|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 10:16:59 GMT
Gosh, well this has certainly been the thread that keeps on giving over the last few days. Fortunately the RUG statement I think does clarify things a bit.
I agree with @burlybear above that Cam Mac's statement didn't really add as much as the subsequent social media fall out thought. Was a bizarre place to announce this, the grammar in the actual sentence was wrong, 'permanent closure' but 'back soon' doesn't really make sense and we already knew that an extended closure was needed. Also CM's rhetoric throughout has been fairly overdramatic. So anyway, I didn't think it was the end of Phantom for good!
As for what's going on between CM and ALW - I mean who knows! It's all rather speculative. I don't think this is a combined and agreed PR strategy. And I don't think they are at complete loggerheads either. Rather, somewhere in the middle. In ALW's book he talks about how when he met CM he'd really discovered his MT soulmate and how they had so much in common. But later he acknowledged that he was aware of a very bitchy side of CM that he really didn't like. And certainly it seems from various things that CM does like being in full control and really has to get his own way. His outbursts in that musical TV series (he was in Chichester I think?) were quite telling. And when Jodie Prenger won I'd Do Anything he was unbelievably rude. He really didn't get that the whole point of the thing was that the public were choosing - not him.
Having said all that, I think we need to cut him some slack. From the general tone of everything he says he is clearly not in a good place. The pandemic has affected everyone in different ways, and some very deeply, with a way of life that is very different. Anxiety, depression, mood swings etc etc can affect anyone. Being rich and privileged in no way makes you immune to this. I offer that as a reason for his current behaviour rather than an excuse. ALW knows him better than anyone so I doubt is surprised by much of this, and is probably trying to restore calm from CM's outbursts.
Of course, this is all purely speculative. But having followed both for a long time is my hunch.
Also, CM has brought SO much to UK musical for DECADES that as a fan I am truly grateful for everything he's done. He has produced some of the most incredible musicals and brought employment to literally thousands worldwide since the 80s. He has produced the most epic UK tours ever, bringing West End quality to the regions. Cats, Phantom, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Mary Poppins have been incredible. If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products.
As for the other stuff, and exactly what kind of "phantom" will return, I am sure it will be great. It desperately needed updating. This set was creaky, the mannequins for Masquerade ridiculous and don't even get me started on the lightning bolt and the fireballs. The chandelier moved up and down at a snails pace. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Even for living creatives, things are still interpreted without them. Trevor doesn't get involved with every production of Cats. John Napier doesn't design the exact replica of every single set. Other people who know them adapt their direction/designs for every theatre. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever.
Also - controversial opinion - the musical is the star. It's not the case with the returning Phantom, but if in the future, a totally different creative team wanted to give it a go, it'd be great to see what they could do. OK the 25th version was not as good as the original, but that doesn't mean the original is completely sacred and nobody could ever dare to reimagine it. So many people obsessed with Prince's Evita - personally I preferred the Adelphi revival. And the OAT version of Superstar is by far and away the best version I personally have ever seen.
