Phantom to change to "re-staged" production in flagship productions? — Page 5

joevitus said: "Lot666 said: "joevitus said: "am I to understand nothing rises in the touring production? It's already up there in place? Doesn't that kinda kill the whole point of the dialogue leading into the Overture? Do you just sit there in the dark listening to the Overture?"

Yes, the chandelier becomes totally extraneous. Ridiculous, isn't it?"

Hugely. And odd, since if the chandelier has to fall at the end of Act 1, anyway, so why not raise it from the floor in the opening? Infact, I'd always assumed the real reason the play opens with this effect (which, as far as the plot goes, makes no sense)is so that audiences will see the chandelier is safely attached and won't really crash down on them during the Act 1 climax."

When the chandelier crashes in this tour version, it doesn't fall to the stage. It shakes and its lights flicker, then it releases sparks and fake glass shards before falling straight down. It stops maybe 15 feet above the audience and there's a blackout.

IF changes are being done to the New York and London productions, it will most likely be the NEW international tour version, which is basically the Prince/Bjornson version, cheapened. The current (or recently current) tour doesn't seem like it's in the running to be the replacement. So we are probably talking about a reduced orchestra, a chandelier that rises and falls very similar to the original, except that the angel won't be there so the pulley system is rigged through the false proscenium, which will be stripped of most of its statuary. But, all I know is what I glean off various message board so who knows maybe it'll be all projections.

Lot666, if the New York production does get rid of the angel, re-vamp the chandelier, and remove the statues from the proscenium, would you still go and see it, repeatedly?



Phantom old and new

Phantom4ever said: "Lot666, if the New York production does get rid of the angel, re-vamp the chandelier, and remove the statues from the proscenium, would you still go and see it, repeatedly?"

I may be in the minority on this view, but I'm not married to the fly-in angel ( "I gave you my music..." ). That set piece is one of the few aspects of the show that has always struck an oddly discordant note to me because the visual is not representative of any actual occurrence. At this point in the story, the three characters are supposed to be on the roof of the opera house, where the sculptural figures are quite fixed in place, so I've always thought it strange that they opted to make the Phantom appear on a "flying carpet" of sorts.

I saw the Cameron Mackintosh "reimagined" U.S. tour early in its run and was very disappointed in almost every aspect of it. Aside from the descending angel, everything else from "The Brilliant Original" is pretty much non-negotiable for me:

Ruthie must be on the stage in the auction scene, ascend to the ceiling during the overture, and crash to the stage at the end of act one.

The monkey music box must not be changed to that ridiculously outsized piece they created for the tour.

Christine must have a private dressing room. In the touring production, she shares a space with all the other ballet girls, which creates a plot hole.

During the title song, the candles must rise out of the stage and the Phantom and Christine must not be seen getting into and out of the boat as they were in the touring production, as that renders the boat completely pointless (the entire journey obviously comprises a distance of fewer than 10 feet).

The lair must not be changed to a bedroom, as it was in the U.S. tour.

Masquerade must be staged on the staircase. Also, the Phantom may not simply open a door and walk into the room, and he must wear the original Red Death costume (not the ridiculous "uniform" costume he wore in the 2004 movie and the tour). If his appearance does not frighten the other characters, the plot falls apart.

The rehearsal scene for Don Juan Triumphant must include the piano that comes to life and plays the melody of its own accord.

Updated On: 7/28/20 at 09:53 AM

This is a disgusting ploy by Mackintosh to phase out the original brilliant production and replace it with the cheap garbage fire new production.

I'm confused by this. From the article:

With no endgame to this crisis in sight, last week I had to follow through with the awful, distressing downsizing of my organisation to ensure my company’s survival. In early May I warned Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden and the Government that this would be necessary unless we received financial help. Despite the recent announcement of a £1.57 billion rescue fund for the arts, this help still hasn’t materialised. When Covid hit, all my eight theatres were packed with hit shows including some of my own. So as by far the largest independent employer in the West End it is not surprising that as both theatre owner and producer, with no outside investors, I’ve taken a huge financial hit. On top of this, Andrew and I have had to sadly permanently shut down our London and UK touring productions of The Phantom of the Opera, but are determined to bring it back to London in the future.

