The Phantom of the Opera - His Majesty's Theatre

I do agree with you, hence my hope that the cheaper leaner Phantom will still be truly special and an artistic vision that still tells the story in a lovely way.
Also agree, it's not an either or - artistic and financial decisions are inextricably linked to get the best possible show within the limitations of turning a daily profit for each performance.

Why even bring it back at all. Just put it out on tour for the next 5 years. Let Her Majesty's be used for a new show.

Well said Dom. I share your view and think you've been unnecessarily singled out, simply for offering an objective and alternative opinion. I also look forward to seeing and hearing the new Phantom, rather than assuming it will be an inferior and diluted downgrade. I think people might be surprised - it might not be the brilliant original, it might actually be better. (I'm thinking OAT JCS, which returned to roots and fine-tuned the show into a brilliant new original.)

Ah, but herein lies the source of a lot anguish. So many people have invested so much money, time, energy in going to see the show, listening to it, buying merchandise, discussing it, cos-playing characters, living and breathing it. People have beyond a vested interest in the show so they are bound to feel an emotional response of unjust loss. Whilst you could argue ALW/CM own the show, the people who have truly made the show are the millions of audience members, especially those repeat visitors who have returned year on year maintaining it's momentum (although Im sure others here will argue against that). So people are going to feel unfairly victimised when changes are made to something thats been such a passionate and financial commitment in their lives. 

I think it is pretty offensive to use the word "victimised" in this context. It's a piece of entertainment for the audience, they have no ownership whatsoever over it. Of course they can feel disappointed, but saying they are victimised is taking it way, way too far. This is not a case of any form of discrimination or a life or death situation. It has personal importance to some but in wider scheme of life and the times we live in really isn't important and there are far more difficult issues to be dealt with.

The only people entitled to feel victimised are the orchestra members who are losing their jobs, and even then I'm not sure that's the appropriate word to use either. People need to be a bit more careful with language sometimes -- emotions may be high but you need to be able to take a step back from them.

No, I appreciate that thanks :-)

For the record, I thought the OAT JCS was the best production of that show I'd ever seen (aside from the Lyceum one). But, unlike Phantom, JCS was never tied to/identified strongly with an original production that was reproduced all over the world. Indeed, that particular show seems to work better as an album anyway.

It is true that no-one knows what the show will be like until it opens. However, this is what we know:

(a) Cameron has said for some time that he did not consider the original production viable economically in the long term.

(b) Cameron replaces the originals of Miz and Poppins in the West End with touring versions. In the case of the former, it seems he tried to retain the original by offering to pay the original creatives off by buying their intellectual property outright so he wouldn't have to pay them royalties in the future. They refused, so he chucked the production (see John Napier's interviews with The Stage at the time of Miz's closure). The revival of Saigon is also the Laurence Connor tour. There is a clear business plan that involves replacing the iconic 1980s productions with smaller versions that are cheaper to run. Phantom is the outlier, partly because it is the most financially successful of these productions and partly because it is a co-production, though it has a (not very well-received) Connor-directed tour in the UK and the US (and soon Australia to use up the sets one last time) that ALW does not care for.

(c) Cameron finds a new model of touring the original in light of the reception of the Connor version. It is a diluted version of the Hal Prince original that scales down the sets with a smaller chandelier that doesn't rise from the stage (including the one designed for the production that they couldn't use), a bare proscenium, a fake internal arch to hang the drapes over, and some rather simplified costumes. The set is unveiled publicly at the first day of rehearsals for the UK tour - see the video on YouTube. Cameron and Seth Sklar Heyn say that it is "even better" because they are making it "for now", "for the 21st century"...which is weird because it's a period piece set in the 19th century and they keep using the "Brilliant Original" branding. Essentially it's a euphemism saying the production does not adhere to 1980s megamusical values. Despite Jessica Koravos' claims in The Daily Mail that the production would be "an exact replica" of what is on Broadway and at Her Majesty's, it is not. People object to the "Brilliant Original" branding given the clear differences, especially since the last time the "Brilliant Original" toured, no such modifications were made.

(d) Under the cover of coronavirus, the original was closed and dismantled, but with no fanfare beyond an aside in an article authored by Cameron Mackintosh in the Evening Standard - some news outlets picked up on it, others didn't.

(e) The 1986 investors were told it was not economically viable to bring back the original (while, at the same time, ALW and RUG deny the closure and keep keep everyone the "brilliant original" would be back "in its entirety", with Jessica Koravos claiming an entire new set will be made according to the 1986 designs and specifications). The investors will be cut out of any future production and the creatives, such as Hal Prince, will have their royalties greatly diminished since their contract was for "run of show".

(f) Cameron confirms to the press the Leicester tour will go into Her Majesty's. ALW denies any changes to the production, saying it will come back "bigger and better" than before and "even more Phantom-y". Cameron tells the press that ALW had sign off of every decision and ALW's creation of the idea of a feud between them over them is simply "Andrew being the showman".

(g) The planning application for HM's is revealed. The designs show the Leicester tour set with no alterations or upgrades. The Stage says there is no money for a new set, contrary to what Koravos claimed. The 2020 tour set is being shoehorned into HM's.

(h) It is announced the orchestra is to be halved.

