Love Never Dies - all views allowed

operafantomet wrote:You know... I feel the same. And some of you might find that odd, seeing I have spent a decent amount of time ranting about the sequel. But thing is that it provokes me that you take something highly interesting and makes it dull. It was the very same thing that bugged me about the 2004 movie. It was dull, boring, uninspired. How the h... can you make POTO boring? And then the sequel came along and it was the same. Apart from some aspects I truly hate, and a few moments I like, it is so darn.... mediocre. And it takes itself so seriously, while it draaaaaaaags along with its non-content. As you say, it relies on a good score. And even the score I find dull.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the score isn't really all that. Apart from how shamelessly derivative it is of ALW's earlier works, the songs don't go anywhere--they just spin their wheels long after they've run out of anything to say musically or dramatically. Again, I'm picking on "Beauty Underneath" because I listened to it again recently, but it's a perfect example: that last section just. Keeps. Going. "Till I Hear You Sing" is a decent melody (though saddled with awful "oh woe is meeeeeee" lyrics), but for the most part the music sounds like the self-indulgent vanity project it is.

~LCD

I just got an e-mail notification that I had a PM here, so I came on here to check...and this is the message I found:

Cynical Marketing Person Who Should READ ABOUT PHANTOM FAN REACTION Before Spamming wrote:Hello,



For more than 20 years, fans have been awaiting the continuation of one of the most captivating love stories of all time. Love Never Dies, the sequel to the Phantom of the Opera follows the story of the Phantom and Christine Daaé as they find themselves in New York’s playground, Coney Island.



NCM Fathom and Omniverse Vision come together again to present the first ever US showing of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Love Never Dies, the highly anticipated sequel to The Phantom of the Opera.
Experience the three time Helpmann Award winner and eagerly awaited sequel to one of the most beloved musicals of all time at local movie theaters, and be a part of history as the first ever US showing of Love Never Dies comes to Movie Theaters Nationwide on Tuesday, February 28 with a second showing on March 7 both at 7:30pm local time.



Come and enjoy the fully staged pre-recorded performance of Love Never Dies captured from The Regent Theatre in Melbourne, Australia. This is a mesmerizing follow-up to the multi-award winning The Phantom of the Opera, featuring a 21-piece orchestra and an impressive cast of 36 including actors Ben Lewis as Phantom and Anna O’Byrne as Christine Daaé. The production will enchant and bring audiences into a world of passion, obsession and romance.



This fabulous event will also include an introduction from Andrew Lloyd Webber discussing the creative process and stumbling blocks of developing Love Never Dies and behind the scenes content that follows Lloyd Webber on set as he provides his creative insight and direction to the cast and crew.



We hope you’ll spread the word about this rare event by sharing information about Love Never Dies with your readers through mediums such as blog posts, newsletters, Facebook and Twitter. For more details about Love Never Dies, including information on participating movie theaters and tickets, visit fathomevents (dot) com.



Please let us know if we can provide any other information to facilitate your outreach. Thank you for your support.



Best,


Devon McFadden

Pure Brand Communications on behalf of NCM Fathom

For some reason, I can't reply. Did they set up account, spam everyone, then delete it? Or what...?

Anyway, thanks Devon McFadden for wasting 5 minutes of my life.

Did anyone else get this? Or am I the only victim?

That's weird. Nope, I didn't get it. (Don't want one, don't need one - in case that person is reading here)

I may be one of the few who kind of like LND, but I do take issue with this:

For more than 20 years, fans have been awaiting the continuation of one of the most captivating love stories of all time. Love Never Dies, the sequel to the Phantom of the Opera follows the story of the Phantom and Christine Daaé as they find themselves in New York’s playground, Coney Island.

Not sure what fans he's talking about who have been waiting for a continuation of the story....most fans never wanted a sequel (me included in this) And from what I remember in those early years of fandom, no one was waiting for the continuation of the story. If they wanted a continuation, they went about writing their own stories/fantasies, and totally loving it.

Ahhh. I miss those days sometimes....

Scorp wrote: (...)

For some reason, I can't reply. Did they set up account, spam everyone, then delete it? Or what...?