So anyway, I am really looking fwd to seeing the new Phantom when it returns - hopefully in a format that can last another 34 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jul 31, 2020 10:36:44 GMT
They used the Broadway version of Wandering Child for the UK tour?! That can't happen! The London version is soooooo, sooooo much better?!? The UK tour still had the "trio" with Raoul singing as well as the other 2, but the little spoken exchange between Raoul and the Phantom uses the Broadway lines instead of the London ones. For someone who's very familiar with the London details, the UK tour felt like an iteration of Broadway brought to tour around the UK with British cast & crew, lol. When personally I was hoping it would be *the* original from Her Majesty's going up and down the country. That said, I have heard that Broadway in a sense is more strictly "Hal" as he dropped in regularly to make sure the production kept up to standard, whereas London seems to have had a bit more freedom direction-wise (since there is no singular "playbook" for the show) and the details that have evolved since, have become so endearing and unique to the London production. |
|
214 posts
|
Post by BoOverall on Jul 31, 2020 11:10:07 GMT
Gosh, well this has certainly been the thread that keeps on giving over the last few days. Fortunately the RUG statement I think does clarify things a bit. I agree with @burlybear above that Cam Mac's statement didn't really add as much as the subsequent social media fall out thought. Was a bizarre place to announce this, the grammar in the actual sentence was wrong, 'permanent closure' but 'back soon' doesn't really make sense and we already knew that an extended closure was needed. Also CM's rhetoric throughout has been fairly overdramatic. So anyway, I didn't think it was the end of Phantom for good! As for what's going on between CM and ALW - I mean who knows! It's all rather speculative. I don't think this is a combined and agreed PR strategy. And I don't think they are at complete loggerheads either. Rather, somewhere in the middle. In ALW's book he talks about how when he met CM he'd really discovered his MT soulmate and how they had so much in common. But later he acknowledged that he was aware of a very bitchy side of CM that he really didn't like. And certainly it seems from various things that CM does like being in full control and really has to get his own way. His outbursts in that musical TV series (he was in Chichester I think?) were quite telling. And when Jodie Prenger won I'd Do Anything he was unbelievably rude. He really didn't get that the whole point of the thing was that the public were choosing - not him. Having said all that, I think we need to cut him some slack. From the general tone of everything he says he is clearly not in a good place. The pandemic has affected everyone in different ways, and some very deeply, with a way of life that is very different. Anxiety, depression, mood swings etc etc can affect anyone. Being rich and privileged in no way makes you immune to this. I offer that as a reason for his current behaviour rather than an excuse. ALW knows him better than anyone so I doubt is surprised by much of this, and is probably trying to restore calm from CM's outbursts. Of course, this is all purely speculative. But having followed both for a long time is my hunch. Also, CM has brought SO much to UK musical for DECADES that as a fan I am truly grateful for everything he's done. He has produced some of the most incredible musicals and brought employment to literally thousands worldwide since the 80s. He has produced the most epic UK tours ever, bringing West End quality to the regions. Cats, Phantom, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Mary Poppins have been incredible. If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. As for the other stuff, and exactly what kind of "phantom" will return, I am sure it will be great. It desperately needed updating. This set was creaky, the mannequins for Masquerade ridiculous and don't even get me started on the lightning bolt and the fireballs. The chandelier moved up and down at a snails pace. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Even for living creatives, things are still interpreted without them. Trevor doesn't get involved with every production of Cats. John Napier doesn't design the exact replica of every single set. Other people who know them adapt their direction/designs for every theatre. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever. Also - controversial opinion - the musical is the star. It's not the case with the returning Phantom, but if in the future, a totally different creative team wanted to give it a go, it'd be great to see what they could do. OK the 25th version was not as good as the original, but that doesn't mean the original is completely sacred and nobody could ever dare to reimagine it. So many people obsessed with Prince's Evita - personally I preferred the Adelphi revival. And the OAT version of Superstar is by far and away the best version I personally have ever seen. So anyway, I am really looking fwd to seeing the new Phantom when it returns - hopefully in a format that can last another 34 years! Agree fully. Phantom has had a special place in my heart since it opened: it’s also the first show I took the man who is now my husband to on our first date about 20 years ago. Now taking someone to a musical could go one way or the other for a relationship! But I think sitting directly under the chandelier scared him into staying with me 😀. But Phantom is a creaky beast in places - sometimes in keeping with the whole piece - but at other times it jars when I see it. Yes, the dummies in Masquerade (otherwise still my favourite number in the show), those wobbly but admittedly beautiful set pieces in the lair (Acorn Antiques meets Phantom) and yes those fireballs: Phantom clicks stick, delay, a burst emerges......kind of the theatrical equivalent of a film with bad dubbing! But it is a show with great heart and there are so many magnificent things about it as a piece: that opening still thrills me every time. In the right sets of hands and with modern technology to enhance - not to cheapen or make tacky - it could wow even more and in different ways while retaining the heart of the original. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 11:13:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 31, 2020 11:17:13 GMT
