|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 16:46:27 GMT
Is it a way of giving Les Mis the indisputable title of longest-running WE musical? I believe it's a way for Mackintosh to avoid giving any royalties to the original creatives. This is what is being said on Twitter:
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 28, 2020 16:55:13 GMT
I believe it's a way for Mackintosh to avoid giving any royalties to the original creatives. This is what is being said on Twitter: Someone responded to this tweet asking whether or not it will be the 2012 version or the 2020 version, best click on the tweet link to see the response
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 16:59:16 GMT
I saw that but didn't understand the response. Connor's production will not be going into Her Majesty's -- as far as I'm aware, that was junked and neither fans nor ALW liked it very much. More likely (which I suspected as soon as they closed the UK tour) is that they'll put the one from earlier this year in. It will be criminal if they call it 'the brilliant original' though...
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jul 28, 2020 17:05:14 GMT
I saw that but didn't understand the response. Connor's production will not be going into Her Majesty's -- as far as I'm aware, that was junked and neither fans nor ALW liked it very much. More likely (which I suspected as soon as they closed the UK tour) is that they'll put the one from earlier this year in. It will be criminal if they call it 'the brilliant original' though... The Laurence Connor production was touring in the US but I suspect it'll be replaced by the tour that debuted earlier in the year in the UK when things reopen.
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 28, 2020 17:08:25 GMT
I saw that but didn't understand the response. Connor's production will not be going into Her Majesty's -- as far as I'm aware, that was junked and neither fans nor ALW liked it very much. More likely (which I suspected as soon as they closed the UK tour) is that they'll put the one from earlier this year in. It will be criminal if they call it 'the brilliant original' though... I think the Laurence Connor version was touring in the US, but everywhere else was either the original or a replica of the original. I've not seen the 2020 touring version, so I can't really say how similar or how different it is to the original. All I can gather from what people on this thread have said is that the chandelier doesn't come down, there's no angel being lowered, etc. But as for bringing this touring version in, didn't they do something similar when Les Mis moved from the Palace to the Queens, by using a set used for a touring version and with some revisions made to the staging and choreography? Yet people did still refer to it as the original? Unless the original creatives (Trevor Nunn, John Caird, John Napier, etc) were involved?
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 17:17:37 GMT
I saw that but didn't understand the response. Connor's production will not be going into Her Majesty's -- as far as I'm aware, that was junked and neither fans nor ALW liked it very much. More likely (which I suspected as soon as they closed the UK tour) is that they'll put the one from earlier this year in. It will be criminal if they call it 'the brilliant original' though... The Laurence Connor production was touring in the US but I suspect it'll be replaced by the tour that debuted earlier in the year in the UK when things reopen. The Connor tour in the US had closed before the coronavirus shutdown. Think its last performance was in February.
|
|
5,288 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 28, 2020 17:47:39 GMT
This is all so shady.
So he’s saying Her Majesties Will now be available to other shows will it? Rubbish. He will put a 3rd rate touring version of Phantom in there as soon as he can. This is damage limitation.
|
|
|
Post by isabel on Jul 28, 2020 17:49:24 GMT
It’s Just been on Sky News about the closure
|
|
2,150 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 28, 2020 17:56:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Jul 28, 2020 18:01:57 GMT
When Phantom opened there was an error in the musicians' contracts which meant it's been pretty much impossible to fire anyone for the last 30 years. And as technology has progressed, a lot of backstage jobs are pretty redundant, but Cameron kept having to pay people to do the, and their pension contributions.
This is the perfect opportunity to stream line the show, and call time on a few people who have been earning a lot of money for very little work. 30 years of productions around the world has shown them how to do it in a more streamlined cost-effective way. In theatre, jobs come to and end... and people move on. I'm sure Phantom will be back, with all the same songs, and all the bits we love. It'll just be the die-hard fans who'll moan about tiny little changes here and there. And let's face it, they never pay full price anyway.
|
|
18,842 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 28, 2020 18:05:15 GMT
Mission accomplished. You’ll not be able to get a ticket when it reopens next year. ALW and CM are playing blinders with this.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jul 28, 2020 18:20:41 GMT
Reading the actual article in the Evening Standard it does't come across as "It's gone forever". To me it reads as more of a legal repositioning to put everything in a known state rather than have it all suspended in uncertainty. But he doesn't half come across as petulant. What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business?
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jul 28, 2020 18:41:06 GMT
Reading the actual article in the Evening Standard it does't come across as "It's gone forever". To me it reads as more of a legal repositioning to put everything in a known state rather than have it all suspended in uncertainty. But he doesn't half come across as petulant. What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business? He comes across as defeatist unlike Andrew Lloyd Webber who is spending his own money to prove the theatres can reopen.