(...)

Did anyone else get this? Or am I the only victim?

I got it too, alas. I think the person sent it to the listed moderators of this forum. The person is not registered, only listed as a guest. The intro itself gave me headache, with fans waiting for the humbug that is LND for 20 years. But the PM as such seems serious enough.

I know I shouldn't have done this, that this is pointless and immature and that I've been wasting my own time. But I caved into my irritation and sent a reply, to which I received another, to which I replied again.

Scorp to Devon McFadden wrote:Dear Devon McFadden,

I am merely writing to tell you that I do not appreciate your
hijacking the message functions of various 'Phantom of the Opera'
boards in a desperate attempt to promote 'Love Never Dies'.

Had you done your market research, you would know by now that many--if
not most--long time fans of the Phantom do not care one bit for a
lazily written sequel with one of the most ridiculous plots of all
time. I found Love Never Dies insulting and have no intention to help
you to "outreach" something so disgustingly damaging to the legacy of
what Gaston Leroux originally wrote in 1910; very few, if any, of my
fellow fans would be willing to either--of that I am certain. In
short, please stop wasting your time and that of fans such as myself.

Yours sincerely,

Scorp

Devon McFadden to Scorp wrote:Hello again,

Thank you for your reply. First and foremost, the email was meant to be informative and not "hijacking" in any way shape or form, and if you interpreted it as such, I sincerely apologize. The attempt to promote is in fact not desperate, but a sincere undertaking to spread the word of what many deem to be a worthy production.

Thank you for informing me of the general sentiment of your community regarding the production, since there is no way I could have known otherwise. I do have to correct you when you say "lazily written," as Andrew Lloyd Webber devoted 20 years of his life to writing, editing and re-writing Love Never Dies. To me that is the very antithesis of "lazy."

I apologize again if you feel I have wasted your time.

Best,
Devon

Scorp to Devon McFadden wrote:Dear Devon McFadden,

In response to your latest message:

> Thank you for your reply. First and foremost, the email was meant to be
> informative and not "hijacking" in any way shape or form, and if you
> interpreted it as such, I sincerely apologize.

Your apology is accepted. In future, I suggest you bear in mind that
clearly copied-and-pasted messages that do not once specifically
address the recipient are unlikely to be construed as anything other
than spam. If you also care to read the board's message threads about
Love Never Dies, you will also see that all fans (well, those that
bother to keep up to date with Love Never Dies--I cannot blame those
who prefer not even to acknowledge its unfortunate existence) are
quite aware of the release of the DVD and its screening in cinemas.

> The attempt to promote is in
> fact not desperate, but a sincere undertaking to spread the word of what
> many deem to be a worthy production.

I am afraid I'm not convinced, given the huge commercial and popular
failure of the London production, the fact the Brisbane run of the
Australian production has been cancelled and largely because Andrew
Lloyd Webber himself comes across as very desperate indeed to mount
this show on Broadway as some kind of narcissistic project of
wish-fulfilment.

> Thank you for informing me of the general sentiment of your community
> regarding the production, since there is no way I could have known
> otherwise.

See above. If you could care to read the messages of most long-established Phantom fan
communities that are composed of intelligent and longstanding members,
none of them care for the sequel. You will have an easier time, I
suspect, pitching your promotional ideas to newer fans who couldn't
care less about the integrity of the original story or those who have
unfortunately grown up alongside a "young and sexy" image of the
Phantom perpetuated by Joel Schumacher's catastrophic 2004 film
version.

> I do have to correct you when you say "lazily written," as Andrew
> Lloyd Webber devoted 20 years of his life to writing, editing and re-writing
> Love Never Dies. To me that is the very antithesis of "lazy."

I wholeheartedly reject your so-called correction and stand by what I
said. First of all, Lloyd Webber has categorically NOT spent two
decades of his life devoting time to this ill-conceived and
unnecessary sequel. He first entertained the idea two decades ago,
yes, but this is not the same thing. In the last two decades he has
written several other musicals, and did not return to considering the
Phantom sequel as a potential project until 2007 at the earliest.