His outbursts in that musical TV series (he was in Chichester I think?) That was 'The Sound of Musicals' on Channel 4 and it was the Chichester production of 'Barnum'. I remember that moment, he was quite 'bitchy'. Having said all that, I think we need to cut him some slack. From the general tone of everything he says he is clearly not in a good place. The pandemic has affected everyone in different ways, and some very deeply, with a way of life that is very different. Anxiety, depression, mood swings etc etc can affect anyone. Being rich and privileged in no way makes you immune to this. I offer that as a reason for his current behaviour rather than an excuse. ALW knows him better than anyone so I doubt is surprised by much of this, and is probably trying to restore calm from CM's outbursts. Of course, this is all purely speculative. But having followed both for a long time is my hunch. Also, CM has brought SO much to UK musical for DECADES that as a fan I am truly grateful for everything he's done. He has produced some of the most incredible musicals and brought employment to literally thousands worldwide since the 80s. He has produced the most epic UK tours ever, bringing West End quality to the regions. Cats, Phantom, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Mary Poppins have been incredible. If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. I can see where you're coming from. There's no denying that Mackintosh is one of the most important figures in theatre history. If it wasn't for him, the West End and British theatre as a whole may look very different. I have wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on a number of occasions, but I can't deny that he's made some 'questionable' decisions in regards to shows. I did really enjoy the 2014-16 revival of 'Miss Saigon', albeit I never saw the original production. But I'm sceptical of him choosing to make 'newer' versions of shows like 'Les Mis' and 'Phantom'. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 11:18:19 GMT
But it is a show with great heart and there are so many magnificent things about it as a piece: that opening still thrills me every time. In the right sets of hands and with modern technology to enhance - not to cheapen or make tacky - it could wow even more and in different ways while retaining the heart of the original. Indeed - I truly feel this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 11:23:16 GMT
Gosh, well this has certainly been the thread that keeps on giving over the last few days. Fortunately the RUG statement I think does clarify things a bit. I agree with @burlybear above that Cam Mac's statement didn't really add as much as the subsequent social media fall out thought. Was a bizarre place to announce this, the grammar in the actual sentence was wrong, 'permanent closure' but 'back soon' doesn't really make sense and we already knew that an extended closure was needed. Also CM's rhetoric throughout has been fairly overdramatic. So anyway, I didn't think it was the end of Phantom for good! As for what's going on between CM and ALW - I mean who knows! It's all rather speculative. I don't think this is a combined and agreed PR strategy. And I don't think they are at complete loggerheads either. Rather, somewhere in the middle. In ALW's book he talks about how when he met CM he'd really discovered his MT soulmate and how they had so much in common. But later he acknowledged that he was aware of a very bitchy side of CM that he really didn't like. And certainly it seems from various things that CM does like being in full control and really has to get his own way. His outbursts in that musical TV series (he was in Chichester I think?) were quite telling. And when Jodie Prenger won I'd Do Anything he was unbelievably rude. He really didn't get that the whole point of the thing was that the public were choosing - not him. Having said all that, I think we need to cut him some slack. From the general tone of everything he says he is clearly not in a good place. The pandemic has affected everyone in different ways, and some very deeply, with a way of life that is very different. Anxiety, depression, mood swings etc etc can affect anyone. Being rich and privileged in no way makes you immune to this. I offer that as a reason for his current behaviour rather than an excuse. ALW knows him better than anyone so I doubt is surprised by much of this, and is probably trying to restore calm from CM's outbursts. Of course, this is all purely speculative. But having followed both for a long time is my hunch. Also, CM has brought SO much to UK musical for DECADES that as a fan I am truly grateful for everything he's done. He has produced some of the most incredible musicals and brought employment to literally thousands worldwide since the 80s. He has produced the most epic UK tours ever, bringing West End quality to the regions. Cats, Phantom, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Mary Poppins have been incredible. If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. As for the other stuff, and exactly what kind of "phantom" will return, I am sure it will be great. It desperately needed updating. This set was creaky, the mannequins for Masquerade ridiculous and don't even get me started on the lightning bolt and the fireballs. The chandelier moved up and down at a snails pace. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Even for living creatives, things are still interpreted without them. Trevor doesn't get involved with every production of Cats. John Napier doesn't design the exact replica of every single set. Other people who know them adapt their direction/designs for every theatre. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever. Also - controversial opinion - the musical is the star. It's not the case with the returning Phantom, but if in the future, a totally different creative team wanted to give it a go, it'd be great to see what they could do. OK the 25th version was not as good as the original, but that doesn't mean the original is completely sacred and nobody could ever dare to reimagine it. So many people obsessed with Prince's Evita - personally I preferred the Adelphi revival. And the OAT version of Superstar is by far and away the best version I personally have ever seen. So anyway, I am really looking fwd to seeing the new Phantom when it returns - hopefully in a format that can last another 34 years! I agree. I saw a Swedish production (non-replica) and had hoped to see the Norwegian one but I missed it.
