1,060 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Apr 14, 2021 14:46:15 GMT
Perhaps in 20 years time they'll have affordable technology to do a holographic wizard's head. That may look more impressive than the metal animatronic
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 14, 2021 15:19:32 GMT
The ‘Wicked’ tour wasn’t massively downscaled was it? All I remembered was an annoying over amplified rainstick in the percussion and a smaller ensemble. It didn’t affect my enjoyment of the show and no key moments were affected (maybe The ‘No Good Deed’ lift?).
|
|
2,011 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 14, 2021 15:58:00 GMT
For mega fans yes, for Joe Public no. That is the fundamental lack of understanding on this thread between those who clearly have more of an emotional attachment to the show and those who are able to step back and understand and accept that the commercial realities of 2021 are the only thing that matters in terms of the business of show, not what was viable in 1987. You can argue all you like, but the show is still the same show, just because the costumes or orchestrations change doesn't remove the fundamental plot and musical numbers that make it the Phantom of the Opera that everyone will recognise. You might notice the change in details, but the simple fact is that probably 9 out of 10 people won't. Maybe it's just me, but doing something just because one can apparently get away with it without being caught out isn't a very good reason to do it. I don't hold "Joe Public" in such contempt. And, frankly, the comments on social media have been very surprising in terms of the sheer numbers objecting to this. Almost every post that is made by the powers-that-be seems to attract comments criticising what is going on. The very look of the show is being altered. It may be the same show, but not the same production, and certainly not the production that was branded for years as the "brilliant original". For a start, Cameron hasn't even committed to rehiring the remaining 14 musicians. All of them have been let go. Secondly, isn't that the very "showbusiness" you repeatedly invoke? *If* it is the case that a show ceases to become profitable (which in Phantom's case I highly doubt - we don't have the London grosses, but the reports from cast members was that it was still selling out and I don't recall seeing it regularly on TKTS in recent years), then it would be usual to close the show. Not hack away at it.
I wouldn't pay too much heed to a social media backlash - a storm in a teacup stirred up by the most ardent small percentage of Phantom enthusiasts. This will in no way reflect the thoughts of the general public, most of whom - and I'm sorry to break it - really won't care or notice.
AND Cameron Mackintosh/RUG KNOW it.
|
|
2,258 posts
|
Post by richey on Apr 14, 2021 16:21:57 GMT
Going slightly off topic I know,but everytime someone mentions Joe Public,does anyone else immediately hear the voice of Marion Clune in Acorn Antiques?
"We professionals notice - Joe Public never clocks a darn thing."
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 16:41:43 GMT
Maybe it's just me, but doing something just because one can apparently get away with it without being caught out isn't a very good reason to do it. I don't hold "Joe Public" in such contempt. And, frankly, the comments on social media have been very surprising in terms of the sheer numbers objecting to this. Almost every post that is made by the powers-that-be seems to attract comments criticising what is going on. The very look of the show is being altered. It may be the same show, but not the same production, and certainly not the production that was branded for years as the "brilliant original". For a start, Cameron hasn't even committed to rehiring the remaining 14 musicians. All of them have been let go. Secondly, isn't that the very "showbusiness" you repeatedly invoke? *If* it is the case that a show ceases to become profitable (which in Phantom's case I highly doubt - we don't have the London grosses, but the reports from cast members was that it was still selling out and I don't recall seeing it regularly on TKTS in recent years), then it would be usual to close the show. Not hack away at it.
I wouldn't pay too much heed to a social media backlash - a storm in a teacup stirred up by the most ardent small percentage of Phantom enthusiasts. This will in no way reflect the thoughts of the general public, most of whom - and I'm sorry to break it - really won't care or notice.
AND Cameron Mackintosh/RUG KNOW it.
No doubt. I think the public would care if they knew about it. But stuff like this doesn't really get coverage in the mainstream press, although I notice a few news outlets have run with the orchestra story. And I do think the repeat audiences will know the difference as soon as they see the new production (on the basis that it is the Leicester tour they're putting in, based on what Cameron has said and the planning submissions etc). The changes are too great to overlook. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 16:50:50 GMT
The good people of Leicester raved about the Leicester production when the tour opened. They loved it!