In addition, it is a choice between naming the work either "lazy",
which frankly is a euphemism, or "incompetent". Since I know Lord
Lloyd Webber is capable of far better, I chose the former adjective.
That you do not consider it lazily written is perhaps indicative of
your ignorance of the details of the original story, which does not
cohere at all with what has been written in the sequel in terms of
plot or character. Love Never Dies is riddled with unfortunate
contradictions and plotholes. The fact that even its basic tenets --
such as setting it "ten years later" in 1907, when the original is set
in 1881 -- do not hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny suggests
it is you who are wrong, not I.

I wish you a pleasant afternoon.

Regards,

Scorp

Oh. My. God.

Well, now Devon McFadden has been blacklisted from coming on here again. Hope you're satisfied, sir. Job well done, Scorp. Sadly couldn't think of a better person to respond to him.

Well, though I disagree with the content of the PM and the product it was promoting, I didn't think the person did anything wrong. She (I assume Devon is a girl's name?) signed with full name and left her email address, so I don't consider it spam. I consider it informative post sent out, but alas to the wrong people. It's not too different from the guy who searched for Phantom fans for a documentary and PM'ed various people in various forums. It was copy-and-paste, but again it was under full name and with contact info.

That said, it's a PM - a Personal Message - and I think everyone is entitled to receive and answer it as they see fit, as private persons. Personally I ignore it. I have no interest in LND.

The part about "ALW working 20 years on LND" made me laugh out loud, though.

Meh. I have to agree with you, Anea. Forgive me, I'm just feeling rather snippy today.

ML6 wrote:Meh. I have to agree with you, Anea. Forgive me, I'm just feeling rather snippy today.

Who said snippy is bad?

operafantomet wrote:Well, though I disagree with the content of the PM and the product it was promoting, I didn't think the person did anything wrong. She (I assume Devon is a girl's name?) signed with full name and left her email address, so I don't consider it spam. I consider it informative post sent out, but alas to the wrong people. It's not too different from the guy who searched for Phantom fans for a documentary and PM'ed various people in various forums. It was copy-and-paste, but again it was under full name and with contact info.

That said, it's a PM - a Personal Message - and I think everyone is entitled to receive and answer it as they see fit, as private persons. Personally I ignore it. I have no interest in LND.

The part about "ALW working 20 years on LND" made me laugh out loud, though.

I agree with you, to be honest; the whole "fans have been waiting for this since the dawn of time!" thing just drove me to send that rather harsh reply back. You'd think they'd stop doing that now after everything that's happened in the last 2 years. The guy who sent PMs about his documentary at least had a proper reason IMHO for connecting with fans; the LND release technically has enough going on re promotion...and isn't it a bit hypocritical of them to be doing this when supposedly none/few of us allegedly know anything about the show to make valid criticisms? So why should we then be expected to promote something we supposedly know nothing about? I also find it hypocritical that it's RUG who've hired this PR company to engage in activities like this after ALW's previous comments about the "sad culture" of Phantom fans...suddenly they've decided they need them again.

The message wasn't spam per se, but it was incredibly presumptuous in its tone. I might have responded better if it had asked whether we were looking forward to LND and THEN asking us to promote it. Its failure to do that -- surprising since I'd expect a marketing person (is Devon a guy or girl's name? I'm clueless) to do their job and properly gauge the reaction of fan communities rather than making blind assumptions -- means I'm not particularly sorry, though.

And yeah, not sure whether s/he genuinely thought ALW had actually devoted two whole decades to writing LND... I do hope not.

operafantomet wrote:Well, though I disagree with the content of the PM and the product it was promoting, I didn't think the person did anything wrong. She (I assume Devon is a girl's name?) signed with full name and left her email address, so I don't consider it spam. I consider it informative post sent out, but alas to the wrong people. It's not too different from the guy who searched for Phantom fans for a documentary and PM'ed various people in various forums. It was copy-and-paste, but again it was under full name and with contact info.

That said, it's a PM - a Personal Message - and I think everyone is entitled to receive and answer it as they see fit, as private persons. Personally I ignore it. I have no interest in LND.

The part about "ALW working 20 years on LND" made me laugh out loud, though.

