5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 23, 2020 19:43:48 GMT
The more I read Mackintoshes statement the more it seems to suggest that they WONT just be replacing the original design with a replica.
He would state somewhere that they are rebuilding the original design and reinstalling it surely? Looks to me like he’s using this as an excuse to put in the lesser tour version and stop paying original royalties. I really hope I’m wrong.
|
|
2,264 posts
|
Post by richey on Jun 23, 2020 20:01:20 GMT
Just for clarity here, can anyone who did get to see the shortlived tour version outline what the changes were? I know the chandelier changed and the angel was gone but was there anything else?
|
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 23, 2020 20:05:30 GMT
Cameron Mackintosh is a billionaire, like Andrew Lloyd Webber, in Andrew’s case he wanted to move this musical into the London Palladium, Soon after it opened -but Cameron Mackintosh vetoed it, both have made a handsome fortune from this musical and more than likely still do, I’ve got no problem updating if the set is life expired, but here I can smell a rat and there is a ulterior motive to bring in a watered down version in to save money and this will look just as atrocious as the new Les Miserables does, done just to save money.
I am sorry but I don’t buy for 1 moment that because of Covid, it has allowed consultants to do a more detailed survey, that is hogwash, it doesn’t that long to do a survey and Cameron and Andrew would have had regular feedback from back of stage staff (Craftsmen) on the poor condition of the set.
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jun 23, 2020 20:22:42 GMT
Cameron Mackintosh is a billionaire, like Andrew Lloyd Webber, in Andrew’s case he wanted to move this musical into the London Palladium, Soon after it opened -but Cameron Mackintosh vetoed it, both have made a handsome fortune from this musical and more than likely still do, I’ve got no problem updating if the set is life expired, but here I can smell a rat and there is a ulterior motive to bring in a watered down version in to save money and this will look just as atrocious as the new Les Miserables does, done just to save money. I am sorry but I don’t buy for 1 moment that because of Covid, it has allowed consultants to do a more detailed survey, that is hogwash, it doesn’t that long to do a survey and Cameron and Andrew would have had regular feedback from back of stage staff (Craftsmen) on the poor condition of the set. It is possible that they were planning to do some maintenance work on the theatre and set, even before Covid came along. But I'm sceptical about the statement as well. I want to give Mackintosh the benefit of the doubt, but given his history, I can't help but feel anxious when the statement mentions that "many of the scenic elements are coming to the end of their natural life".
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 23, 2020 20:22:48 GMT
The crew are not craftsmen, they're hired to move scenery (and they're very good at it). They're not giving daily updates to the producers about the set, issues will be raised with the master carpenter and stage manager, they'll be passed along to the company manager. Anything patch-able will be patched but you reach a point where you're patching a patch.
This would be the perfect time to get the specialists in to check everything because despite regular inspections of motors etc, sometimes it's not always possible to strip something down.
Unusual Rigging are an amazing company and they're involved with the UK tour, they say of the touring set:
“Phantom is an extremely heavy show, weighing in at more than 25 tonnes,” explains Unusual Rigging’s senior project manager Simon Stone. “There’s one piece of scenery downstage that weighs eight tonnes and has to be supported by a separate mini grid secured to the building. The famous Phantom chandelier, which has to swing in a treacherous fashion over the audience, weighs 500kg alone! Plus there are a couple of huge automated trucks on stage with a combined weight of 10 tonnes. These have to be stack built and then lifted into place at each venue. I think it’s safe to say this show is no easy task.”
|
|
183 posts
|
Post by tom on Jun 23, 2020 20:59:12 GMT
I hate to say it as I love POTO and I don’t know if I would be back as often if things did change but theatre is a business and although in an ideal world everything would be the best that money could buy, it isn’t feasible. I know the show has long since recouped it’s investment but if it is to continue for a long time to come there need to be changes. Change is not always seen as a good thing and I think everyone realises that any changes made to this production would likely lessen the wow but change is sometimes necessary. Having said all of this, I am appalled at the way people who have been with the show for years appear to have been treated. None of us know the real story but by all accounts there’s definitely something fishy going on. Time will tell I guess.
|
|
42ndBlvd
Swing
I'll be back where I was born to be
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Jun 23, 2020 22:28:23 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). I don't think this would be very feasible. The sheer number of costumes for both shows would be over whelming (not including the sets!), and I don't think the wing space in Her majestys could support both shows running at the same time. They would need a bigger theatre to support this phantom-love never dies hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 6:46:33 GMT
Some new thoughts today.
