1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Dec 4, 2020 11:54:12 GMT
So many of us said this would happen, and when we mentioned it, we were just dismissed by the We Love Cameron crowd. Really sad, and unnecessary. And all in the name of profits - note the point about the original investors not getting anything now. Well they've had 34 years so a pretty good return on their investment... Nothing to do with "We Love Cameron" (I am very bitter over my Les Mis ticket cancellation), just recognition that at the end of the day theatre is business. You can get as emotional as you like but nostalgia doesn't make money, things move forward, that's life. Why are you bitter about your Les Mis tickets when you recognise theatre is business? |
|
55 posts
|
Post by westlondon on Dec 4, 2020 12:04:27 GMT
"... and a brand new chandelier ..." Remember, there are worse things than a brand new chandelier... |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 4, 2020 13:17:34 GMT
"... and a brand new chandelier ..." Presumably the one built for the tour that was supposed to be unveiled in Manchester... If there is some truth to that. I know some have said that this was supposed to happen, but obviously nothing ever came of it due to the pandemic. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 4, 2020 13:44:05 GMT
At this point, I don't even know whose telling the truth! 'a completely new version' of the opulent original, which was 'tried out' at the Curve in Leicester back in February. CM did say that this "new version of the original" was tried out in Leicester and from what I know, try-outs for a show are usually different from when the show opens. So maybe (emphasis on "maybe") when it does reopen, it will look look different from when it ran at the Curve, if the claims that the chandelier that was supposed to be unveiled at Manchester are to be believed. My hope (although the proper term could be 'wishful thinking') is that when Phantom reopens, it will be a blend of both the brilliant original and the recent UK tour. Still having the chandelier rise from the stage, the angel, etc, whilst also using some elements used for the tour. But then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my end. |
|
883 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by longinthetooth on Dec 4, 2020 14:21:54 GMT
Meanwhile, ALW has just said on Twitter, ".... I can assure you it will be the brilliant original"! Aarrgghh!
|
|
1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Dec 4, 2020 14:24:49 GMT
RV behind a pillar but I have my reopening night ticket! (There were better ones available and it looks like they have renumbered but from comparing on seatplan.com I’m taking the risk as I think royal circle is the only level I haven’t sat in before!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 14:35:03 GMT
Well they've had 34 years so a pretty good return on their investment... Nothing to do with "We Love Cameron" (I am very bitter over my Les Mis ticket cancellation), just recognition that at the end of the day theatre is business. You can get as emotional as you like but nostalgia doesn't make money, things move forward, that's life. Why are you bitter about your Les Mis tickets when you recognise theatre is business? Because I'm allowed to be bitter and still understand why he did it. Some people in this thread are acting as if he's committed a crime... |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 4, 2020 14:52:28 GMT
Meanwhile, ALW has just said on Twitter, ".... I can assure you it will be the brilliant original"! Aarrgghh! Just seen that as well. Cameron - "It will be a 'new version' of the original" Andrew - "It will be the 'brilliant original'" It feels like they're both trolling us! |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 4, 2020 15:05:57 GMT
My hope (although the proper term could be 'wishful thinking') is that when Phantom reopens, it will be a blend of both the brilliant original and the recent UK tour. Still having the chandelier rise from the stage, the angel, etc, whilst also using some elements used for the tour. But then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my end. I will be surprised if they don't have the chandelier rise, since ALW has repeatedly said that it's a theatrical effect he devised and is very proud of. He even gives it a nod in his autobiography. However, we have seen the last of Maria's levitating Angel. It might be fixed onto the proscenium, but the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse. I was rather uncomfortable reading Cameron saying Maria had dreamt up the horse, since the Phantom perched on the Angel was so important to her that she vetoed getting rid of it when they first toured the production. I heard someone say they've removed some of the orchestra space for extra seating - is this true? What I'm intrigued about is whether we get the full proscenium statues, rather than the sad, bare mess in Leicester, and whether those candelabra will rise. I don't know how they will if they're decommissioning the Victorian machinery that Hal Prince fell in love with. If they're not having people operate the curtains, I really don't want cheap flats that go against the whole aesthetic of the show. It'd be odd of ALW to single out those rising candelabra as a key moment in the show in one of his recent Twitter videos, and then agree to axe it...but then, he's acting totally oddly with all this ridiculous conflicting PR where the two co-producers are not remotely on the same publicity page. And no-one is saying what Cameron is doing is a crime: we're saying it's duplicitous, given the PR messaging about bringing it back in its entirety and calling it 'the brilliant original'. I'd be more generous if they were just straight about it. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 4, 2020 15:31:42 GMT
My hope (although the proper term could be 'wishful thinking') is that when Phantom reopens, it will be a blend of both the brilliant original and the recent UK tour. Still having the chandelier rise from the stage, the angel, etc, whilst also using some elements used for the tour. But then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my end. I will be surprised if they don't have the chandelier rise, since ALW has repeatedly said that it's a theatrical effect he devised and is very proud of. He even gives it a nod in his autobiography. However, we have seen the last of Maria's levitating Angel. It might be fixed onto the proscenium, but the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse. I was rather uncomfortable reading Cameron saying Maria had dreamt up the horse, since the Phantom perched on the Angel was so important to her that she vetoed getting rid of it when they first toured the production. I heard someone say they've removed some of the orchestra space for extra seating - is this true? What I'm intrigued about is whether we get the full proscenium statues, rather than the sad, bare mess in Leicester, and whether those candelabra will rise. I don't know how they will if they're decommissioning the Victorian machinery that Hal Prince fell in love with. If they're not having people operate the curtains, I really don't want cheap flats that go against the whole aesthetic of the show. It'd be odd of ALW to single out those rising candelabra as a key moment in the show in one of his recent Twitter videos, and then agree to axe it...but then, he's acting totally oddly with all this ridiculous conflicting PR where the two co-producers are not remotely on the same publicity page. And no-one is saying what Cameron is doing is a crime: we're saying it's duplicitous, given the PR messaging about bringing it back in its entirety and calling it 'the brilliant original'. I'd be more generous if they were just straight about it. I have a feeling we'll get the chandelier rising again, but we'll see. I haven't heard anything about removing orchestra space for extra seating, but again, we'll see. Things are really weird now, aren't they? Maybe ALW has just given up trying to correct CM and is just saying what he thinks is happening with the show. I guess the only thing we can do now is wait and see. I know it's a cliched thing to say, but I can't really think of anything else to say. |