My guess is that this person is an employee of Fathom and/or RUG working on a social marketing campaign targeting PotO/theater message boards--in which case, they were just doing their job. The only fault I can see is targeting a community (ie. this board) where the promotion was not likely to be well received, but I suspect this same message was sent out a lot of other places as well and the author didn't have the time to research the conversations on every single website he/she targeted.

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:My guess is that this person is an employee of Fathom and/or RUG working on a social marketing campaign targeting PotO/theater message boards--in which case, they were just doing their job. The only fault I can see is targeting a community (ie. this board) where the promotion was not likely to be well received, but I suspect this same message was sent out a lot of other places as well and the author didn't have the time to research the conversations on every single website he/she targeted.

I agree. But by not checking into the sites they're targeting they're asking for all kinds of feedback, from avid praise to "hell no!". I must admit it provoked me to still see the "Fans have waited 20 years" tagline being used. I was about to send a reply, since this person was contacting me and not opposite. But I decided not to bother. It looked like an email/PM sent to hundreds of people, and the person in the other end was just doing their job, as you wrote. They won't change course, no matter my reply. So I made myself some hot chocolate and put on a quality DVD instead.

So the Facebook site for Broadway POTO has started promoting "Love Never Dies". WTF?

Love or hate LND, but that's not why I decided to follow the page. I signed up there for POTO, not LND, not Les Miserables, not Coca Cola. The page is called "Phantom Broadway", not "Love Never Dies Australia" goddamnit. Standalone musical, you said?

https://www.facebook.com/phantombroadway

I am not too impressed by LND music either, not because it is bad but because it is rather unmemorable and just not interesting, just like the show. Then, my only real ALW favorites ARE POTO and Memory from Cats...
ML6, sorry for going off-topic, but who is in your avatar?

Yeah, I got a pm as well. It actually reminds me of when Warner Bros hit up a bunch of Phantom fansites to ask them to help promote the movie. I politely declined their offer.

I'm less surprised that the NYC production allowed some cross-promoting on their Facebook page. They cross-promote Phantom Las Vegas too, and while that's the polar opposite from LND in terms of offensiveness, they all fall under the umbrella of RUG. I just choose to ignore it. Or, if I'm feeling particularly snarky, I'll comment on it before promptly wiping it from my mind.

R.

RoseOfTransylvania wrote:
ML6, sorry for going off-topic, but who is in your avatar?

It's Lady (mama) Caine! She looks so pretty. <3

Agreed, she looks gorgeous!

I actually paid to see it with my mom tonight. :O Most of the audience was made up of 14 year old girls, one of whom took a moment to compliment me on my Phantom Las Vegas tee and to show off her own, which said "Raoul should have died." Obviously I did the mature thing and told her that I hated it.

My reaction was mostly the same as last time, but I did notice some other things:

1. There were parts of the score that were actually quite lovely, and I could see how this may have been composed by the same person. But over all, I found it terribly mediocre.

2. I think Ben Lewis must have taken a page out of the Sarah Brightman school of acting. As far as I remember, I didn't see him blink once. Very creepy, which I found amusing, since this Phantom is supposed to be some big romantic hero, and I found the crazy eyes kind of off putting.

3. Sharon Millerchip was pretty brilliant as Meg, especially considering what a steaming pile of crap her character is. Definitely felt more sorry for her (and Raoul) than any other character.

4. It's kind of a shame Madame Giry wasn't standing in front of Christine when the gun went off.

5. And I thought the death scene in Moulin Rouge was long and painful... Found it nearly impossible to suppress my laughter at this particular moment, though.

(Made this after my friend pointed it out to me when we watched it the first time.)

But pretty much exactly how I felt the first time I watched it. My mom actually told me afterward that she kept waiting for something to happen to Gustave to make him deformed, which would have been way better than what actually happened, which was, sadly, a whole lot of nothing.

On a side note, they gave out "programs," which were literally one sheet of paper printed in black and white (and nearly impossible to read), and folded in half. For $18, you think they could have at least sprung for color copies.

