|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 7, 2021 20:24:57 GMT
I have just been told, confidentially sadly, so you can either believe me or not, but this was not the original plan. It's actually built off the same set piece. I'm also told that despite what I previously thought, Cameron's people are very much listening on social media. I'm sorry if this makes me sound like an idiot, but does this mean the chandelier seen on Instagram is in fact a "new one"? And if Cameron's people are listening on social media, then they must be aware of the discourse surrounding potential changes being made? They are aware and reacted accordingly, from early on. Or so I am told from a very reputable source. It's really not the done thing to disclose who. The original model box and rig plan is not the same as is going in the theatre. I'm speculating they weren't expecting such a hostile reception. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 7, 2021 20:27:50 GMT
A couple of us did comment on here that the chandelier would rise and fall quite a while back now. This was not the original plan. I'm just glad they have listened rather than hurt the show further. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 7, 2021 20:38:20 GMT
I'm sorry if this makes me sound like an idiot, but does this mean the chandelier seen on Instagram is in fact a "new one"? And if Cameron's people are listening on social media, then they must be aware of the discourse surrounding potential changes being made? They are aware and reacted accordingly, from early on. Or so I am told from a very reputable source. It's really not the done thing to disclose who. The original model box and rig plan is not the same as is going in the theatre. I'm speculating they weren't expecting such a hostile reception. I'm surprised they may actually be responding to the criticism, which is something they didn't do when CM closed the original Les Mis. Like what scarpia said, the proscenium is something I'm concerned about as well. |
|
3,472 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 7, 2021 20:50:52 GMT
A couple of us did comment on here that the chandelier would rise and fall quite a while back now. This was not the original plan. I'm just glad they have listened rather than hurt the show further. Everybody has their own version of the truth on this subject. Some of us spoke out weeks ago regarding the chandelier while others were still speculating. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 7, 2021 20:52:21 GMT
This was not the original plan. I'm just glad they have listened rather than hurt the show further. Everybody has their own version of the truth on this subject. Some of us spoke out weeks ago regarding the chandelier while others were still speculating. You know I love your work but I really can't agree on this one!! |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 7, 2021 21:42:41 GMT
I have just been told, confidentially sadly, so you can either believe me or not, but this was not the original plan. It's actually built off the same set piece. I'm also told that despite what I previously thought, Cameron's people are very much listening on social media. I'm sorry if this makes me sound like an idiot, but does this mean the chandelier seen on Instagram is in fact a "new one"? And if Cameron's people are listening on social media, then they must be aware of the discourse surrounding potential changes being made? I suspect it's not a new chandelier at all, but rather an existing asset for one of the international productions that is no longer running and/or the one that left the building last year mended. The investors of the original production who have been cut out of this new one were told that, to keep costs down, any replacements to sets would be from existing stock where possible. Which of course makes sense. But this isn't the new, "bigger" and "faster" chandelier that Mackintosh was talking about in interviews...because that one wasn't designed to rest on the stage. CM ought to have known better. I'm reminded of an in-depth interview he did with the Chicago Tribune about "reinventing" his shows, and he acknowledges that Phantom was a special case because the original production was part of its alchemy. And then the piece goes on to say that Cameron decided to commission the Connor version to avoid "being saddled with the rap that he was compromising his reputation by cutting out much of the scenery". But that one was not popularly received, no matter what Cameron says in his press puffs, so he's then faced with doing exactly that (i.e. cutting out much of the scenery) to the original. Fine for the tour if that's what economics dictates; still doesn't make sense for London. I'd be interested to know at how late a stage they decided to U-turn on the chandelier. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jul 8, 2021 5:59:18 GMT
Be prepared for an onslaught of "for the 21st century", "through 21st century eyes" when the publicity for this ramps up...it's the phrase they've all been told to say... All I’m thinking is that thank god the show’s iconic enough, that Cameron’s been unable to pull a fast one to the extent he’d already planned. Otherwise, any noise created by fans here or on twitter would not have reached as far and wide as it has- especially that petition from way back, reaching people worldwide and prompting Broadway professionals to publicly speak out against it too, bringing more attention from people who otherwise wouldn’t have even known about the changes. At this point I’ve simply been conditioned to despair internally every time the words “Cameron Mackintosh” and “For the 21st Century” appear together... The first thing that needs to be reimagined for the 21st century, is his “artistic vision” in relation to his business plan! It’s no longer about simplifying (aka stripping) a 80s behemoth to keep it afloat in the 21st C, but using 21st C resources to keep the 80s* alive... *or rather, the spirit of the era in which a musical was created |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jul 8, 2021 9:33:56 GMT
Whilst all anyone can do here currently is posit their own theories, it's important to remember that until the shows actually plays to an audience, it is all pure speculation.