|
1,819 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Dec 4, 2020 16:59:53 GMT
The seating configuration has been changed in the stalls. Row A has been added at the front of the stalls and Row T at the back. The centre aisle from Row G back has gone too.
|
|
5,144 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Dec 4, 2020 17:10:45 GMT
I had a look earlier, and the only physical change to the theatre that has needed planning permission, so far, is a new fire curtain.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizapot on Dec 4, 2020 17:17:26 GMT
My hope (although the proper term could be 'wishful thinking') is that when Phantom reopens, it will be a blend of both the brilliant original and the recent UK tour. Still having the chandelier rise from the stage, the angel, etc, whilst also using some elements used for the tour. But then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my end. I will be surprised if they don't have the chandelier rise, since ALW has repeatedly said that it's a theatrical effect he devised and is very proud of. He even gives it a nod in his autobiography. However, we have seen the last of Maria's levitating Angel. It might be fixed onto the proscenium, but the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse. I was rather uncomfortable reading Cameron saying Maria had dreamt up the horse, since the Phantom perched on the Angel was so important to her that she vetoed getting rid of it when they first toured the production. I heard someone say they've removed some of the orchestra space for extra seating - is this true? What I'm intrigued about is whether we get the full proscenium statues, rather than the sad, bare mess in Leicester, and whether those candelabra will rise. I don't know how they will if they're decommissioning the Victorian machinery that Hal Prince fell in love with. If they're not having people operate the curtains, I really don't want cheap flats that go against the whole aesthetic of the show. It'd be odd of ALW to single out those rising candelabra as a key moment in the show in one of his recent Twitter videos, and then agree to axe it...but then, he's acting totally oddly with all this ridiculous conflicting PR where the two co-producers are not remotely on the same publicity page. And no-one is saying what Cameron is doing is a crime: we're saying it's duplicitous, given the PR messaging about bringing it back in its entirety and calling it 'the brilliant original'. I'd be more generous if they were just straight about it. I could have got this completely wrong, but when I saw the reference to the horse, I assumed he meant the horse Christine rides on briefly in the movie and (I think) the book. I hope it’s not the horse statue, that seems particularly unimpressive. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Dec 4, 2020 17:38:30 GMT
I will be surprised if they don't have the chandelier rise, since ALW has repeatedly said that it's a theatrical effect he devised and is very proud of. He even gives it a nod in his autobiography. However, we have seen the last of Maria's levitating Angel. It might be fixed onto the proscenium, but the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse. I was rather uncomfortable reading Cameron saying Maria had dreamt up the horse, since the Phantom perched on the Angel was so important to her that she vetoed getting rid of it when they first toured the production. I heard someone say they've removed some of the orchestra space for extra seating - is this true? What I'm intrigued about is whether we get the full proscenium statues, rather than the sad, bare mess in Leicester, and whether those candelabra will rise. I don't know how they will if they're decommissioning the Victorian machinery that Hal Prince fell in love with. If they're not having people operate the curtains, I really don't want cheap flats that go against the whole aesthetic of the show. It'd be odd of ALW to single out those rising candelabra as a key moment in the show in one of his recent Twitter videos, and then agree to axe it...but then, he's acting totally oddly with all this ridiculous conflicting PR where the two co-producers are not remotely on the same publicity page. And no-one is saying what Cameron is doing is a crime: we're saying it's duplicitous, given the PR messaging about bringing it back in its entirety and calling it 'the brilliant original'. I'd be more generous if they were just straight about it. I could have got this completely wrong, but when I saw the reference to the horse, I assumed he meant the horse Christine rides on briefly in the movie and (I think) the book. I hope it’s not the horse statue, that seems particularly unimpressive. Mackintosh is deliberately conflating the two. It's true they had anticipated having a horse on the travelator back in 1986, but the horse Mackintosh is referring to in his article with Baz is what is going to replace the Angel. No doubt he wants to try and conflate the two so he can claim that this is what Maria always wanted, even though it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by elizapot on Dec 4, 2020 17:42:35 GMT
I could have got this completely wrong, but when I saw the reference to the horse, I assumed he meant the horse Christine rides on briefly in the movie and (I think) the book. I hope it’s not the horse statue, that seems particularly unimpressive. Mackintosh is deliberately conflating the two. It's true they had anticipated having a horse on the travelator back in 1986, but the horse Mackintosh is referring to in his article with Baz is what is going to replace the Angel. No doubt he wants to try and conflate the two so he can claim that this is what Maria always wanted, even though it isn't. Wow, he really is trying to sneak through as many changes as possible, isn’t he? |
|
|
|
Post by 10642 on Dec 4, 2020 18:16:58 GMT
While she had a clear preference for the angel, the horse statue used in the 2020 tour was apparently based on maria’s designs of an alternative to the angel for one of the Japanese productions
|
|
217 posts
|
Post by Peter on Dec 4, 2020 18:19:40 GMT
I’m less bothered by the changes to the scenic elements than I am by the almost inevitable reduction in the orchestra. I’m hoping ALW won’t let it be slimmed down too drastically but with the mixed messaging coming out I’m not sure I’d trust any assurances from either of the production companies!