Let's accept that changes are going to happen to the orchestra. Don't know if you've look into the pit or been down in there, but it's very cramped down there. To the extent the 3 keyboard players live in the Her Majesty's boxes stage left. Social distancing measures are going to be around for a long while. It's probably likely and to an extent beyond producers control that the number in the pit will be reduced. Reductions will probably be seen in the doubled instruments like strings etc. Wouldn't be surprised if percussion gets halved too. Heart breaking for those who have been with the show longer than some of the cast members will have been alive.
Again, substage Her Majesty's is quite tight. IF they're talking about changing the set, upgrades to automation from hand driven, then this is going to be a huge overhaul. The equipment driving the set in Her Majesty's is Victorian and eats up most of the space under the stage. To fit brand new automation and rigging is going to require all the antique, victorian equipment (some of the very last left in London - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't some of it listed) to be ripped out. This would be an upgrade on the scale of Theatre Royal Drury Lane's 'restoration', would take months of planning and construction. This show wouldn't reopen in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 10:02:40 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). I don't think this would be very feasible. The sheer number of costumes for both shows would be over whelming (not including the sets!), and I don't think the wing space in Her majestys could support both shows running at the same time. They would need a bigger theatre to support this phantom-love never dies hybrid. That’s why I said some clever set designer would be able to eventually work it out. Given the opportunity I’m sure someone could figure it out and if given free reign to re-direct and completely overall both shows... where there’s a will there’ll be a way.
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 24, 2020 10:52:08 GMT
I don't think this would be very feasible. The sheer number of costumes for both shows would be over whelming (not including the sets!), and I don't think the wing space in Her majestys could support both shows running at the same time. They would need a bigger theatre to support this phantom-love never dies hybrid. That’s why I said some clever set designer would be able to eventually work it out. Given the opportunity I’m sure someone could figure it out and if given free reign to re-direct and completely overall both shows... where there’s a will there’ll be a way. And have both shows run as consecutive parts like in HP? Now that would be a nice challenge... preferably not given to Laurence Connor... again... unless they find a way to magically expand the Grade II* listed Her Maj's let's not give either co-producer any ideas of this sort 😂
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 11:54:17 GMT
That’s why I said some clever set designer would be able to eventually work it out. Given the opportunity I’m sure someone could figure it out and if given free reign to re-direct and completely overall both shows... where there’s a will there’ll be a way. And have both shows run as consecutive parts like in HP? Now that would be a nice challenge... preferably not given to Laurence Connor... again... unless they find a way to magically expand the Grade II* listed Her Maj's let's not give either co-producer any ideas of this sort 😂 Yes, exactly like Harry Potter. But way, way, way into the future and only if Phantom ever stops being profitable in its current form (which let’s face it, looks unlikely given it’s been going for 3 decades already). To be honest, and again way into the future, I like the idea of a ‘Lloyd Webber Theatre’ with a company that does his musicals in rep. He has plenty of musicals to rotate through, and I’m sure there’ll be an audience for them in the future (especially if they’re the only ones licensed to do so). To be honest I see Sondheim ending up with something similar in NYC eventually too.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 24, 2020 13:50:06 GMT
I think I'd be fairly straightforward to run them in rep. Black box stage, some set pieces, video & projection.
|
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 24, 2020 17:27:53 GMT
Some new thoughts today. Let's accept that changes are going to happen to the orchestra. Don't know if you've look into the pit or been down in there, but it's very cramped down there. To the extent the 3 keyboard players live in the Her Majesty's boxes stage left. Social distancing measures are going to be around for a long while. It's probably likely and to an extent beyond producers control that the number in the pit will be reduced. Reductions will probably be seen in the doubled instruments like strings etc. Wouldn't be surprised if percussion gets halved too. Heart breaking for those who have been with the show longer than some of the cast members will have been alive. Again, substage Her Majesty's is quite tight. IF they're talking about changing the set, upgrades to automation from hand driven, then this is going to be a huge overhaul. The equipment driving the set in Her Majesty's is Victorian and eats up most of the space under the stage. To fit brand new automation and rigging is going to require all the antique, victorian equipment (some of the very last left in London - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't some of it listed) to be ripped out. This would be an upgrade on the scale of Theatre Royal Drury Lane's 'restoration', would take months of planning and construction. This show wouldn't reopen in 2021. I wonder with such a long shut down, as you suggest, whether they will bring in the scraped UK tour into another West End theatre as a stop gap?
|
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 24, 2020 17:29:22 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery.
|
|
5,910 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 25, 2020 15:58:45 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes.
