|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 7:49:59 GMT
God forbid London appeases the tourists! (when the come back anyway) It’s always playing in loads of other cities all across the world so I think London could do without it! I’d love to see a new show in that theatre personally. Phantom is never going anywhere. It’ll out live the lot of us. |
|
375 posts
|
Post by Theatre Fan on Jun 23, 2020 9:08:29 GMT
Interesting...
|
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 23, 2020 9:12:26 GMT
So had it not been for Covid these detailed inspections would never have been done and we’d be looking at a matter of time before someone down the stalls ended up with a large light fitting landing in their bonce?
Hmmm. I smell a rat here. This is more PR spin designed to help audiences understand why the production has to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 23, 2020 9:12:53 GMT
Chandelier 3.0. Technically. Yep, I'm aware- Ruthie II ^^ Wrote 2.0 to get the general gist across, but I do wonder if this current so-called "condemned" one was an exact replica of 1.0, or already had improved construction/mechanisms. I would be all for a 3.0 with exactly the same looks but completely upgraded innards- the spirit in which all upgrades should be, for this iconic original production. Fine line to tread retaining the soul of the show while updating to modern technological standards- but with the right intent and people, it can be done. Completely replacing established designs and choreo in the name of easier operation is a lazy way out. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 23, 2020 9:16:15 GMT
You can bet your life that if the enforced closure had only lasted a month or two, the show would be back up and running in its original form generating all that cash. I do agree with them taking the opportunity to upgrade to more modern production but this suggestion that it was a huge accident waiting to happen... not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 23, 2020 9:21:20 GMT
I agree this is PR nonsense. The set is NOT 34 years old. The chandelier has been replaced at least 3 times already, if not more. The candelabra are not the originals either. No doubt they'll try and claim the Angel is unsafe - but then fix it! There's no new health and safety legislation that's suddenly come into render its use unlawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 23, 2020 9:22:03 GMT
a matter of time before someone down the stalls ended up with a large light fitting landing in their bonce Lololol But also. A theatre needing refurbishment or ageing set pieces is no excuse to throw out a perfectly good production or re-imagine/restage bits of it (uncalled-for). Unless you're Cameron Mackintosh- then apparently it's THE perfect excuse to do exactly that. Poor Les Mis, I still think to this day... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 9:33:30 GMT
I agree this is PR nonsense. The set is NOT 34 years old. The chandelier has been replaced at least 3 times already, if not more. The candelabra are not the originals either. No doubt they'll try and claim the Angel is unsafe - but then fix it! There's no new health and safety legislation that's suddenly come into render its use unlawful. No new legislation, no, but periodic inspections are required, and are far easier to do thoroughly when a production is closed! Reading through some of the comments on this thread you'd think treason was being committed by anyone dating to touch so much as a bolt or screw in the original set... seems like quite an alarming over-reaction to me! |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 23, 2020 9:38:03 GMT
I agree this is PR nonsense. The set is NOT 34 years old. The chandelier has been replaced at least 3 times already, if not more. The candelabra are not the originals either. No doubt they'll try and claim the Angel is unsafe - but then fix it! There's no new health and safety legislation that's suddenly come into render its use unlawful. No new legislation, no, but periodic inspections are required, and are far easier to do thoroughly when a production is closed! Reading through some of the comments on this thread you'd think treason was being committed by anyone dating to touch so much as a bolt or screw in the original set... seems like quite an alarming over-reaction to me! I don't think the reaction is surprising given Cameron Mackintosh's recent behaviour. He has form in this - cf. Les Mis and the branding of the UK tour, which substantially altered the original design, as the "Brilliant Original". Meanwhile cast members who have been made redundant are the sources of the information that the orchestra is to be decimated, not random people on the Internet. I would also add that the easy way to quell this reaction would have been to give reassurance that the orchestra was not going to be halved and the design not altered. Yet the statement issued today addresses neither of those key points, which are the main concerns of that petition's which is going around and causing a stir, and which ALW and Cameron have certainly seen. |
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 23, 2020 10:05:16 GMT
Everything is inspected before every performance. If you've ever seen a show where the chandelier was cut, it was likely cut before the show because it failed some part of the inspection or they weren't able to repair an issue.
Wasn't the angel recently cut because it failed a safety test?
