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

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 7:22am

They're saying that the line between the audience and the stage will be blurred. I don't really get that vibe from the rendering that was released... Sure the boxes are covered with some stuff, but I hardly call that "blurring the line". I am a huge fan of the original, and am very much of the mindset of "it is isn't broke, don't fix it". I will be curious to see photos and videos of the finished product.

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 8:22am

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]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 10:32am

Maybe the chandelier movement depended on the tour stop? I saw the tour in early 2019 and the chandelier started, covered, at its 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 and rise back up with the overture. Then it crashed and stopped about 10 feet above the fifth row.

Updated On: 2/12/21 at 10:32 AM

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 12:05pm

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

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 1:55pm

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

Orlando, two performances in the same week.

[joevitus]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 2:16pm

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.

[DrewJoseph]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 2:32pm

I’ll just say it, I hate it. It’s a downgrade in any sense of the word. I don’t like they removed the angel. Its weirdly not symmetrical anymore. The “cracked” proscenium. Removal of black paint which gave it this ominous feel. It has lost everything that made it feel lush.

And if the rumors about the trap doors and rising candelabra and static chandelier are true it’s a total disaster.

I’m really sad I won’t be able to see the original again. It was a masterpiece.

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 2/12/21 at 10:23pm

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.]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 1:21am

Okay, full disclosure, this is gossip, and I am not vouching for its veracity, merely repeating what I was told:

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. Cam Mac learned his lesson; you can apparently monkey with Les MIs, but Phantom needs to be closer to recognizable or everyone pitches a fit.

And then the pandemic hit, which put a hitch in everyone's timeline. However, the convenience of the UK tour's proximity to Her Majesty's meant it was easier to start the rollout there instead.

If you ask me, it's a question of "when," not "if," to the extent my source is correct.

Updated On: 2/13/21 at 01:21 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 4:49am

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. 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 12:12pm

As I said, I'm not vouching for its veracity, merely reporting what I was told, but having said that, I think ALW and Cam Mac have enough money not to give a ****.

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 7:20pm

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.  

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 10:36pm

Phantom4ever said: "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?"

I didn't say it made sense, but you assume wrong; that's exactly what I was told. The source wasn't clear on whether or not it was a temporary thing until the "Brilliant Original" was ready to come back or something more permanent than that.

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 2/13/21 at 11:01pm

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. 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 2/14/21 at 9:44am

Okay, let me try again, since English doesn't seem to be sinking in:

I'm not saying this was supposed to happen at an earlier time. At all.

I am saying, as bone-headed a move as you think it would be, that I am given to understand that within the next couple of years, if the pandemic did not occur, he was gonna shut down Phantom to make way for the "Brilliant Original" version, and while it was out of commission, he was going to bring the same Les Mis restaging that apparently did not do well on Broadway last time back to Broadway, this time at the Majestic.

Further, it's not altogether clear, when Phantom came back, if it would then be at the Majestic or another place, but suffice it to say, it would be the "Brilliant Original" when it did.

We clear?

Updated On: 2/14/21 at 09:44 AM

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 2/14/21 at 11:08am

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. 

[Tag]

Posted: 2/14/21 at 12:28pm

Based on what Cam Mac has done to Phantom, Les Mis, Saigon, and Poppins in the last few years, and based on what they are currently doing in the West End, I'm inclined to believe every word that g.d.e.l.g.i has heard.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 2/14/21 at 3:44pm

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

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 2/14/21 at 4:28pm

Gdelgi, I am sorry for being obnoxious in my responses. Whenever I hear anyone say anything other than "nothing is changing at the Majestic" I immediately go on emotional defense and denial.  I do appreciate your insight and I totally get where you're coming from with the bad decision Cameron has made recently. Hell, I am still in denial that Les Miz with the revolve isn't still in London waiting for me to get there one more time to see it.  I am constantly taking people to see Phantom at the Majestic and I love telling them "why yes! this has been here since 1988!  No that part wasn't added. No that wasn't new either." And now I would have to explain how the show used to be and used to look.  Or just stop going all together. Ugh!!!!!!! 

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 8:01am

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.]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 12:17pm

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 End Les Mis as the longest-running whatever even though it is no longer even remotely the same production which earned that milestone.

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 12:57pm

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.

[threetwoone]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 1:38pm

Phantom4ever said: "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. "

Can confirm the state of the London set. I saw the show front row a few days before the closure last year and the angel did not move. All I Ask of You (Reprise) was sung from one of the boxes in a really underwhelming way. Little did I know it would be one of the LAST performances of the original ever. Very glad to have been there one last time.

Updated On: 2/15/21 at 01:38 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 2:13pm

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.

[Jjdenison22]

Posted: 2/15/21 at 4:14pm

I would give anything to see “Phantom...” right now regardless of what version was on stage.