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jun 26, 2020 9:24:08 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes. The quiet elegance of the black box scenes accentuates the moments of grandeur even more when they happen- chandelier rise, masquerade staircase- truly spectacular stagecraft Quote from someone who used to work in the show: "From a technical point of view the show will look twice as sharp - for someone from the old school with crews of 30/40 people backstage it’ll be dead and soulless- all the craft gone - all the skills - all the human input - that’s why people like working on it"
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 26, 2020 11:12:47 GMT
Also remember reading that as spectacular as The Phantom of the Opera is, it doesn’t actually have that much physical scenery. I think that’s one of the reasons the design is so genius. It’s actually very simple, mainly a black box with drapes. Exactly, that's one of the major positives for the production. I'm hoping that this extended closure and revamp does result in the audience having exactly the same experience as before but with significantly improved technology/safety underpinning it. I can understand why, as posters have mentioned, some crew enjoy working on a production with technology that still harks back to the Victorian era. In that sense it is very much a working museum piece. However, if something went wrong and a crew or cast member became injured or worse during a performance owing to using frankly outdated technology, I think we'd all be sat here the next day rightly saying safety/technology upgrades should be put into place. This closure gives that chance. That said, personally I will miss hearing the large set pieces being rolled around on stage, it's a peculiar quirk of Phantom and adds to its charm. Equally I can understand why, and entirely agree, a lot of people believe the production should remain identical in appearances. Yes, Phantom is very much a product of the 1980s, and yes the illusions are now a bit "naff", however no-one has suggested repainting the Mona Lisa because we could make her more life-like with modern painting techniques...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 10:29:28 GMT
Some new thoughts today. Let's accept that changes are going to happen to the orchestra. Don't know if you've look into the pit or been down in there, but it's very cramped down there. To the extent the 3 keyboard players live in the Her Majesty's boxes stage left. Social distancing measures are going to be around for a long while. It's probably likely and to an extent beyond producers control that the number in the pit will be reduced. Reductions will probably be seen in the doubled instruments like strings etc. Wouldn't be surprised if percussion gets halved too. Heart breaking for those who have been with the show longer than some of the cast members will have been alive. Again, substage Her Majesty's is quite tight. IF they're talking about changing the set, upgrades to automation from hand driven, then this is going to be a huge overhaul. The equipment driving the set in Her Majesty's is Victorian and eats up most of the space under the stage. To fit brand new automation and rigging is going to require all the antique, victorian equipment (some of the very last left in London - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't some of it listed) to be ripped out. This would be an upgrade on the scale of Theatre Royal Drury Lane's 'restoration', would take months of planning and construction. This show wouldn't reopen in 2021. I wonder with such a long shut down, as you suggest, whether they will bring in the scraped UK tour into another West End theatre as a stop gap? It's a monumental task, if the plan really is to re-automate the whole show. Just some images of the victorian mechanics that would need ripping out to make room, below and above the stage. Sub-Stage Mechanics: Grid System Above:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 16:07:25 GMT
A few thoughts, trying to think dispassionately:
- Phantom has been there since 1986. You can hear the set ricketing around, wobbling (Christine's dressing room!) and (apparently) there are not infrequent non chandelier drop shows. I think is perfectly understandable that it needs updating for 2020. Both for efficiency, safety and appearance. Yes is a clever set design but I do now believe it could look slicker. The lightening bolt, the flame thrower thing and the non moving masquerade dummies look daft.
- There has never been any mention of bringing in the 25th anniversary tour and I am 100% sure they will not! So nobody needs to worry about the angel scene at end of act 1 being that one. Rather, surely they will bring in elements from this year's ill fated tour. So few of us have seen it we can't really judge but audience response seemed to be excellent. We also know that set was not 100% complete in Leicester due to the low proscenium and was to be 100% unveiled in Manchester.
- The West End is on its knees. They HAVE to save money. A highly dependent tourist show, in the short term they need to lure back repeat visitors from the UK. New ish version and some clever marketing may do this. And am not talking about the mega fans, I mean Joe Bloggs who has seen it once or twice over the last 34 years.
- None of us have any idea if Cam Mac has a primary motive of changes so as to not pay the estates of the original creatives. My personal view is that it's very unlikely and it is slightly unfair to say this. I think rather he doesn't want a museum piece. The accusations of Cameron not spending money are also nonsense. Maybe he spends less than he used to. He still spends more than pretty much everyone else. What is also unknown is how well CM and ALW currently get on. Though certainly there are I guess inferences that CM would like to change more than ALW.
- Halving the orchestra was inevitable at some point. It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Of course is very sad that half won't have their contracts renewed. But music technology is so different now compared to 1986. And the blending of synthesised sounds with real strings is incredibly effective now. 99% of people in the audience would never be able to tell the difference. It just makes no economic sense to continue to pay 30+ musicians.
- Shows can't be museum pieces. I totally get why mega fans of the original don't want to see any change. Only comparison I can make is my own Starlight mega fandom. When they brought in the new version in Bochum for the 30th it was VERY different and I really thought it ripped out the heart of the show. However audiences loved it and sales which had been flagging massively picked up. So although its not my fave version, I am really glad it happened if it means it can continue for another 30 years.