The problem I have is that with the RUG they want their cake and eat it too. It's not a case of trying to improve on the Original it's a case of trying to save money on something that has grossed $6 billion.
Close the production, retire the set, the design, the direction, and advertise it as a completely new version don't try to sell a cheapened version on the back of the original creatives artistry. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 31, 2020 15:14:02 GMT
If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever. While I agree with some points, I don't agree with these particular ones. I think there has been plenty of indication over the years that he is keen to save £££ where he can. I used to applaud his excellent quality of productions, but he has already started to deliver substandard productions - the Laurence Connor Phantom is a good case in point. And the idea that replacing Nunn and Caird's original with the 25th-anniversary production of Miz is an artistic choice makes no sense -- if Cameron was genuinely about re-envisioning the piece for a new generation, he'd actually commissioned a new creative team rather than install an already-decade-old touring production in the West End and charge West End prices to see it. If he wasn't interested in saving money, then why did he approach John Napier and propose to buy out his intellectual property rights in the set designs? Why did he cut the show's running time? Why was the orchestra reduced drastically over the years in the original production? I think these days he is more interested in investing in his actual theatres -- which are truly stunning once renovated -- than the shows that play in them. I also think he is a control freak who thinks he is a creative director as well as a producer. Hence his preference to work with not-so-starry directors like Laurence Connor, Eric Schaeffer, and Gordon Greenberg whom he can boss around, rather than people like Hal Prince and Trevor Nunn whom he can't. The person who did most to re-envision Phantom and introduce more spectacular effects was Hal Prince, not Cameron Mackintosh. Prince's Vegas production, which Cameron had nothing to do with, used technology not available in 1986 without jeopardising the spirit of the production. It would have run for longer had Cameron not pulled the licensing rights so that he could launch Connor's miserable and miserly production (though inevitably its run would have been limited anyway). Add to the above Cameron's repeated comments over the years that he feels the Prince/Björnson original is too expensive to run for decades, and you're left with something that can't be squared: either you have the original and are willing to fund it, or you cheapen it. It doesn't sound like from any previous interview that he's willing to put MORE money in. And on top of that, add to that the deceptive advertising for the 2020 tour, which had no statues on the proscenium, no Angel, missing drapes, and a downsized chandelier that didn't fall -- despite being advertised as the original production -- and is it any wonder lots of us are sceptical rather than being Pollyanna about the intentions here? I worry when people say that it's dated and we should install brand new technology. If it complements the production, then fine. But the whole enterprise is predicated on using 19th-century staging techniques. That is part of its charm. I don't want to go to Her Majesty's to see video projections. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 31, 2020 15:27:37 GMT
If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever. The person who did most to re-envision Phantom and introduce more spectacular effects was Hal Prince, not Cameron Mackintosh. Prince's Vegas production, which Cameron had nothing to do with, used technology not available in 1986 without jeopardising the spirit of the production. It would have run for longer had Cameron not pulled the licensing rights so that he could launch Connor's miserable and miserly production (though inevitably its run would have been limited anyway). Running time 90 minutes. If that’s not short changing the audience I don’t know what is! |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 31, 2020 15:32:29 GMT
The person who did most to re-envision Phantom and introduce more spectacular effects was Hal Prince, not Cameron Mackintosh. Prince's Vegas production, which Cameron had nothing to do with, used technology not available in 1986 without jeopardising the spirit of the production. It would have run for longer had Cameron not pulled the licensing rights so that he could launch Connor's miserable and miserly production (though inevitably its run would have been limited anyway). Running time 90 minutes. If that’s not short changing the audience I don’t know what is! Not Hal's decision but a necessity of doing a show in Las Vegas. The audience wants to get out and gamble. You would never have a 2.5 to 3-hour sung-through musical running in that town. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 15:55:00 GMT
