When the tour came to the USA, the chandelier had been re-worked, and it definitely behaved as MattieIce2018 describes above. There's plenty of video proof of this... I'm sure people know where to look.

It visibly "crashed" and stopped as the lights blacked out the auditorium, similar to the Las Vegas production. When the lights came back up, the chandelier was hanging just above the audience.

Which stop did you see the tour at, Lot666? And how far apart were the two performances? Curious that the chandelier malfunctioned twice.

---

Updated On: 2/12/21 at 12:05 PM

Marginal comment: the removal of the angel is weird to me not for any emotional reason (I'm no great Phantom fan) but because an early thread of the plot involves Christina thinking the Phantom is her "Angel of Music." The design references the plot point.

Well we can still hope that none of these disastrous changes will make it to 44th Street. Although I can't imagine how they would market this? Cameron is obviously going to call the new West End "the Brilliant Original" even if it is not. What would he call a potentially untouched version in New York?

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "This revamp was initially targeted directly at Broadway. The Majestic, as a venue, has needed tidying up just as badly, if not more, than Her Majesty's. An initial plan (if not the initial plan), moving in normal time, was to close the show at the Majestic, let the theater get cleaned up, move the Les Mis restaged tour to Broadway and play it there, and then Phantom would re-open in the "Brilliant Original" flavor -- whether at the Majestic or another venue was unclear from the source, but what was clear was that it would not be the 25th anniversary restaging."

I find that a little hard to believe. For one, a licensing agreement with the theater (i.e., lease) is typically designed to prevent the closure of a show for the purpose of moving it to another theater. Of course, the producers can always discuss a transfer (i.e., Mamma Mia!, Chicago, August Osage County, etc.), but even if they did, the Shuberts would decide where to put Les Miz. Les Miz is hardly a "hot ticket" and considering it couldn't fill the Imperial, I don't see the Shuberts putting it in the Majestic, with over 200 more seats.

But another reason I don't see this as being true is that any closure/transfer would doom Phantom, which currently operates without a stop clause. As it is also no longer a "hot" ticket, there's no way a "new" or transferred production would not have one.

So you're saying that the new Les Miz tour was going to go to the Majestic in 2014, rather than back to the Imperial? I assume you're not saying that the plan was to bring the Les Miserables tour back a second time even after it couldn't sell tickets the first time, at the Imperial, a smaller house? Does that make any sense?

Perhaps the Majestic does have some peeling paint here and there (but I think it adds to the creepiness factor necessary for the show) In fact, if they did freshen up the theater, I would think they would ask the painters to "crack" or intentionally peel some of the paint to keep it looking 19th century-creepy. Not all of it, not a lot of it, but just a bit.

And listening to Cameron talk about London, he made it sound like the London set was ready to fall apart any second. Supposedly they haven't used the Angel in months because it's broken somehow? And the mechanics under the London stage are the original 19th century hardware; whereas the Majestic's are 30 years old but that's 100 years newer.

And as for the Phantom opening somewhere else, they had to dynamite the **** theater to get the set to fit and spend $1,000,000 (in 1988 dollars) to renovate the theater for the show. They won't be able to do that at another theater. But then again, with the new versions being "tourable" I guess the new show can fit anywhere now.

One thing I love about Phantom is it seems to use every last theater trick and convention there is, from footlights to trapdoors, lighting tricks to dry ice, and of course, I'm sure there is not one flyline not in use at the Majestic.

That was seven years ago! And at the time it sure seemed like Les Miz was coming back because A. the new London/tour set had not played Broadway and B. the movie was so popular at the time. But you say it was because it needed to hold a place for Phantom. So if that plan actually happened, and Phantom closed at the Majestic and the new Les Miz opened at the Majestic in 2014, I don't understand how that would help get the new original (which I guess is what this new new new version is being called?) up and running in New York. And then why did they not do anything with it for another 6 years, and now the plan switched from Broadway opening the new "tour" to a UK tour opening it?

You say "and then the pandemic hit" which makes it sound as if the pandemic hit in 2013. The Les Miserables revival had already opened and closed and played 1000 performances before the pandemic factored into anything.

I do appreciate any bit of gossip about Phantom that I can get, but your timeline just doesn't add up.

I think it has more to do with Harold Prince's death in 2019. I think Cameron was just waiting him out and now he can go ahead and wreck his and Maria's masterpiece.

Nice. Some classic BWW condescension/snark along with some gossip.

My apologies for not understanding your ridiculous story the first time; it was only because I refused to believe it was so dumb as to include another Broadway stop for the unsuccessful Les Miz tour.

So they would clearly lose the title of longest running production on Broadway if they did what you're claiming. Don't CM and ALW care about that?

And no I would not say we are clear because, as you say, English is certainly not sinking in for some of us (dang! got you with your own snark! wow I hope that doesn't make BWW implode) and it is pretty obvious you only half-heard what this person told you. I'm getting the feeling you were gossiping with the tour's merch dude and he heard that the bartender said that an audience member had said that the Phantom himself had said this smh. Go find your source and get the real story, please. I legit want to know.

Why, thank you, Tag.

As for Phantom4ever, I reported exactly what I heard as I heard it. I feel I was pretty clear. Your attempt to rewrite the past because you couldn't possibly imagine someone would make a decision like that only proves you haven't been following theater long enough to see many otherwise smart people make stupid choices (which, as Tag aptly points out, CM's got an unfortunate habit of making lately).

However, to respond to one question you raised... I don't think shutting down for what they would describe as a loadout to avoid technicalities like the one you describe would lose them the record. Especially if they chose, as I speculate, to describe it as a loadout rather than a shutdown.

---

Updated On: 2/14/21 at 03:44 PM

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I don't think shutting down for what they would describe as a loadout to avoid technicalities like the one you describe would lose them the record. Especially if they chose, as I speculate, to describe it as a loadout rather than a shutdown."

IMHO, the reopening would amount to a revival and put Phantom in the same status as the current incarnation of Chicago. How long can a show be (willfully) closed and still claim "longest-running" status?

---

Updated On: 2/15/21 at 08:01 AM

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Depends on how long it takes to make the replacement. And even then, some people don't care. Witness Cam Mac's advertising of the West EndLes Misas the longest-running whatever even though it is no longer even remotely the same production which earned that milestone."

I suspect that he would have a more difficult time getting away with such a claim on Broadway.

---

Much of my skepticism derives from the idea of CM closing the show so the Shuberts can renovate the theater. That predisposes that the Shuberts asked for the closing or offer a transfer, for what would amount to mostly aesthetic changes made to the theater. While it can use some sprucing up, the theater isn't in dire shape...they could do many things while the show is still running.

It also operates under the assumption that CM gets to pick the theatre... he doesn't. The Shuberts decide where to put a show, and Phantom's not the hit show it once was, so it would definitely be a risk of losing the theater...and would give the show a stop-clause at its new location, numbering its days.