We're not talking about the set, we're talking about the physical engineering. The candelabras are on hand winches which are heavy & stiff to control, causing injuries to crew members over the years. Updating to automation is safer and will look better because they'll no longer wobble & make a lot of noise.
Very large, very heavy set pieces have to be physically pushed on. Again, dangerous and cause injuries to crew. Introducing automation makes this safer.
I don't think anyone got too upset when they upgraded the boat.
I can't comment on orchestra sizes but it's worth noting that with COVID-19 restrictons and pit size, a lot of orchestras won't be able to safely operate without reducing sizes I'm sure the Musicians Union is on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 10:08:46 GMT
Actually I wonder if they’re setting the stage for a massive comeback for the shows 35th anniversary in October 2021. I think everyone understands work is needed to both the set and theatre and this honestly probably is the best time to start it. I can honestly see them doing a concert version for a few months towards the start of 2021 and make a song and dance out of an ‘opening night’ in a refurbished theatre with a freshly painted set, tied to their 35th anniversary.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 23, 2020 10:38:24 GMT
We're not talking about the set, we're talking about the physical engineering. The candelabras are on hand winches which are heavy & stiff to control, causing injuries to crew members over the years. Updating to automation is safer and will look better because they'll no longer wobble & make a lot of noise. Do you have certainty on the set design not being altered? Re the wobbling candelabra, this is intentional. Hal Prince's conception of the show was that the hand machinery at HMT's would be used in the production. This is why in international productions (e.g. Broadway) where the candelabra are automated, they still judder in order to recreate that specific effect. There was a deliberate choice not to have them rise smoothly, so as to recreate the atmosphere of nineteenth-century theatre. If they decide that it's no longer feasible to have this done by hand at HMT's, then I can understand that as no doubt it's expensive as well for the production, but the candelabra will never not wobble or make some noise as they're supposed to do precisely that. |
|
|
|
Post by cjamess on Jun 23, 2020 10:43:37 GMT
UPDATE... All cast members and orchestra members have had their contracts terminated - including those orchestra and cast members who've been with the company 30+ years. The UK tour cast and orchestra have been given the chance to reprise their roles on the tour in the WE when it reopens as a condition of closing the tour completely - this is probably why people believe the production will be changed to the uk tour set. The technical elements of the show such as the Victorian trap door system and flying system, also the theatre air con and cooling systems have become unsafe - workmen have been in at the start of this week to fix these things. Getting rid of 13 musicians however seems to be an act of greed rather than a cost cutting measure - for example they could re-orchestrate the show to get rid of 2-3. musicians if that was the case.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 23, 2020 10:43:39 GMT
I don't work for Phantom, LWT or DMT.
I have no idea what they're planning.
Also, there's a difference between deliberately planned wobble and wobbling because it can't be controlled smoothly because the mechanism needs to be repaired.
Personally, I don't want to hear the screeching and grinding of metal on metal as I'm watching a show.
|
|
5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 23, 2020 11:36:01 GMT
Wow this is all very intriguing!!
I’m going to have to start investigating via some people I know involved in the show..
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 23, 2020 12:01:32 GMT
UPDATE... All cast members and orchestra members have had their contracts terminated - including those orchestra and cast members who've been with the company 30+ years. The UK tour cast and orchestra have been given the chance to reprise their roles on the tour in the WE when it reopens as a condition of closing the tour completely IF this is true, then personally I feel it's a very bizarre way of going about things. Sure it's a nice gesture to let the tour cast reprise their roles, but at the expense of the entire cast, crew AND orchestra who were RIGHTFULLY at Her Majesty's to begin with? Couldn't they just save a round of auditions and let the new group come in at the regular cast change date next September? |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 23, 2020 12:14:11 GMT
UPDATE... All cast members and orchestra members have had their contracts terminated - including those orchestra and cast members who've been with the company 30+ years. The UK tour cast and orchestra have been given the chance to reprise their roles on the tour in the WE when it reopens as a condition of closing the tour completely IF this is true, then personally I feel it's a very bizarre way of going about things. Sure it's a nice gesture to let the tour cast reprise their roles, but at the expense of the entire cast, crew AND orchestra who were RIGHTFULLY at Her Majesty's to begin with? Couldn't they just save a round of auditions and let the new group come in at the regular cast change date next September? Agreed - it's also a really awful way to treat some of the veterans who've given so much to the production. Some of those orchestra and cast members deserve(d) a proper sending off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 12:16:40 GMT
This all stinks of something rotten going on.