If he never produced a quality production again, his legacy would be insanely good. But this continues. I was caught up in the disappointment at the Les Mis changes. But the 25th version is fantastic. Ditto the original and new Miss Saigons. 99.9% of the people that saw the latest Phantom in Leicester were raving about it. So there is literally no indication that he is about to start delivering substandard products. I simply don't believe that he is desperate to wipe our Prince, Lynne and Bjornson for financial gain. But things can and do need to progress. Phantom should not be a museum piece. And I am sure will return slicker and more spectacular than ever. While I agree with some points, I don't agree with these particular ones. I think there has been plenty of indication over the years that he is keen to save £££ where he can. I used to applaud his excellent quality of productions, but he has already started to deliver substandard productions - the Laurence Connor Phantom is a good case in point. And the idea that replacing Nunn and Caird's original with the 25th-anniversary production of Miz is an artistic choice makes no sense -- if Cameron was genuinely about re-envisioning the piece for a new generation, he'd actually commissioned a new creative team rather than install an already-decade-old touring production in the West End and charge West End prices to see it. If he wasn't interested in saving money, then why did he approach John Napier and propose to buy out his intellectual property rights in the set designs? Why did he cut the show's running time? Why was the orchestra reduced drastically over the years in the original production? I think these days he is more interested in investing in his actual theatres -- which are truly stunning once renovated -- than the shows that play in them. I also think he is a control freak who thinks he is a creative director as well as a producer. Hence his preference to work with not-so-starry directors like Laurence Connor, Eric Schaeffer, and Gordon Greenberg whom he can boss around, rather than people like Hal Prince and Trevor Nunn whom he can't. The person who did most to re-envision Phantom and introduce more spectacular effects was Hal Prince, not Cameron Mackintosh. Prince's Vegas production, which Cameron had nothing to do with, used technology not available in 1986 without jeopardising the spirit of the production. It would have run for longer had Cameron not pulled the licensing rights so that he could launch Connor's miserable and miserly production (though inevitably its run would have been limited anyway). Add to the above Cameron's repeated comments over the years that he feels the Prince/Björnson original is too expensive to run for decades, and you're left with something that can't be squared: either you have the original and are willing to fund it, or you cheapen it. It doesn't sound like from any previous interview that he's willing to put MORE money in. And on top of that, add to that the deceptive advertising for the 2020 tour, which had no statues on the proscenium, no Angel, missing drapes, and a downsized chandelier that didn't fall -- despite being advertised as the original production -- and is it any wonder lots of us are sceptical rather than being Pollyanna about the intentions here? I worry when people say that it's dated and we should install brand new technology. If it complements the production, then fine. But the whole enterprise is predicated on using 19th-century staging techniques. That is part of its charm. I don't want to go to Her Majesty's to see video projections. I do hear you. But NOBODY produces musicals in this way any more. Believe me, as I have said before, I deeply mourn the loss of the mega musical and it's replacement with the kind of stuff we get now. CM cares about the product, but he is a businessman. So of course he wants to save money. You know, look at all the new stuff. Waitress, Evan Hansen, Come From Away - the physical production is cheap as chips. Small casts, small bands, simple sets. Look at the prices Come From Away charged on Broadway - nobody is having a go at it's producer for their insane profit margin. Personally I think it's a joke that CFA and Phantom charge the same in London - the costs are polar opposites. I do understand your attachment to every detail in the original. I can't tell you how much I wish that Starlight Express still raced round the entire Apollo Victoria. But I also get that that kinda thing just doesn't happen now. The theatre would have probably fallen down by now, and in a dream world where SE was still running, huge updates in the machinery and upkeep of that set (and the building) would have been needed. Musicals are produced differently now. Cam Mac isn't gonna waste money on Phantom when he can save it. Why should he be the only one to pay for an orchestra twice the size of your average musical when so few people would notice? And whatever changes we may see in the new Phantom I feel pretty confident 90% of people won't notice. 