People posting here about the chandelier needing rebuilding etc, I suspect it was more the 35 year old mechanics (steel wires, drivers, pulleys) that were in need of repair than Ruthie herself. It's so good to see Ruthie (v3?) as I have a strange affinity to the oval chandelier. We are yet to see how she's integrated back into the show though, so no-one knows whether this is the original choreography or an adaption for the 21st century.
My theory is that she may well start the show on stage and rise to the roof - in the way we know and love - but the fall may be Cameron's highly posited 'faster, bigger, better' action - a vertical drop to the stalls (like Vegas and the tour would have seen) rather than back onto the stage. This would be easier to stage in terms of crew and also mechanically. This also maintains the bragging rights about new effects integrating into the show.
I also suspect pyro won't be mounted in the chandelier proper but in the roof around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theatrefan48 on Jul 11, 2021 8:12:27 GMT
Taking my mum to see this on the 29th. Does anyone know what the rules are with stage door photos at the moment?
|
|
653 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Jul 11, 2021 11:09:13 GMT
The advice from most shows already open is to not do it, for the health of the cast and crew. I don't see why it is necessary at the best of times (though I admit to having done it twice), but in the middle of a pandemic, I think it's completely wrong to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 11, 2021 13:59:24 GMT
Taking my mum to see this on the 29th. Does anyone know what the rules are with stage door photos at the moment? Hope you enjoy the show, please post your thoughts afterwards! |
|
|
|
Post by Theatrefan48 on Jul 12, 2021 0:45:27 GMT
The advice from most shows already open is to not do it, for the health of the cast and crew. I don't see why it is necessary at the best of times (though I admit to having done it twice), but in the middle of a pandemic, I think it's completely wrong to do it. I thought that was the general rule at the moment. I might try my luck from a distance and with a mask on. I saw Heathers across the road from phantom earlier this week, so i lurked around stage door and saw them moving the head of the horse from All I Ask of You. |
|
5,877 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 12, 2021 6:53:23 GMT
Sure- expose the cast to risk just because you want a photo. Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2021 9:07:18 GMT
The advice from most shows already open is to not do it, for the health of the cast and crew. I don't see why it is necessary at the best of times (though I admit to having done it twice), but in the middle of a pandemic, I think it's completely wrong to do it. I thought that was the general rule at the moment. I might try my luck from a distance and with a mask on. I saw Heathers across the road from phantom earlier this week, so i lurked around stage door and saw them moving the head of the horse from All I Ask of You. Please don't - have a bit of common sense, it's not all about you. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 13, 2021 9:44:55 GMT
Shame to hear they're insisting on using that horse instead of the Angel.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 13, 2021 11:38:49 GMT
Meanwhile, I see ALW is telling porkies to the press about his involvement in the production side:
|
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Jul 13, 2021 15:51:22 GMT
Meanwhile, I see ALW is telling porkies to the press about his involvement in the production side: Seems to be missing a direct quote where he says he isn't the producer... although of course technically he isn't, his company is a co-producer which isn't the same thing at all. I suspect ALW wanted to keep the orchestra, Cameron didn't. If they were sharing the rights when Cameron probably went "ditch them or we aren't reopening" and faced with the choice between a reduced phantom and no phantom he picked the lesser of two evils. |
|
2,259 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 13, 2021 16:29:24 GMT
Well ALW has been an inspected the new set. Ominous that it contains "tributes to Maria Bjornson" ...
