The Phantom of the Opera - His Majesty's Theatre

I hope to enjoy it rather than carp about it.

This, I believe, is the nub of the matter. No one is arguing that this isn't true. But on the one hand you have (possibly rose-tinted) posters who don't disagree but think that theatre, despite being 'show-business', is something people get involved with because of an irrational emotional passion. Nobody goes to work in theatre to make serious money - they start out because they just want to 'do the show right here'.  On the other hand you have (possible hard-nosed) posters who appreciate that, where the bottom line is concerned, this decision is unfortunate but entirely logical and in keeping with the most basic business model.

Those in the first camp wish CM and RUG would remember where they'd come from, count themselves bloody lucky to have achieved what they've achieved in the performing arts, and remember that theatre isn't really about money, it's about love and the buzz and making something you're proud of.

Those in the second camp recognise that this fundamentally goes against some basic facets, like them or not, of human nature and it's simple not how the world works when you move beyond doing shows in your church hall or your little toy theatre.

I know I'm in camp one, but perhaps that's because I've never experienced (as a theatre-maker) what it's like to be in camp two. I genuinely do concede, however, that maybe this is just forward planning. It's going to be a hell of a long time before the public that made up the Phantom's core audience return to London and want to sit in theatres. Small, new shows may well thrive over the next year. Shows like Phantom, and in many ways that's really just Phantom now, are going to find it very very hard. 

I don't think shirleydevore is contesting any of this. We all know why this is happening. It doesn't make it right. The comeback that this is "showbusiness" has been made time and time again. OK, but so what? Businesses also have goodwill to protect, and in this case goodwill is being lost. You think that "Joe Public" don't care. I disagree.

I'm interested too, cos having already paid for my tickets, I don't want to be sat next to any doom-mongering whingebags tutting their way through each scene.

I suspect you'll be the one to be kicked out, rather than them (if they go and see it), if you interact with others like that in real life rather than behind your keyboard.

Sorry Scarpia - you seem to have a strange intolerance towards those who disagree with you. Apologies for not wailing or beating my chest over the changes to Phantom. I happen to think it might actually be refreshing and breathe new life into the show, and I'd happily say that should I ever have the joy of sitting next to you in a theatre. The question is, would you gnash and gnarl or might you find some joy in the new production? I wish for the latter but fear the former. Unlock yourself from the purgatory of your own fixed view and accept that others have views too, often different to your own.

I want to respond to you in a way you respond to me, though I do have a policy online, don’t be a dick. Something some posters could learn.

Downgrading Phantom, a solid property, to save a minuscule amount to billionaires, makes it a risky endeavour. Prove me wrong with data.

‘We all know’, know what? What inside information has anyone beyond the publicity statements?

If those that think protecting the legacy of Maria Bjornson isn’t the right path to take then that tells me how they value the art makers. This isn’t about paying the estates for me, this is purely about that knock-off Christine costume I’ve evidenced and others like it and calling it the brilliant original. It’s plagiarism, false adverting at best.

Also, to write off people as rose tinted and vacuous because they talk about the chandelier is a disservice to themselves. The chandelier plays a key plot point in that the Phantom tries to kill Christine. I hope they can introduce this into the revised version without the falling chandelier. It’s a crucial plot point and a motivation for the characters.

Mackintosh is great to have produced Phantom and those who invested in it made a great choice. Would it still be on 36 years later if the fans didn’t go and return time and time again? No it wouldn’t.

This will no doubt provide lots of material for the courses I lecture on, it will be the subject of Masters theses I have to read. A student recently emailed me about the intention to get a paper on Les Mis peer reviewed before their Viva.

Young people are engaged with the arts but they are engaged politically. They’ve seen what happened with Hamilton and the theatre makers of the next generation aren’t going to be puppets who build wealth for others.