5% of people will think it sad that it isn't a to the letter exact replica of 1986. 5% will, dare I say it, prefer it with a few modern twists, silently gliding non creaky set and the odd projection chucked in. So net response is equal - but it's cheaper and easier to maintain. So it's logical to me to do it. Yes, I agree, I would miss the angel. But it has been reported time and again that the proscenium and audience side thereof (angel and chandelier) was not complete in Leicester. We have to wait to see what they present before we worry about it. We can talk again when it's unveiled :-) Re Les Mis. The tour happened. It got rave reviews. It subsequently travelled the world until only London was the original. I loved the original. I mourn it. I think Trever and John Napier are the best director and designer in musicals. But again I can see how it made business sense to align the product. I don't wanna get involved in the complex relationship of the creatives. Also, have you seen the new version at the Sondheim? It is ok to like both. The original was great, the new is great. |
|
7,193 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jul 31, 2020 15:55:39 GMT
Phantom Las Vegas is one of the very few productions of the show that didn't recoup despite running six years although I imagine for the casino owners, it didn't matter as long as the percentage of that audience ended up spending money at the casino.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 31, 2020 16:14:25 GMT
I do hear you. But NOBODY produces musicals in this way any more. Believe me, as I have said before, I deeply mourn the loss of the mega musical and it's replacement with the kind of stuff we get now. CM cares about the product, but he is a businessman. So of course he wants to save money. You know, look at all the new stuff. Waitress, Evan Hansen, Come From Away - the physical production is cheap as chips. Small casts, small bands, simple sets. Look at the prices Come From Away charged on Broadway - nobody is having a go at it's producer for their insane profit margin. Personally I think it's a joke that CFA and Phantom charge the same in London - the costs are polar opposites. Musicals are produced differently now. Cam Mac isn't gonna waste money on Phantom when he can save it. Why should he be the only one to pay for an orchestra twice the size of your average musical when so few people would notice? And whatever changes we may see in the new Phantom I feel pretty confident 90% of people won't notice. 5% of people will think it sad that it isn't a to the letter exact replica of 1986. 5% will, dare I say it, prefer it with a few modern twists, silently gliding non creaky set and the odd projection chucked in. So net response is equal - but it's cheaper and easier to maintain. So it's logical to me to do it. Yes, I agree, I would miss the angel. But it has been reported time and again that the proscenium and audience side thereof (angel and chandelier) was not complete in Leicester. We have to wait to see what they present before we worry about it. We can talk again when it's unveiled :-) I don't deny or dispute any of the above. What is being contested are the repeated (groundless, besides optimism) assertions in this thread that the show will definitely return "more spectacular than ever", and that the concerns expressed in this thread by various posters are somehow invalidated by RUG's statement yesterday. So far, there isn't enough to lend any certainty to this. I know the chandelier wasn't ready for Leicester (though I did see the designs, and it was never intended that it would fall to the stage or rise from it), but the proscenium was as designed. See the set model in this video. The Sklar-Heyn-directed 2020 tour featured no statues on the proscenium, and no Angel. I don't thing these are small details that no-one will notice - the proscenium is visibly bare in pictures of the Leicester production:  There are two precedents that have been set by the show's producers in 2019-2020: (a) chucking away the original Les Misérables but without properly acknowledging the production change; and (b) calling the UK tour the "brilliant original" and an "exact replica" of what is seen on Broadway and in the West End (which, notwithstanding that the era of the megamusical is over, is not unreasonable to expect given previous tours of the show). There's also the fact that, before it closed, the Angel in the London production hadn't been maintained and was out of action for some time. So it's only going to be natural that there is concern here. We will not know until the show opens again. Until then, none of us can say for certain what is going to happen either way. You have chosen to place faith in Mackintosh; I personally don't. I'm not against revamping the show for the better and making it even more lavish, but the above does not suggest that is on the agenda of either RUG or Cameron Mackintosh. If, further down the line, it becomes too expensive to meet its running costs, then close the show. And then conceive a brand new production, with a first-rate creative team. Rather than cheapening the original on an ad-hoc basis but pretending nothing's changed. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 31, 2020 17:40:23 GMT
I do hear you. But NOBODY produces musicals in this way any more. Believe me, as I have said before, I deeply mourn the loss of the mega musical and it's replacement with the kind of stuff we get now. CM cares about the product, but he is a businessman. So of course he wants to save money. You know, look at all the new stuff. Waitress, Evan Hansen, Come From Away - the physical production is cheap as chips. Small casts, small bands, simple sets. Look at the prices Come From Away charged on Broadway - nobody is having a go at it's producer for their insane profit margin. Personally I think it's a joke that CFA and Phantom charge the same in London - the costs are polar opposites. Musicals are produced differently now. Cam Mac isn't gonna waste money on Phantom when he can save it. Why should he be the only one to pay for an orchestra twice the size of your average musical when so few people would notice? And whatever changes we may see in the new Phantom I feel pretty confident 90% of people won't notice. 5% of people will think it sad that it isn't a to the letter exact replica of 1986. 5% will, dare I say it, prefer it with a few modern twists, silently gliding non creaky set and the odd projection chucked in. So net response is equal - but it's cheaper and easier to maintain. So it's logical to me to do it. Yes, I agree, I would miss the angel. But it has been reported time and again that the proscenium and audience side thereof (angel and chandelier) was not complete in Leicester. We have to wait to see what they present before we worry about it. We can talk again when it's So it's only going to be natural that there is concern here. We will not know until the show opens again. Until then, none of us can say for certain what is going to happen either way. You have chosen to place faith in Mackintosh; I personally don't. I'm not against revamping the show for the better and making it even more lavish, but the above does not suggest that is on the agenda of either RUG or Cameron Mackintosh. If, further down the line, it becomes too expensive to meet its running costs, then close the show. And then conceive a brand new production, with a first-rate creative team. Rather than cheapening the original on an ad-hoc basis but pretending nothing's changed. But you just lauded the Vegas production despite them chopping 45 minutes out of it so that people could go on the slot machines. I don’t care whose decision it was, Hal Prince or otherwise, and you’re talking about “cheapening” the original?  |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 31, 2020 19:09:17 GMT
But NOBODY produces musicals in this way any more. Believe me, as I have said before, I deeply mourn the loss of the mega musical I deeply mourn the loss of the mega musical and it's replacement with the kind of stuff we get now. I would argue that mega musicals aren't long gone. Technically you can class 'Hamilton' as a mega musical, albeit not in the 'traditional' sense. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 31, 2020 19:20:42 GMT
Not traditional as in not very good 🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 31, 2020 20:05:31 GMT
So it's only going to be natural that there is concern here. We will not know until the show opens again. Until then, none of us can say for certain what is going to happen either way. You have chosen to place faith in Mackintosh; I personally don't. I'm not against revamping the show for the better and making it even more lavish, but the above does not suggest that is on the agenda of either RUG or Cameron Mackintosh. If, further down the line, it becomes too expensive to meet its running costs, then close the show. And then conceive a brand new production, with a first-rate creative team. Rather than cheapening the original on an ad-hoc basis but pretending nothing's changed. But you just lauded the Vegas production despite them chopping 45 minutes out of it so that people could go on the slot machines. I don’t care whose decision it was, Hal Prince or otherwise, and you’re talking about “cheapening” the original? I don't get your point. I wasn't ever enamoured with the cuts to the Vegas production, but I accepted that that is what happens in Vegas. I would never accept it on Broadway or in the West End. The reference to the Vegas production was simply to indicate that the only time there HAVE been technical advances/improvements made to the original production (as far as the scenes remained in the abridged version) that were genuinely spectacular (and I didn't necessarily think they added anything), Cameron Mackintosh had nothing to do with them. As much as Cameron likes using the word 'spectacular' himself these days (particularly with the Connor tour, which was hilariously ironic), he hasn't really done anything to indicate he's willing to up the opulence. |