From the basis of the above, I wouldn't bet money at all on the new production being better or as lavish as the original. I think it is clear it will be diluted and to say otherwise is simply, in the words of another poster here, denying reality. Of course, I can't know it for certain (well, I could simply ask a couple of the creatives but don't think it's a wise idea to do so).

Posters on this board pointed out the above was happening but were told that the show would be back "bigger and more spectacular than ever". So it's not surprising there has been tension on the thread as a result. At the same time, other posters said the 1986 show was "creaky and outdated". I'm not sure what part of the Leicester tour they consider an upgrade in terms of aesthetics.

The comments that say the producers can do what they want and that the audience has no ownership seems rather naive to me. Legally, they can do what they want. Commercially and artistically, it's a different thing. Commercially the audiences DO have buy-in because the production has traded on this for years. They know the audience (and certainly as long as the tourists cannot come over to see it due to COVID) are repeat attenders and fans. First-timer theatregoers are more interested in Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen. And the production has had significant buy-in from those repeat attenders in the last two decades, from the 'Do you remember your first time?' campaign to even producing branded merchandise saying 'Phantom Phan' and 'Phanatic'. Artistically, they do too. No theatre is made for the producers. You need an audience. And 34 years later, I think Marcel Duchamp and Roland Barthes would agree that the author is very much dead in this case. That much was evidenced ten years ago with the debacle over Love Never Dies - and look where that one ended up when the producers decided to ignore the audience.

If it is the case that the original was unviable to run (which seems unlikely to me - mounting it in Paris, which is not exactly known for liking musicals, was apparently totally feasible less than five years ago, ditto for Denmark - where audiences are small - only 2 years ago), my preference would have been for it to have played out its final years and closed and for a real, rethought revival to be done in time. Rather than prematurely ending its run and replacing it with - yes - a diluted version and pretending it's the same thing. That would be the normal way to do it, and yes, a rethought revival wouldn't be as lavish either. But properly rethinking the show and allowing for space between the productions (and not having Laurence Connor in the helm) could have been done in a way that respected artistic values and wouldn't have caused the upset over gaslighting the audience.

I think people are allowed to interpret their own emotions however they wish and it's not up to any board member to dictate how they vocalise their feelings, within reason.
Obviously I'm not comparing this to sexual or emotional abuse, I'd have hoped anyone reading this would have gauged that, but I stand by the fact that many have a vested interest and a right to feel aggrieved, without being belittled.
Furthermore, a lot of what has been expressed recently has been in solidarity with those who have lost their livelihoods as a result of this situation.

Exactly because its just a tourist attraction now. Its not the originsl production anymore, they've slashed the orchestra in half, its another money making exercise for 2 people who really dont need the money. Whatever form it takes, I wont be going there and want to see something different in the theatre. Of course it will return there, and I'm sure it will look great, but its had its time and really wont add anything new or exciting to the west end.

Sure, I totally get that anguish. I understand the passion for the show you love, the devotion, the hard earned money you pour into it and the place it has in your life and heart. Been through downsizings and downgrading of Starlight Express repeatedly (in fact in a way the die hard Phantom fans are uniquely lucky in MT circles to have had their love unchanged for so long!)

Re Cameron though, just to explain my thinking a bit more:
- As I said before a business has to be profitable NOW to go on, the vast profits of the past are irrelevant today (I do have extensive business experience and trust me this is how it works)
- They clearly feel they must cut costs for Phantom to turn a good profit when it returns and the orchestra amongst other things has been victim of this.
- I truly believe Cameron remains committed to a quality product as I have never seen him put his name to anything else. 
- The confused and changing communication of the last 1.5 years I give them the benefit of the doubt as Corona has constantly changed everything and is not easy to navigate. 

So given the way business works, reading between the lines, for the suggestions to keep the orchestra at full size, Cameron would have to gift money to pay for the extra musicians from his own personal wealth. And do this for as long as the show runs. (It now cannot happen when running the business - it would be a an injection of his own personal money for X number of years). This COULD happen, and I know many people here think it SHOULD happen. Though I can't think of anyone else who has ever done it.

The thing is, it's Cameron's money! Him being very wealthy, still does not give other people the right to tell him what to do with his money or to call him a disgrace for not doing that they want him to do. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are. Spending personal money is a personal thing. I should not turn up here and tell you guys how to spend your personal money, nor you tell me how to spend mine. It's up to him. It's his. And he doesn't owe anyone anything. Any more than ALW owed me to not shut Starlight and bring it back as a Kenwright tour. Despite my utter distress that I was never gonna see the AV bridge and tracks again!

I have no opinion on the other things people infer about Cameron - I don't know him personally.
But I do believe that how he spends his personal money is his business only!

CML and RUG as entities are different persons (legal persons) from ALW and CM. Both of those are profitable enough to pay for an orchestra for one flagship production. Well, they're doing it for Broadway anyway.

No-one has once said on the thread that they can't legally do what they're doing. But the justifications they've given don't add up and reek of untruth, especially given the conflicting stories that don't have anything to do with the pandemic. 

As for personal wealth, my own view is no-one needs to be a billionaire. But that is off-topic and nothing do with theatre.

Honestly, if the show in London is really no longer profitable -- which I highly doubt -- then I agree with the other posters that it should close in dignity rather than gradually being hacked to bits to the point where it is merely a shadow of its former self.