There's a picture in a linked tweet of the new proscenium arch being loaded too
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 13, 2021 16:43:16 GMT
Seems to be missing a direct quote where he says he isn't the producer... although of course technically he isn't, his company is a co-producer which isn't the same thing at all. I suspect ALW wanted to keep the orchestra, Cameron didn't. If they were sharing the rights when Cameron probably went "ditch them or we aren't reopening" and faced with the choice between a reduced phantom and no phantom he picked the lesser of two evils. Well, the NYT is a fairly trustworthy source, so if they say "ALW says he is not the producer", then I'd wager that's what ALW said on the phone. Which of course contradicts his own website: "He is the co-producer of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera" (from here: lwtheatres.co.uk/andrew-lloyd-webber/ ) If we want to get really technical, then Cameron Mackintosh isn't the co-producer either but rather Cameron Mackintosh Limited. But we can all see through the corporate veil...ALW is the co-producer of Phantom and always has been. It really doesn't do him any favours to keep lying like this. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Jul 13, 2021 18:16:28 GMT
Seems to be missing a direct quote where he says he isn't the producer... although of course technically he isn't, his company is a co-producer which isn't the same thing at all. I suspect ALW wanted to keep the orchestra, Cameron didn't. If they were sharing the rights when Cameron probably went "ditch them or we aren't reopening" and faced with the choice between a reduced phantom and no phantom he picked the lesser of two evils. Well, the NYT is a fairly trustworthy source, so if they say "ALW says he is not the producer", then I'd wager that's what ALW said on the phone. Which of course contradicts his own website: "He is the co-producer of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera" (from here: lwtheatres.co.uk/andrew-lloyd-webber/ ) If we want to get really technical, then Cameron Mackintosh isn't the co-producer either but rather Cameron Mackintosh Limited. But we can all see through the corporate veil...ALW is the co-producer of Phantom and always has been. It really doesn't do him any favours to keep lying like this. Looking on Companies House, ALW isn’t listed as a director of either Really Useful Group Limited nor LW Theatres. So unless I’ve missed him, he is not a producer assuming those are the producing companies. |
|
|
|
Post by waybeyondblue on Jul 13, 2021 18:26:14 GMT
Well, the NYT is a fairly trustworthy source, so if they say "ALW says he is not the producer", then I'd wager that's what ALW said on the phone. Which of course contradicts his own website: "He is the co-producer of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera" (from here: lwtheatres.co.uk/andrew-lloyd-webber/ ) If we want to get really technical, then Cameron Mackintosh isn't the co-producer either but rather Cameron Mackintosh Limited. But we can all see through the corporate veil...ALW is the co-producer of Phantom and always has been. It really doesn't do him any favours to keep lying like this. Looking on Companies House, ALW isn’t listed as a director of either Really Useful Group Limited nor LW Theatres. So unless I’ve missed him, he is not a producer assuming those are the producing companies. not that hard. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Jul 13, 2021 18:28:17 GMT
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jul 13, 2021 18:31:03 GMT
The holding company, of which he is a director, owns the shares in the production company. He is the co-producer of Phantom, and always has been. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Jul 13, 2021 18:33:47 GMT
The holding company, of which he is a director, owns the shares in the production company. He is the co-producer of Phantom, and always has been. Thanks, that makes sense to me now. |
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Jul 13, 2021 18:54:51 GMT
Well ALW has been an inspected the new set. Ominous that it contains "tributes to Maria Bjornson" ... There's a picture in a linked tweet of the new proscenium arch being loaded too Very ominous indeed... Are you referring to this tweet with the arch? |
|