|
42ndBlvd
Swing
I'll be back where I was born to be
|
Post by 42ndBlvd on Jul 31, 2020 21:11:25 GMT
So it's only going to be natural that there is concern here. We will not know until the show opens again. Until then, none of us can say for certain what is going to happen either way. You have chosen to place faith in Mackintosh; I personally don't. I'm not against revamping the show for the better and making it even more lavish, but the above does not suggest that is on the agenda of either RUG or Cameron Mackintosh. If, further down the line, it becomes too expensive to meet its running costs, then close the show. And then conceive a brand new production, with a first-rate creative team. Rather than cheapening the original on an ad-hoc basis but pretending nothing's changed. But you just lauded the Vegas production despite them chopping 45 minutes out of it so that people could go on the slot machines. I don’t care whose decision it was, Hal Prince or otherwise, and you’re talking about “cheapening” the original? I would love if they brought over some scenic elements from the Las Vegas production over to her majesty's. I understand that the Mirror set was more elaborate, Christine walking through a fog silhouette of herself and other smaller things like a grand door for the managers office. It would still honour Hal and MB's legacy, though i wont expect Cam to be so generous. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Aug 1, 2020 4:04:47 GMT
I don't deny or dispute any of the above. What is being contested are the repeated (groundless, besides optimism) assertions in this thread that the show will definitely return "more spectacular than ever", and that the concerns expressed in this thread by various posters are somehow invalidated by RUG's statement yesterday. So far, there isn't enough to lend any certainty to this. So it's only going to be natural that there is concern here. We will not know until the show opens again. Until then, none of us can say for certain what is going to happen either way. You have chosen to place faith in Mackintosh; I personally don't. Thank you, I feel the same. Taking this stance keeps me clear-headed and spares me the emotional rollercoaster that Cammack/RUG/ALW's PR teams seems to be bringing everyone on. I'm naturally skeptical, and if the words "Cammack", "update", "for the 21st century" are involved, then oof- tenfold. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2020 12:33:16 GMT
Censored the person/group because they last thing they need 100 phans offering £1 or something silly but...  [/div] |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Aug 1, 2020 17:58:44 GMT
But you just lauded the Vegas production despite them chopping 45 minutes out of it so that people could go on the slot machines. I don’t care whose decision it was, Hal Prince or otherwise, and you’re talking about “cheapening” the original? I would love if they brought over some scenic elements from the Las Vegas production over to her majesty's. I understand that the Mirror set was more elaborate, Christine walking through a fog silhouette of herself and other smaller things like a grand door for the managers office. It would still honour Hal and MB's legacy, though i wont expect Cam to be so generous. I saw it in Vegas twice and I LOVED it there. They leaned into the bombast and it was so much fun. Ever since then I've wished for a few of the Vegas elements to make their way into the more mainstream ones. |
|
2,264 posts
|
Post by richey on Aug 1, 2020 18:33:15 GMT
Censored the person/group because they last thing they need 100 phans offering £1 or something silly but... [/div][/quote] Lot 666... |
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Aug 1, 2020 18:40:07 GMT
You'd be better off offering the lighting rig to the V&A archive because talk about historical lighting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Aug 1, 2020 19:25:10 GMT
£666
|
|
|
|
Post by theatre241 on Aug 1, 2020 19:28:05 GMT
I really hope they don’t replace the whole lighting rig with full LED lighting, when I last saw it the lighting was brilliant and fit the period ( the Hannibal scenes looked gaslit)
|
|