And, because I'm bored and procrastinating, I decided to make this to sum up my reaction into one neat little picture:
https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img72/5268/lndreaction.png

(Sorry if none of this makes sense. I've been having some minor health issues that have prevented me from getting any actual sleep, which probably contributed to my decision to pay to watch it.)

Went to the screening tonight; I suppose I was expecting something awful after seeing all the "phan" opinions and whatnot, I also stayed away from main story elements and had only listened to pieces of the OLC score, and Im glad I kept it at a distance until I could view the full product and make a proper judgement

My thoughts:

Was it perfect? No. Was it the mess and piece of blasphemy that some make it out to be? Hardly.

Our theatre had a good amount of people in it, and before I go into my review, I will say it got very positive feedback from our crowd. And from the look so the comments flowing in on LND facebook, many theatres had similar responses. I know, this isnt what the "phans" want to hear, but as a fellow "phan" Im going to say I was entertained, moved, and surprised. Beautiful score, beautiful design, and a story with some good twist and turns.

Brief Tangent
One thing I thought about after the show was how big a role social media plays in todays society, and I honestly wondered what if Phantom ( the brilliant original) had been concieved in todays theatre world, would it be nearly as successfull as it is now? Truth is, I doubt it. Why? Beacause for some reason when it comes to new pieces of entertainment be it film or live theatre it seems people like to find fault as if there is a prize for it. My point being, so many people seemed to be rooting for this shows demise before it even had a chance, and we all know bad word of mouth travels much faster than good, hence why we have "news stations" Anyways, I went in with an open mind and decided to reserve any opinion until the curtian closed.
End Tangent

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Went to the screening tonight; I suppose I was expecting something awful after seeing all the "phan" opinions and whatnot, I also stayed away from main story elements and had only listened to pieces of the OLC score, and Im glad I kept it at a distance until I could view the full product and make a proper judgement

My thoughts:

Was it perfect? No. Was it the mess and piece of blasphemy that some make it out to be? Hardly.

Our theatre had a good amount of people in it, and before I go into my review, I will say it got very positive feedback from our crowd. And from the look so the comments flowing in on LND facebook, many theatres had similar responses. I know, this isnt what the "phans" want to hear, but as a fellow "phan" Im going to say I was entertained, moved, and surprised. Beautiful score, beautiful design, and a story with some good twist and turns.

Brief Tangent
One thing I thought about after the show was how big a role social media plays in todays society, and I honestly wondered what if Phantom ( the brilliant original) had been concieved in todays theatre world, would it be nearly as successfull as it is now? Truth is, I doubt it. Why? Beacause for some reason when it comes to new pieces of entertainment be it film or live theatre it seems people like to find fault as if there is a prize for it. My point being, so many people seemed to be rooting for this shows demise before it even had a chance, and we all know bad word of mouth travels much faster than good, hence why we have "news stations" Anyways, I went in with an open mind and decided to reserve any opinion until the curtian closed.
End Tangent

I love the original show so much, love the book, so many movies...I love the story in all his ways and interpretations.
Some are good and some not...! I am a "Phan" for a very long time...!
I was skeptical, yes. But after watching it, now 4 times, I like it. Yes, it´s not perfect, but I like it.
I like the cast, the set, the costumes, the score, the whole music, the sounds from the original...!

You are right bad words travels faster than good ones.

Some like it and some not...thats life...!

BTW, I too feel sorry for Meg. Her mental breakdown makes her sympathetic "villain".

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Was it perfect? No. Was it the mess and piece of blasphemy that some make it out to be? Hardly.

I think that last bit depends entirely on what exactly one likes about the original show, or the original story for that matter.

Our theatre had a good amount of people in it, and before I go into my review, I will say it got very positive feedback from our crowd. And from the look so the comments flowing in on LND facebook, many theatres had similar responses. I know, this isnt what the "phans" want to hear, but as a fellow "phan" Im going to say I was entertained, moved, and surprised. Beautiful score, beautiful design, and a story with some good twist and turns.

To be fair, that's polling like-minded focus groups, isn't it?

I caught it online. Beautiful set design? Sure, I agree with that. But for me, everything else fell flat. Again, that's due to what I *personally* like about the original. That's not to say there's only one way to like something, but sometimes they are at far ends of the spectrum that you can never expect the two to ever see eye to eye.