Isn't there an element of snobbery saying what they thought was sensational, London audiences will be sniffing at?
I'd add that they are in a better place to judge as they were all concentrating and audience behaviour was perfect in Leicester. Last few times at Phantom in London the amount of talking, texting, eating, coming and going was beyond distracting and it could honestly have had it's own bad behaviour thread!
In the words of Carlotta herself - "No-one* will know if it is Leicester or if it is London. No-one* will care if it is Leicester or if it is London."
(*other than the Phans)
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 17:32:28 GMT
The good people of Leicester raved about the Leicester production when the tour opened. They loved it! Isn't there an element of snobbery saying what they thought was sensational, London audiences will be sniffing at? I'd add that they are in a better place to judge as they were all concentrating and audience behaviour was perfect in Leicester. Last few times at Phantom in London the amount of talking, texting, eating, coming and going was beyond distracting and it could honestly have had it's own bad behaviour thread! In the words of Carlotta herself - "No-one* will know if it is Leicester or if it is London. No-one* will care if it is Leicester or if it is London." (*other than the Phans) I think more than "Phans" care about the artistic integrity of one of the West End's flagship productions (even if you don't). That much has been demonstrated by a lot of the industry reaction today, both in London and across the pond. I think the element of snobbery is to be found in the posts that keep saying "Joe Public" isn't discerning enough to tell the difference. I suppose it's predictable that the posters who said this would never happen are now saying that no-one will care anyway, rather than actually acknowledge the loss. |
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 14, 2021 17:53:03 GMT
I’m surprised at the lack of pride in your work that a “ah, it’s good enough, the great unwashed will never know the difference” implies.
And why people wouldn’t see a problem with someone acting that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 18:06:06 GMT
I’m surprised at the lack of pride in your work that a “ah, it’s good enough, the great unwashed will never know the difference” implies. And why people wouldn’t see a problem with someone acting that way. I certainly don't believe that is the case. I think the Leicester production (and it seems increasingly clear New London will be based on this) was lavish (relative to most current musicals, perhaps not to the 1986 Phantom), expensive (ditto), sounded and looked gorgeous and with a great cast had a real buzz about it and was a sensational production. I truly believe CM and RUG intend to put on a fabulous production. They also need to save money on certain aspects to make it viable. These changes I think won't be noticed my most people. It isn't contempt for the great unwashed. The show will STILL be great. The product delivered still fabulous. (Further, CM and RUG are really not being cheap. Yes this will be cheapER than the original. But believe me will be more expensive to mount (and there will be more money visible on stage) than Come From Away, Evan Hansen, Pretty Woman, Six, Jamie, Hamilton and pretty much every recent musical. Whatever people's opinion of Cameron it is factually incorrect to call him cheap. Yes, he spends less than he did in the 80s/90s but as stated ad nauseam the industry is totally different now. And new Mary Poppins, new Les Mis, AND I believe the new Phantom are still bigger and more expensive than the majority of West End musicals. Which will do for me). |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 14, 2021 18:12:33 GMT
On the whole I am far more concerned with the quality of the singing than I am about how many ate in the pit.
Yes there are bad small pit bands which sound very obviously synth based and don't match the sound world of the show.
But the capability of synthesised music programmers and the associated technology has come on incredibly in recent years.
Is it a shame when something changes? Sure. But Phantom has always incorporated prerecorded sections. I remember my only visit to the show (1996 Broadway) and the transition between live and prerecord during Think of Me was a very audible click.
I know that in the past the pit of Her Majesty's was not the nicest of places. Rats certainly were frequent visitors!
Anyway a producer is seeking to cut costs on a long running show. This should not come as a shock to many people.
Cam Mack has a track record of managing things for the bottom line. But the quality of his shows is significantly higher than some producers we could name. BK and his cardboard Joseph anyone?