|
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Dec 4, 2020 19:01:38 GMT
Very unimpressed by the performance on “It Takes Two” just now. Worst ‘Music of the Night’ I’ve ever heard.
|
|
610 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Dec 5, 2020 4:34:36 GMT
Very unimpressed by the performance on “It Takes Two” just now. Worst ‘Music of the Night’ I’ve ever heard. was looking on youtube for it and couldnt find it anywhere |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 5, 2020 5:28:33 GMT
Very unimpressed by the performance on “It Takes Two” just now. Worst ‘Music of the Night’ I’ve ever heard. It wasn’t brilliant was it? It seemed a real strain, but maybe he’s just a bit rusty after all that time off. |
|
|
|
Post by 10642 on Dec 5, 2020 7:47:22 GMT
Very unimpressed by the performance on “It Takes Two” just now. Worst ‘Music of the Night’ I’ve ever heard. It wasn’t brilliant was it? It seemed a real strain, but maybe he’s just a bit rusty after all that time off. Not using that upper range for 8 months is bound to leave it a little rusty. There’s a video pf him performing music of the night at the Bord Gais in Dublin from earlier in the year which is much more polished |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2020 8:20:36 GMT
I will be surprised if they don't have the chandelier rise, since ALW has repeatedly said that it's a theatrical effect he devised and is very proud of. He even gives it a nod in his autobiography. However, we have seen the last of Maria's levitating Angel. It might be fixed onto the proscenium, but the Phantom will emerge from behind the horse. I was rather uncomfortable reading Cameron saying Maria had dreamt up the horse, since the Phantom perched on the Angel was so important to her that she vetoed getting rid of it when they first toured the production. ... I could have got this completely wrong, but when I saw the reference to the horse, I assumed he meant the horse Christine rides on briefly in the movie and (I think) the book. I hope it’s not the horse statue, that seems particularly unimpressive.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2020 8:25:36 GMT
Meanwhile, ALW has just said on Twitter, ".... I can assure you it will be the brilliant original"! Aarrgghh! Just seen that as well. Cameron - "It will be a 'new version' of the original" Andrew - "It will be the 'brilliant original'" It feels like they're both trolling us! I suspect when ALW says "brilliant original" what he really means is 'not Laurence Connor's version'. By his definition 'Brilliant Original' could mean the original London production and any variations thereof, rather than a completely different, re-designed, reimagined show. |
|
19,696 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 5, 2020 8:40:05 GMT
A new version of the original surely means that all of the sets and mechanics and technical gubbins are new, but it’s made to look like the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2020 9:38:01 GMT
I really feel this can only be fantastic news.
2020 has been the most awful year, and the fact that the one of the biggest hitters in the West End has announced an actual date when it intends to be back is to be celebrated.
We've been over the "brilliant original" semantics over and over and over - the marketing dept is there for the masses not for us, and to all intents and purposes it IS the brilliant original. I interpret it exactly as Burly states above.
Also the mechanics in there were old, broken and very creaky. What had charm in 1986 just looked in huge need of an update in 2020. And theatre economics and practicalities have vastly changed. Yes a 40 piece orchestra would be nice, but it isn't needed to achieve an incredible sound any more.
I have no doubt at all that Phantom will emerge stronger and more spectacular than ever and that CM and ALW will not let us down.
(And seriously, those who panic that every-single-element has do be identical to 1986 or the world might end, should try being a Starlight fan. There was barely a single element in the 30th anniversary version that was there at the AV in 1984. The world changes. There is movement. There is evolution. And whilst my memories of the original are precious, I try to embrace what we have now).
|
|