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 28, 2020 19:01:16 GMT
What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business? It's almost as if he's trying to take the heat off himself. Sure there are plenty of things that the government should be taken into account for their handling of the pandemic, but it's not their fault that there has to be social distancing in theatres. This is how I read the article; "Oh no, socially distanced audiences won't bring me millions of pounds. I'll just close down Phantom to save myself some cash"
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 28, 2020 19:04:00 GMT
Reading the actual article in the Evening Standard it does't come across as "It's gone forever". To me it reads as more of a legal repositioning to put everything in a known state rather than have it all suspended in uncertainty. But he doesn't half come across as petulant. What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business? He comes across as defeatist unlike Andrew Lloyd Webber who is spending his own money to prove the theatres can reopen. I guess this just shows that ALW cares more about the arts than Mackintosh ever will.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jul 28, 2020 19:07:10 GMT
He comes across as defeatist unlike Andrew Lloyd Webber who is spending his own money to prove the theatres can reopen. I guess this just shows that ALW cares more about the arts than Mackintosh ever will. Or, to look at it the other way, Cameron Mackintosh has more business common sense than Andrew Lloyd Webber ever will. Sad though that may be, theatre is a business like anything else. We can moan all we like about it (I have done elsewhere, I don't particularly see the fuss here), but at the end of the day economies of scale have to be exploited in order to keep shows running. Presumably you would all rather have some form of Phantom that keeps a large number of talented people employed and the songs being performed 8 shows a week than none at all?
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 19:12:49 GMT
I guess this just shows that ALW cares more about the arts than Mackintosh ever will. Or, to look at it the other way, Cameron Mackintosh has more business common sense than Andrew Lloyd Webber ever will. Sad though that may be, theatre is a business like anything else. We can moan all we like about it (I have done elsewhere, I don't particularly see the fuss here), but at the end of the day economies of scale have to be exploited in order to keep shows running. Presumably you would all rather have some form of Phantom that keeps a large number of talented people employed and the songs being performed 8 shows a week than none at all? Not necessarily. Hal Prince said you should only do revivals if they are as good as, if not better than, the originals. If they can't do that, then employ the talented people in a different show at the theatre, rather than cheapen the older show's legacy.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jul 28, 2020 19:17:25 GMT
Or, to look at it the other way, Cameron Mackintosh has more business common sense than Andrew Lloyd Webber ever will. Sad though that may be, theatre is a business like anything else. We can moan all we like about it (I have done elsewhere, I don't particularly see the fuss here), but at the end of the day economies of scale have to be exploited in order to keep shows running. Presumably you would all rather have some form of Phantom that keeps a large number of talented people employed and the songs being performed 8 shows a week than none at all? Not necessarily. Hal Prince said you should only do revivals if they are as good as, if not better than, the originals. If they can't do that, then employ the talented people in a different show at the theatre, rather than cheapen the older show's legacy. I may be stating an obvious point here (not patronising you at all) but casting is challenging at the best of times. If a different show was produced - a new show shouldn’t have to FIT the existing cast. It’s not drama school and adapting for graduate students. (I hope I’m articulating myself well! )
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 19:17:53 GMT
What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business? It's almost as if he's trying to take the heat off himself. Sure there are plenty of things that the government should be taken into account for their handling of the pandemic, but it's not their fault that there has to be social distancing in theatres. This is how I read the article; "Oh no, socially distanced audiences won't bring me millions of pounds. I'll just close down Phantom to save myself some cash" It was a weird article. And God, the whole 'let's call the PM by his first name and compare him to Churchill to flatter him' was almost too much...
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 28, 2020 19:19:24 GMT
Not necessarily. Hal Prince said you should only do revivals if they are as good as, if not better than, the originals. If they can't do that, then employ the talented people in a different show at the theatre, rather than cheapen the older show's legacy. I may be stating an obvious point here (not patronising you at all) but casting is challenging at the best of times. If a different show was produced - a new show shouldn’t have to FIT the existing cast. It’s not drama school and adapting for graduate students. (I hope I’m articulating myself well! ) That's not what I was suggesting. The cast are talented to have made it to Phantom. Any closure is bad news employment-wise but I would rather they auditioned for other shows and other roles rather than have Phantom cheapened. The audience deserves the best it can possibly get, especially at prices charged these days by billionaire producers.
|
|
6,334 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jul 28, 2020 19:20:33 GMT
Or, to look at it the other way, Cameron Mackintosh has more business common sense than Andrew Lloyd Webber ever will.
Sad though that may be, theatre is a business like anything else. We can moan all we like about it (I have done elsewhere, I don't particularly see the fuss here), but at the end of the day economies of scale have to be exploited in order to keep shows running. Presumably you would all rather have some form of Phantom that keeps a large number of talented people employed and the songs being performed 8 shows a week than none at all? Sunset Boulevard is the textbook example of how not to produce a successful show!