No one will be forced to attend Phantom when it reopens. I love the score but the show was tired when I saw it. Changes are needed. We can argue as to the nature of those changes. But we all have to be realistic that changes are inevitable for a whole raft of reasons.
|
|
61 posts
|
Post by TheatreTwittic on Apr 14, 2021 19:03:54 GMT
The good people of Leicester raved about the Leicester production when the tour opened. They loved it! Isn't there an element of snobbery saying what they thought was sensational, London audiences will be sniffing at? I'd add that they are in a better place to judge as they were all concentrating and audience behaviour was perfect in Leicester. Last few times at Phantom in London the amount of talking, texting, eating, coming and going was beyond distracting and it could honestly have had it's own bad behaviour thread! In the words of Carlotta herself - "No-one* will know if it is Leicester or if it is London. No-one* will care if it is Leicester or if it is London." (*other than the Phans) I think more than "Phans" care about the artistic integrity of one of the West End's flagship productions (even if you don't). That much has been demonstrated by a lot of the industry reaction today, both in London and across the pond. I think the element of snobbery is to be found in the posts that keep saying "Joe Public" isn't discerning enough to tell the difference. I suppose it's predictable that the posters who said this would never happen are now saying that no-one will care anyway, rather than actually acknowledge the loss. If the whole orchestra was cut, played on a soundtrack from speakers hidden in an orchestra pit would you feel the same? As you say there will be some that won't be able to tell the difference, some would even pay £100+ to hear it play on speakers. At the same time, it's a compromise to make it more financially viable. Maybe if also the protagonist doubled up as ensemble in the scenes they weren't in. Again, some wouldn't even notice. Should it happen? Could mean a huge reduction in cast size. I would argue if someone is paying £100+ a ticket or more they should be getting a large cast, a truly detailed set and costume and a decent size orchestra. I also would argue for longstanding shows you would expect part of the ticket price is to cover the fact the show is so old it requires more TLC than others. In my eyes this all comes down to a couple of key areas. - the end to properly orchestrated musicals and instead a route of we'll use the bare minimum. - the end of logical ticket pricing and fully transforming into the road Hamilton went down of small production and company but we'll still charge extortionate prices because we can. - knowingly giving audiences incorrect advise to buy tickets. Touring productions and London can be top quality for what they are, but they equally are different. While London is a permanent home, on a tour the logistics of housing a production in a new place every few weeks compromises things such as company size and scale of the set. This is going to be the huge thing with Phantom to see what they mean by building from the tour design. The orchestra is being reduced because its felt they can get away with it, that people won't care, that people will still feel its good value for money. I disagree. If people wanted the story of Phantom, they'd watch the film. They want the experience and they want to feel like they're getting their money's worth. The international tourist comments are interesting, first because they won't be back any time soon. How is Phantom London has to Compete with Phantom NY and other. why would you chose London over it? I'm struggling to find the unique selling point. The only one it had is gone. It all continues to my concerns that I really don't think that London is going to struggle to create a long running musical. Because just like is being done here, they're so worried about making a quick profit that by focusing on that they're not looking at long term commerciality. Some would argue it was luck Les Mis and Phantom have run and run and run, I however, disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 19:10:46 GMT
If the whole orchestra was cut, played on a soundtrack from speakers hidden in an orchestra pit would you feel the same? As you say there will be some that won't be able to tell the difference, some would even pay £100+ to hear it play on speakers. At the same time, it's a compromise to make it more financially viable. Maybe if also the protagonist doubled up as ensemble in the scenes they weren't in. Again, some wouldn't even notice. Should it happen? Could mean a huge reduction in cast size. I would argue if someone is paying £100+ a ticket or more they should be getting a large cast, a truly detailed set and costume and a decent size orchestra. I also would argue for longstanding shows you would expect part of the ticket price is to cover the fact the show is so old it requires more TLC than