Feels like an exercise in getting the running costs down.
Also. Phantom announces "extended closure" certainly un-muddies the "longest running musical in the West End" battle. Les Mess moved around but continued to run in various formats. Phantom outright closes. Schonberg estate (Officers of Cameron Mackintosh LTD) gets to keep it's "Longest Running.." title.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 23, 2020 12:18:44 GMT
Crew are employed on run of performance contracts. If the show closes, their contract ends and they're out of work (no obligation for a theatre to keep staff either, just because you closed a show there's no guarantee you'll be opening the next one).
Very different for performers and musicians who are probably on 1yr contracts. If cast change is due then everyone's contract is up and there's probably clauses concerning renewals and cancelling offers. The tour cast will be on a different contract and it may well be in certain people's contract that they get first refusal with the West End.
|
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jun 23, 2020 12:28:13 GMT
I've read the statement from Mackintosh. So I guess we were all overreacting to the rumours? But what has me concerned is when it says, "replace sets that have come to the "end of their natural life". This part feels a bit off to me. Does this mean that they will be replacing the old sets with replicas that look the same? Even the part where it says, "the scenic elements are coming to the end of their natural life", has me concerned. When he means "end of their natural life", does this mean they'll be given "new life" as in revived? Or just new scenic elements altogether?
If it's just repair and maintenance to the original, then that's fine. But the statement doesn't acknowledge or mention the rumours either. But the fact that like when ALW tweeted about it, Mackintosh is making this statement now must mean he is at least aware of the rumours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 14:59:14 GMT
Surely those currently employed by the production are on furlough though? Doesn’t terminating their contract no longer entitle them to government support through the scheme? Especially as this is an industry that remains closed at the Government’s request.
And if you’ve handed notice to everyone employed, you’ve effectively closed surely? Meaning they’re planning a revival as oppose to a continuation of the same production.
|
|
86 posts
|
Post by woobl on Jun 23, 2020 15:26:41 GMT
You would think it would make sense to do a Les Mis and put a new production in. Less royalties etc etc...
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 23, 2020 15:27:28 GMT
Until they were given notice of redundancy, the show & front of house staff were on furlough. I'm unsure but I believe everyone has now been made redundant.
The venue staff (chief LX, master carpenter, theatre management etc) are still on furlough but could also be made redundant depending on what's going to happen.
The production staff, so the stage managers, costume and sound etc are freelancers working a contract. Their contract has been ended. They are not furloughed.
The performers and musicians are also self employed so are not furloughed and have had their contracts ended.
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jun 23, 2020 16:57:07 GMT
I agree this is PR nonsense. The set is NOT 34 years old. The chandelier has been replaced at least 3 times already, if not more. The candelabra are not the originals either. No doubt they'll try and claim the Angel is unsafe - but then fix it! There's no new health and safety legislation that's suddenly come into render its use unlawful. No new legislation, no, but periodic inspections are required, and are far easier to do thoroughly when a production is closed! Reading through some of the comments on this thread you'd think treason was being committed by anyone dating to touch so much as a bolt or screw in the original set... seems like quite an alarming over-reaction to me! I know, right?!?! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 18:18:41 GMT
No one is saying the theatre or set shouldn’t be updated. But any updates shouldn’t result in a different experience for the audience, which it sounds like we are getting - possibly a reduced orchestra and different set pieces (not new replicas).
I agree theatre shouldn’t be a museum piece from a technical point of view, but Phantom is the sole remaining production in the west end (world?) from the 1980s. I would argue it’s culturally significant and the production the audience sees should be preserved for future audiences. Do whatever you need to the theatre and technical aspect of the show - but don’t change the end result.
Once the original production is gone, it’s gone forever. I’d much rather it ran its course and once/if business ever does truly dry up to the point that doing 8 shows a week makes a continuous loss, then they can close the original production and replace it - with a brand new production of Phantom and Love Never Dies sharing the same theatre and cast (some clever set designer can surely make the space work for both sets).
|
|