So, does this mean that the West End production of Phantom at Her Majesty's Theatre has officially ended its 34-year run?? Is the production evacuating Her Majesty's Theatre of all the sets and costumes (and I assume all the people working on the production are released from their contract)? So any production of Phantom that opens in the West End after the pandemic will be a revival, and not simply the re-opened original production?

If it's expensive to keep the London production intact, I can't imagine Broadway is any cheaper. I would really like to see the production at the Majestic at least one more time if it suffers the same ostensible fate as the London production.

We all know the reason here (he wants to replace the original with a new cheaper version) but I think the bigger problem here is the optics this will create on a wider scale. "If Phantom of the Freaking Opera can't survive, then the West End and theatre are doomed." Cameron is being reckless with announcing this now - there is no need to announce this. He's creating more panic.

I also read the announcement to mean that Phantom has played its last performance in London and any reopening will be considered a revival. One thing that might have spared the Broadway production is that the cost to close the current production, complete a load out, and load in the new production would be much higher here due to the strength of our unions. We usually complain about how high this makes our ticket prices by comparison, but maybe that's actually working in our favor in this case.

This is how I read it. Interesting thoughts about Broadway, I assume Broadway will have far higher running costs (particularly as neither ALW nor CamMac owns the Majestic) but didn't factor in the costs of doing a load-out. I hope the Broadway production stays safe for now, but with Cameron Mackintosh so ready to kill the flagship London production, I don't think anything can be taken for granted.

I knew as soon as Hal Prince passed that it would spell trouble for the show. What really saddens me is that the production has never been captured properly for professional, commercial release - and there is a HUGE market there. The Albert Hall sales are only so high because there is nothing else - but it is not an accurate representation of what Hal Prince and Maria Björnson conceived at the theatre. To me, it's a tragedy if future generations only have that to go on for some idea as to what the show was.

I am fully expecting Cameron Mackintosh to roll in a much-cheapened version, à la recent UK tour, and claim it is still the 'brilliant original', but I really hope not. In a way, I'd rather this was seen as a closure if that is his intention, because audiences shouldn't be conned into thinking that they're seeing the fabulous production that opened there in 1986 if he rolls in a watered-down show.

The Scorpion said: "I knew as soon as Hal Prince passed that it would spell trouble for the show. What really saddens me is that the production has never been captured properly for professional, commercial release - and there is a HUGE market there. The Albert Hall sales are only so high because there is nothing else - but it is not an accurate representation of what Hal Prince and Maria Björnson conceived at the theatre. To me, it's a tragedy if future generations only have that to go on for some idea as to what the show was.

I am fully expecting Cameron Mackintosh to roll in a much-cheapened version, à la recent UK tour, and claim it is still the 'brilliant original', but I really hope not. In a way, I'd rather this was seen as a closure if that is his intention, because audiences shouldn't be conned into thinking that they're seeing the fabulous production that opened there in 1986 if he rolls in a watered-down show."

I agree with all of this.

Also, regarding London vs. New York and what's at stake with closing the respective productions, I posted this back in June:

It also occurs to me that Les Miserables is (or was, now that Mackintosh did his number on that show) touted as the longest running musical in the West End, so changing the London production of Phantom would be slightly less problematic because the show isn't resting on the "longest running" accolade there. However, Phantom still is the longest running musical in Broadway history and it is consistently marketed as such. If they mess with the New York production, the immeasurable value of that title could be lost forever.

Tag said: "The Weissler's are waiting, and salivating,in the wings for that title."

And Disney will be putting the paperwork together to buy them soon enough after that.