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jul 28, 2020 19:21:32 GMT
I may be stating an obvious point here (not patronising you at all) but casting is challenging at the best of times. If a different show was produced - a new show shouldn’t have to FIT the existing cast. It’s not drama school and adapting for graduate students. (I hope I’m articulating myself well! ) That's not what I was suggesting. The cast are talented to have made it to Phantom. Any closure is bad news employment-wise but I would rather they auditioned for other shows and other roles rather than have Phantom cheapened. The audience deserves the best it can possibly get, especially at prices charged these days by billionaire producers. Maybe a show in the same vein as Phantom, classical MT wise? That could work!
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jul 28, 2020 19:30:03 GMT
Reading the actual article in the Evening Standard it does't come across as "It's gone forever". Which is a good reminder: BroadwayWorld rarely has any of their own original reporting anymore. Always read the source.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 28, 2020 20:45:48 GMT
Reading the actual article in the Evening Standard it does't come across as "It's gone forever". To me it reads as more of a legal repositioning to put everything in a known state rather than have it all suspended in uncertainty. But he doesn't half come across as petulant. What does he expect the government to do? Take away the virus and replace it with a more convenient one that's better suited to the needs of his business?
He reminded me of a line from Rita Rudner's ancient BBC sketch show.
"I want to be rich. Really rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be."
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 28, 2020 20:51:45 GMT
The article even mentions how they determined to return it to London in the future.
|
|
61 posts
|
Post by TheatreTwittic on Jul 28, 2020 21:01:43 GMT
I'd rather no Phantom and instead a new production, compared a rehash of Phantom that damages the future of the industry. These productions aren't museum pieces, I get that. But cost cutting for the sake of cost cutting can't be a new normal. I think the industry and audiences need to come together to stop the cheapening of productions. Ticket prices aren't dropping, they're increasing. Yet costs go run shows like less mis is dropping. Who's benefitting? Not audiences. Not creatives. Not performers. Theatre is a business, but that doesn't mean audiences will be stand off being ripped off. What's next? A panto that can't afford a dame? Wicked without Elphana's make up? The Lion King with sock puppets? <abbr data-timestamp="1595963230000" title="Jul 28, 2020 20:07:10 GMT 1" class="o-timestamp time" style="font-size: 10pt;"> If we want people to pay up to £25O a ticket, they need more than a tiny orchestra and some minimalist set backed up by screens and projection.
I love new technology in Theatre design, but it shouldn't be used as a cost cutting exercise.
, 2020 20:07:10 GMT 1</abbr> poster J said:I guess this just shows that ALW cares more about the arts than Mackintosh ever will. Or, to look at it the other way, Cameron Mackintosh has more business common sense than Andrew Lloyd Webber ever will. Sad though that may be, theatre is a business like anything else. We can moan all we like about it (I have done elsewhere, I don't particularly see the fuss here), but at the end of the day economies of scale have to be exploited in order to keep shows running. Presumably you would all rather have some form of Phantom that keeps a large number of talented people employed and the songs being performed 8 shows a week than none at all?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 28, 2020 21:02:39 GMT
Don’t believe a word of it, they said with Cats “Now and Forever.”
That is plainly untrue.
|
|
55 posts
|
Post by westlondon on Jul 28, 2020 21:18:48 GMT
Looking back through this thread there seems to have been long periods of time where no one has posted a single thing about the show. I’m really gutted at the announcement today but I also feel a bit guilty that I’ve taken the show for granted over the years. Now that it’s closing I just wish I’d shown it a bit more love...
|
|
|
1,010 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Jul 28, 2020 22:36:42 GMT
But as for bringing this touring version in, didn't they do something similar when Les Mis moved from the Palace to the Queens, by using a set used for a touring version and with some revisions made to the staging and choreography? Yet people did still refer to it as the original? Unless the original creatives (Trevor Nunn, John Caird, John Napier, etc) were involved? I never saw the Palace production but the Queens version, the touring set design and direction as you say, is generally the same as what was envisaged by the original team. Just on a smaller scale with I'm sure people here can point out some tweaks here and there and additions like the proscenium. If the 2020 touring Phantom set is being brought in at least that is closer to the original than the current Les Mis set is. Last year I said that to my mind Les Mis will loose its longest running musical by this October. Now I'd say every long running show in London and Broadway should start all over again after this pandemic. Cameron can say all he likes that Les Mis and Phantom are still running in 10 to 20 years from now whilst pretending they are still what was envisaged from the start, this long gap does not count. At least Les Mis can now keep its title for roughly the next 34 years and not be overtaken by shows like Mamma Mia.
|
|