others. In my eyes this all comes down to a couple of key areas. - the end to properly orchestrated musicals and instead a route of we'll use the bare minimum. - the end of logical ticket pricing and fully transforming into the road Hamilton went down of small production and company but we'll still charge extortionate prices because we can. - knowingly giving audiences incorrect advise to buy tickets. Touring productions and London can be top quality for what they are, but they equally are different. While London is a permanent home, on a tour the logistics of housing a production in a new place every few weeks compromises things such as company size and scale of the set. This is going to be the huge thing with Phantom to see what they mean by building from the tour design. The orchestra is being reduced because its felt they can get away with it, that people won't care, that people will still feel its good value for money. I disagree. If people wanted the story of Phantom, they'd watch the film. They want the experience and they want to feel like they're getting their money's worth. The international tourist comments are interesting, first because they won't be back any time soon. How is Phantom London has to Compete with Phantom NY and other. why would you chose London over it? I'm struggling to find the unique selling point. The only one it had is gone. It all continues to my concerns that I really don't think that London is going to struggle to create a long running musical. Because just like is being done here, they're so worried about making a quick profit that by focusing on that they're not looking at long term commerciality. Some would argue it was luck Les Mis and Phantom have run and run and run, I however, disagree. Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 19:39:29 GMT
If the whole orchestra was cut, played on a soundtrack from speakers hidden in an orchestra pit would you feel the same? As you say there will be some that won't be able to tell the difference, some would even pay £100+ to hear it play on speakers. At the same time, it's a compromise to make it more financially viable. Maybe if also the protagonist doubled up as ensemble in the scenes they weren't in. Again, some wouldn't even notice. Should it happen? Could mean a huge reduction in cast size. I would argue if someone is paying £100+ a ticket or more they should be getting a large cast, a truly detailed set and costume and a decent size orchestra. I also would argue for longstanding shows you would expect part of the ticket price is to cover the fact the show is so old it requires more TLC than others. In my eyes this all comes down to a couple of key areas. - the end to properly orchestrated musicals and instead a route of we'll use the bare minimum. - the end of logical ticket pricing and fully transforming into the road Hamilton went down of small production and company but we'll still charge extortionate prices because we can. - knowingly giving audiences incorrect advise to buy tickets. Touring productions and London can be top quality for what they are, but they equally are different. While London is a permanent home, on a tour the logistics of housing a production in a new place every few weeks compromises things such as company size and scale of the set. This is going to be the huge thing with Phantom to see what they mean by building from the tour design. The orchestra is being reduced because its felt they can get away with it, that people won't care, that people will still feel its good value for money. I disagree. If people wanted the story of Phantom, they'd watch the film. They want the experience and they want to feel like they're getting their money's worth. The international tourist comments are interesting, first because they won't be back any time soon. How is Phantom London has to Compete with Phantom NY and other. why would you chose London over it? I'm struggling to find the unique selling point. The only one it had is gone. It all continues to my concerns that I really don't think that London is going to struggle to create a long running musical. Because just like is being done here, they're so worried about making a quick profit that by focusing on that they're not looking at long term commerciality. Some would argue it was luck Les Mis and Phantom have run and run and run, I however, disagree. Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). You've still got your theatre fan hat on though, so do people posting on Broadway forums, they're hardly impartial critics. Nor are they the typical casual theatergoer, who you continue to endow with a level of theatre knowledge and critique they just don't have. I don't understand where you get the notion that a big orchestra is one of the West End's USPs. It isn't, it hasn't been for years (if it ever was). Most of the biggest shows in the West End have a small band and that's it. For the casual theatre goer and tourist (and I'm talking global tourist, not just people who know Broadway) the USP of the West End is that it is a theatre district and they can dress up, go for dinner and then wander just around the corner and see a big glitzy show in a posh theatre, frequently with a drink in hand, then tumble out into a Soho evening. For quite a few, the particular show itself is secondary (I've experienced enough tourists in my West End theatregoing to know that, I'm sure we all have), they've just decided they want to see a show and almost randomly picked one. Phantom will still tick that box regardless of how many musicians are in the pit, every West End show does no matter what its artistic merit, and the more famous the show, the more likely it is to attract tourist trade. It's still the logo, score and plot that everyone has heard of. It'll still be a big night out for most. So they'll still buy tickets. I really am struggling to understand why that is so difficult to comprehend. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 19:48:13 GMT
Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). You've still got your theatre fan hat on though, so do people posting on Broadway forums, they're hardly impartial critics. Nor are they the typical casual theatergoer, who you continue to endow with a level of theatre knowledge and critique they just don't have. I don't understand where you get the notion that a big orchestra is one of the West End's USPs. It isn't, it hasn't been for years (if it ever was). Most of the biggest shows in the West End have a small band and that's it. For the casual theatre goer and tourist (and I'm talking global tourist, not just people who know Broadway) the USP of the West End is that it is a theatre district and they can dress up, go for dinner and then wander just around the corner and see a big glitzy show in a posh theatre, frequently with a drink in hand, then tumble out into a Soho evening. For quite a few, the particular show itself is secondary (I've experienced enough tourists in my West End theatregoing to know that, I'm sure we all have), they've just decided they want to see a show and almost randomly picked one. Phantom will still tick that box regardless of how many musicians are in the pit, every West End show does no matter what its artistic merit, and the more famous the show, the more likely it is to attract tourist trade. It's still the logo, score and plot that everyone has heard of. It'll still be a big night out for most. So they'll still buy tickets. I really am struggling to understand why that is so difficult to comprehend. If that were the case, wouldn't Cameron have put the Laurence Connor production everywhere now? Or just staged a concert version with the mask logo as the set and a kazoo as the orchestra? The fact the London production was the original was enough for Cameron to have put out posters in the 2000s saying 'See the legendary original production' and then later to coin that dreaded 'Brilliant Original' phrase. The orchestra was also certainly used by the producers to market the show - see here: lwtheatres.co.uk/summer-of-andrew-lloyd-webber/ (I quote below) No one has said people won't still buy tickets (though whether the cuts have impacted on the show's longevity remains to be seen). We are saying that this all sucks. And YES, as theatre fans. That's what the posters of this board are, by and large. Apparently it is not permissible on this thread to lament the cuts, which - when first raised an issue - certain posters repeatedly denied was even happening, saying that the show would be "bigger and more spectacular than ever before". These shows stick around because they aren't just glitz. There is thought and love that has gone into them and audiences go back because they get something out of it each time. I'm not a huge Miz fan (despite having seen it several times) but have lost count of the serious repeat attendees I know who seriously miss the Trevor Nunn/John Caird original because of the detail that went into the staging that is directly inspired by the novel. They went to the Laurence Connor one and were done with it after one go. The only reason the casual theatregoers hear about it is because it has to be good to begin with. Seriously, if all we're saying is the West End is just a night out and nothing more, then why bother? Just demolish the theatres (all of them) and stick a pub in. Abolish Mountview, RADA and the Guildhall and put someone from Britain's Got Talent on the pub stage. Because apparently "Joe Public" doesn't care. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 14, 2021 20:30:39 GMT
Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). You've still got your theatre fan hat on though, so do people posting on Broadway forums, they're hardly impartial critics. Nor are they the typical casual theatergoer, who you continue to endow with a level of theatre knowledge and critique they just don't have. I don't understand where you get the notion that a big orchestra is one of the West End's USPs. It isn't, it hasn't been for years (if it ever was). Most of the biggest shows in the West End have a small band and that's it. For the casual theatre goer and tourist (and I'm talking global tourist, not just people who know Broadway) the USP of the West End is that it is a theatre district and they can dress up, go for dinner and then wander just around the corner and see a big glitzy show in a posh theatre, frequently with a drink in hand, then tumble out into a Soho evening. For quite a few, the particular show itself is secondary (I've experienced enough tourists in my West End theatregoing to know that, I'm sure we all have), they've just decided they want to see a show and almost randomly picked one. Phantom will still tick that box regardless of how many musicians are in the pit, every West End show does no matter what its artistic merit, and the more famous the show, the more likely it is to attract tourist trade. It's still the logo, score and plot that everyone has heard of. It'll still be a big night out for most. So they'll still buy tickets. I really am struggling to understand why that is so difficult to comprehend. I posted something very similar to this previously, however not in this thread apparently and I can't find the post for the life of me; It isn't one thing in isolation which kills a show. You could cast Biggins as Christine and there would be no appreciable change in advance bookings. It just doesn't work like that on these long runners. You can half the orchestra, half the cast, make the chandelier not drop, play all the music at double speed to get the punters out an extra half hour earlier, to save on wages. None of this will show an immediate effect financially, with people booking many months in advance for their one big night a year in the West End. What does happen though, is people who might've seen it in 1992 come back in 2021 and see a shell of the show they saw previously. The orchestra doesn't sound as they remember, the chandelier doesn't come crashing down onto the stage. It wasn't the grand experience it used to be. They tell their friends (and often post publicly online) to this effect, and suggest that maybe The Lion King or Wicked was better for their £80 apiece. Then, of course, there are those seeing it for the first time. Are they likely to recommend to their friends? Then the problem comes. The next booking cycle. Will they come back? Will they check Twitter and TripAdvisor and see nothing but negativity about how much has been taken from the show, with zero given back to the customer? On its own, the orchestra redundancies (disgustingly handled as they were) should not directly hurt a show's mass appeal. On its own, the chandelier being replaced and pieces of set missing shouldn't matter. The effects of these losses, cuts and downsizes do certainly stack and give an overall feeling of paying the same (or more) for less. Cameron Mackintosh became a billionaire by being a perfectionist and stickler for quality. Extremely hard working, with an excellent eye for rights acquisition. Now he is the wealthiest theatre producer in the world, at this crucial time for the arts, and not only is he not giving back, he is actively taking away. Charge more, get less. It's an indefensible strategy in any business. People get wise to it. I can see this really hurting the show. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 14, 2021 20:37:02 GMT
Has the Mackintosh Foundation closed its doors then?
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 14, 2021 20:44:08 GMT
Has the Mackintosh Foundation closed its doors then? I haven't had time to research that - perhaps it can financially assist the 14 unemployed musicians once the show reopens? |
|
2,011 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 14, 2021 20:52:39 GMT
The good people of Leicester raved about the Leicester production when the tour opened. They loved it! Isn't there an element of snobbery saying what they thought was sensational, London audiences will be sniffing at? I'd add that they are in a better place to judge as they were all concentrating and audience behaviour was perfect in Leicester. Last few times at Phantom in London the amount of talking, texting, eating, coming and going was beyond distracting and it could honestly have had it's own bad behaviour thread! In the words of Carlotta herself - "No-one* will know if it is Leicester or if it is London. No-one* will care if it is Leicester or if it is London." (*other than the Phans) I last went in Mar 2019, and yes it was the typical West End crowd - i.e. tourists.
Woman and her teenage daughters chatting and giggling next to my friend, East Asian young woman on her phone during the overture (I had to poke her, as the Usher couldn't get her attention!) - plus her boyfriend who slept through the whole thing until the gunshot near the end....
This is about the level of theatre etiquette you get in the big London shows these days....