- I don't think the Phantom changes will be anything near as far reaching as that though. I really do think will be a few updates. And personally I look fwd to seeing a slicker, safer, visually enhanced 'brilliant original' which is also more economical, to survive in a post corona West End.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2020 17:32:50 GMT
It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 17:47:26 GMT
It is lovely to have that huge orchestra but totally unnecessary. Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show. I don't disagree. There is a lush sound from a huge orchestra. But you are in the 1% who would notice. 99% of the punters at Her Majesty's have no idea how many people are in the pit and if this was changed would not notice. Also with modern technology it will still sound excellent. Though I appreciate, to purists not as good. "Unnecessary" in a commercial way. They will save the money of 15 musicians and have no effect on the box office take. Of course it's a shame. Believe me nobody mourns the loss of the frivolous spending we saw on the mega musicals more than I do. But as ever, show BUSINESS. And a 30 piece orchestra is sadly unnecessary in the 2020 commercial workings of a West End long runner.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2020 17:56:56 GMT
Sorry, no. There's a sound that comes from a 20+-piece theatre orchestra with a decent string section that you just cannot replicate with half the number of players in the pit, and that lush string-based sound is a big part - a bigger part than you might expect - of the impact of a show like 'Phantom'. Downsizing the orchestra WILL have an effect. The revival of 'Miss Saigon' had a significantly smaller orchestra than the original London production, and it showed. The music didn't sound nearly as good. I get that productions are going to have to save money, and that these are exceptional circumstances, but don't let's pretend that larger orchestras are "unnecessary", or that downsizing the band can be done without any impact on the overall quality of the show. I don't disagree. There is a lush sound from a huge orchestra. But you are in the 1% who would notice. 99% of the punters at Her Majesty's have no idea how many people are in the pit and if this was changed would not notice. Also with modern technology it will still sound excellent. Though I appreciate, to purists not as good. "Unnecessary" in a commercial way. They will save the money of 15 musicians and have no effect on the box office take. Of course it's a shame. Believe me nobody mourns the loss of the frivolous spending we saw on the mega musicals more than I do. But as ever, show BUSINESS. And a 30 piece orchestra is sadly unnecessary in the 2020 commercial workings of a West End long runner. Again, I'd take issue with the word "unnecessary". I can see that in these circumstances running costs will need to be trimmed - but that sound is written into this particular show's DNA, and with "modern technology" the smaller band will still sound, well, like a smaller band enhanced by modern technology. Compared to the original, it will not sound "excellent", it will sound... passable. Yes, a lot of people won't notice, and some people will notice something and won't be able to identify it. But it will have an impact. And there's a conversation to be had about why the size of pit bands has - historically, over the past two decades, and not simply as a result of this crisis - been shrinking while ticket prices have soared by way more than the rate of inflation and musicians' pay hasn't risen nearly as fast. It does have an effect. The orchestra at the Company revival wasn't that small, but it was smaller than the original and the music sounded tinny, and sounds even tinnier on the cast recording than it did in the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 18:04:18 GMT
Well yes and no re the DNA. Les Mis (to me) sounds better than ever with the 2009 orchestrations blending synths and strings. In fact it is a good case in point. When they first reduced the orchestra (?90s ?early 00s) the poorer sound was very noticeable as the technology wasn't quite there. The 2009 version reduced the orchestra size even further but by then the technology was such that it sounded sensational. IMHO obvs.
In 1986 nothing could come close to that sound other than the real thing. Now, they can get near enough for it to be the most sensible solution. You can't pay 30 musicians for negligible effect on sales. It IS sad. But it's life.
Company sounded fine to me; only version I have ever seen though. Miss Saigon sounded different but not worse - I liked the updated orchestrations. I like the original too.
I agree re pit bands though. How much better did Joseph sound at the Palladium compared to Kenwright's version. And the Americans are constantly developing these musicals like Waitress, Come From Away and Evan Hansen because they are cheap. And that I do find a shame. Lavish musicals don't get developed as much these days.
We do fundamentally agree. I'd love Phantom to keep it's huge orchestra. I'm just trying to look dispassionately at the reasons I think it won't.
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 29, 2020 19:48:31 GMT
I agree the effects were pretty weak when I saw it, and that was over ten years ago (lightning strike in particular). Other than that, I rather wish it would remain a living museum piece - including full orchestra. A historic reminder of (and connection to) what theatre used to be. Until now I didn't feel that at all; but given what the future of theatre is now looking like, my view changed.
Anyway - great debate Dom and sf.
|
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 30, 2020 17:07:43 GMT
|
|