The core of my argument to repeat because some posters cannot seem to grasp it is,

This is not the original Phantom.
Art is about change not plagiarism.
Those who contribute to the success of something should be considered in decisions that affect them, eg the musicians.
Art makers should be respected whatever the medium.
And a life lesson is:

Tell the truth it promotes goodwill from others.

The question I have is: if the Broadway grosses are an indicator of the current success and the West End capacity is running similarly. Why change key aspects of the show, from an analysis point of view I don’t know how technological advances can make the show more expensive. I can understand reducing the orchestra to save money, I don’t understand the decision to take that risk.

I would like them to introduce elements from the Connor tour, the new pyrotechnics in the grave yard, the statue on the roof and Christines suicide ideation.

Looking at the data from Broadway and the published worldwide grosses I cannot understand the risk to save pennies.

Maybe Mackintosh is broke.

Fair enough - your experience in Leicester was clearly different to mine.

As to the other point, I honestly don't think I could have been any clearer throughout my contributions to this thread. I DON'T think it will be a 'crappier' production, I think it's gonna be fabulous. I don't think anyone 'deserves' a substandard production. And I think Cam Mac and RUG have an almost perfect track record in delivering quality products that are value for money relative to other West End musicals. (Though it is true that badly behaved audiences are less likely to notice whether it's 15 or 30 musicians in the pit).

And re tourists, of course they are the lifeblood for these shows and the vast majority are well behaved. I am a big theatre tourist myself in Europe. And I have also widely stated problems with UK audiences. But like a subset of UK audiences behave badly, so do a subset of tourists. And my personal lived experience at Phantom in London was poorly behaved tourists on multiple occasions. That doesn't reflect on tourists in general; that just happens to be my experience at Her Majesty's. Like yours at Leicester, we all have opinions based on things we have experienced. 

So, once again, to make my views clear, I personally believe that the new Phantom is still gonna be a slick, expensive, quality musical. Which I really hope ALL audience members enjoy!

They’re definitely messing about with which seats are on sale. I’ve just flicked through the stalls map over 2 consecutive weeks in sept/oct and exactly the same seats on the two sides are off sale for every performance. I’d be booking for this because I’d love to see it too but I want to choose the seat I like, so I’m not booking!

Apologies I missed this post I’m not ignoring it. From what I understand from the information in the public sphere the show is using some not all of the reimagined show which began with Connor’s version which has again been changed for the new tour which I believe is the one going in.

My point being the costume is a reflection of what’s happening with the show. I do hope you’re right and we don’t see this standard of plagiarism carry across to the new Phantom.

I agree it is getting a bit like Groundhog Day. Problem is until we know the extent of the changes I’m not sure there’d be much to talk about on a new thread. All we know with any degree of certainty is that the orchestra has been reduced, beyond that it’s still very much speculation. If the production which opens in July turns out to be different then I think that would be the point at which we might want to break into two threads. 

In the meantime, thanks to everyone for doing your best to keep the discussion civil. I know members feel very passionately about this show, it’s been part of people’s lives for decades. 

This has now gone a little more mainstream, as a discussion - via online and press. Somewhere up the thread someone made a neatly iconoclastic comment about the virtues of preserving a 'museum piece' production - something I'd usually be against. When I saw the show the magic and some visual effects were out of date, so update those - please. But, if - like Sam Wanamaker's Globe - Phantom became unique for showing what shows are hardly ever like anymore, what a feature (and yes 'selling' point) that would be. Loss of the full orchestra is turning into bad PR (that they'll recover from to generalise eyes, less so within the industry), but the full orchestra could be one of the magnet qualities that make the show a 'gold standard' and beacon people beat a path towards. ALW's frequent statements about the value of playing a musical instrument - stated so often during School Of Rock publicity - are really undermined by all this. It feels sad to contradict himself via these actions, and well worth the money to keep the Orchestra on. He'll probably donate his painting collection to the nation eventually, why not bequeath the full experience of his show too, and bask in that during his lifetime?