|
|
2,011 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 14, 2021 20:58:20 GMT
If the whole orchestra was cut, played on a soundtrack from speakers hidden in an orchestra pit would you feel the same? As you say there will be some that won't be able to tell the difference, some would even pay £100+ to hear it play on speakers. At the same time, it's a compromise to make it more financially viable. Maybe if also the protagonist doubled up as ensemble in the scenes they weren't in. Again, some wouldn't even notice. Should it happen? Could mean a huge reduction in cast size. I would argue if someone is paying £100+ a ticket or more they should be getting a large cast, a truly detailed set and costume and a decent size orchestra. I also would argue for longstanding shows you would expect part of the ticket price is to cover the fact the show is so old it requires more TLC than others. In my eyes this all comes down to a couple of key areas. - the end to properly orchestrated musicals and instead a route of we'll use the bare minimum. - the end of logical ticket pricing and fully transforming into the road Hamilton went down of small production and company but we'll still charge extortionate prices because we can. - knowingly giving audiences incorrect advise to buy tickets. Touring productions and London can be top quality for what they are, but they equally are different. While London is a permanent home, on a tour the logistics of housing a production in a new place every few weeks compromises things such as company size and scale of the set. This is going to be the huge thing with Phantom to see what they mean by building from the tour design. The orchestra is being reduced because its felt they can get away with it, that people won't care, that people will still feel its good value for money. I disagree. If people wanted the story of Phantom, they'd watch the film. They want the experience and they want to feel like they're getting their money's worth. The international tourist comments are interesting, first because they won't be back any time soon. How is Phantom London has to Compete with Phantom NY and other. why would you chose London over it? I'm struggling to find the unique selling point. The only one it had is gone. It all continues to my concerns that I really don't think that London is going to struggle to create a long running musical. Because just like is being done here, they're so worried about making a quick profit that by focusing on that they're not looking at long term commerciality. Some would argue it was luck Les Mis and Phantom have run and run and run, I however, disagree. Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). Poor example: "Broadway discussion boards" are similar to here and don't represent the tourist market (especially international) and the general public. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 21:02:00 GMT
Agreed. It's bizarre reading some of the comments along the lines of 'no one will care' here, rather than taking pride in some of the West End's biggest USPs. On Broadway discussion boards they're all aghast (and relieved at the local rules preventing cutting orchestras to the bone). Poor example: "Broadway discussion boards" are similar to here and don't represent the tourist market (especially international) and the general public. What is the point you are trying to make? That the public won't care? If that's the case, then ALW and RUG clearly didn't agree; otherwise they wouldn't have spent the past year constantly 'reassuring' the public that it was the Hal Prince production returning. Tourists have not heard of Hal Prince or Maria Björnson. The powers-that-be clearly realised what was at stake when they decided to dismantle the existing production. I'm aware that Broadway discussion boards aren't representative of the general public. I never said they were. I was simply saying that on those boards there was an acknowledgment of the loss in quality, rather than a mere dismissal of anyone who cared to mention it. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 14, 2021 21:10:13 GMT
Has the Mackintosh Foundation closed its doors then? I haven't had time to research that - perhaps it can financially assist the 14 unemployed musicians once the show reopens? Perhaps. |
|
61 posts
|
Post by TheatreTwittic on Apr 14, 2021 21:11:40 GMT
One interesting observation from reading some older posts....remember how the tour wasn't selling well at all? As in the recent one that started in Leicester. Leicester was a sell out, but post Leicester, the seating plans were not good at all.
There was a reason for that. Whether it was prices, whether it was saturation of large scale tours, whether it's because it wasn't the original despite that tag being plastered on it, whether it was the smaller orchestra, whether people decided to visit London instead, it just didn't click with people enough to buy tickets.
Something to 'secure' the production could end up closing it. For good.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Apr 14, 2021 21:50:06 GMT
Saw the original a few times. Loved it. It was a spectacle. Event theatre at the time. Excitedly took my teenager to see it in the West end a couple of years back to share my love of the glorious music and I have to admit I thought it looked tired and dated. Some things are better left to beautiful memories.
Regarding the orchestra I wonder if the apathy displayed by some to cutting musicians would be the same if they cut 13 of the ensemble and replaced their voices with a backing track?
My son is just starting out as a pit band musician and I do worry for his future and whether there will be one in this modern age where it’s easier and cheaper to replace trained professionals with a programme.
Just my thoughts. I appreciate it’s a ‘business’ and business must be economically viable but man vs machine is the start of a very slippery slope. Keep music live.
|
|
3,466 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 14, 2021 22:47:07 GMT
Phantom really isn't closing and diehard fans just need to suck up the changes or find a new vehicle to follow. I welcome any changes to the creaky outdated show that was running pre-covid. These are theatres, not museums. If CM can update and still be profitable then good luck to him. If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Apr 14, 2021 22:57:27 GMT
Phantom really isn't closing and diehard fans just need to suck up the changes or find a new vehicle to follow. I welcome any changes to the creaky outdated show that was running pre-covid. These are theatres, not museums. If CM can update and still be profitable then good luck to him. If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket. It closed. You're getting a cheaper revival. Enjoy. |
|