Brief Tangent
One thing I thought about after the show was how big a role social media plays in todays society, and I honestly wondered what if Phantom ( the brilliant original) had been concieved in todays theatre world, would it be nearly as successfull as it is now? Truth is, I doubt it. Why? Beacause for some reason when it comes to new pieces of entertainment be it film or live theatre it seems people like to find fault as if there is a prize for it. My point being, so many people seemed to be rooting for this shows demise before it even had a chance, and we all know bad word of mouth travels much faster than good, hence why we have "news stations" Anyways, I went in with an open mind and decided to reserve any opinion until the curtian closed.
End Tangent

It is true that social media and the internet in general gives everyone an opportunity to voice their opinion, and if you were to take places like movie news sites into account, fans of ANYTHING being adapted tend to pick apart every little thing. But I think that's because they hold it very close to their hearts. And as for your belief that PotO wouldn't have been as successful if it debuted in our current media age, I disagree. A lot of the success of the original was due to word of mouth from its fans and word of mouth (good and bad) spreads like wildfire nowadays.

R.

Stranger than u dreamt, can you tell me where did you get your siggy? Is it from some review?

My comment on the original being successfull in todays world was more in relation to show being as "popular" musically, it seems almost any show today that comes out with an original score is doomed, whilst the juke-box musical is gaining steam as the new "standard"; Audiences like whats familiar and I think thats partly why some phans didnt like LND, because they wanted to hear more of the same.

@ Rose and my siggy was from an article from a theatre critic about Webber

Thank you!

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:My comment on the original being successfull in todays world was more in relation to show being as "popular" musically, it seems almost any show today that comes out with an original score is doomed, whilst the juke-box musical is gaining steam as the new "standard"; Audiences like whats familiar and I think thats partly why some phans didnt like LND, because they wanted to hear more of the same.

Nonononono! While I definitely agree that jukebox musicals and based-on-movie musicals has taken over the West End market entirely, you can hardly blame LNDs failure on its score. For one, it was the only thing praised by professional reviewers in London, and one of the major selling points of the show. I think the problem rather was the opposite - that it didn't bring anything new to the table.

Recent shows praised by audience and reviewers alike has been shows with an unknown story and unknown book - for example "Book of Mormon", taking home nine Tony's and still being almost impossible to get tickets for, or "Next to Normal", winning both Pulitzer Prize and three Tony award, and currently playing on four continents, in multiple productions. This is of course Broadway and not West End. The latter has become stale, and as you pointed out is entirely dependent on jukebox musicals, as well as based-on-movies, sequels and the longtimers. But this might also be why the musical theatre industry in West End is bleeding. The audience is bored with what they get.

So why did LND bomb? Multiple reasons, not one as ALW has tried to make it to be. One thing is that it didn't bring anything new to West End. It was a sequel. It was a partly re-used score, written in a most recognizable ALW style. It had a libretto from hell, and they didn't give it enough time to develop, so they presented an unfinished musical to a paying audience, and kept working on it while it was playing. Which in effect meant there were little to be done. In the end even ALW admitted it was sub-par.

If it had been a good show, they could have taken all the buzz and used it to their benefit. SO MUCH free publicity, right there, for them to use. But the show didn't convince the audience, nor the reviewers. It wasn't lack of familiar songs, it was lack of something engaging, something new, anything to make it an exciting night out. To the general audience it was a bore.

This has partly been fixed in the Aussie version. While it still has the libretto from hell, it still also has the good score. As a bonus, the design is lovely, and a feast for the eyes. In other words, an exciting night out. Not because of the story told, but because of the means used to tell it.

To that, let me add that I'm a little mystified by the notion that LND deserves praise because it's an "original" musical. First off, I think its claims to originality are specious at best. It is a sequel (a fundamentally unoriginal concept) and a sequel of the worst kind, one that at its core just basically rehashes the original (singer torn between ugly composer and handsome aristocrat). Its title song has been recycled twice, and most of the rest of the score is just ALW on autopilot. There is nothing inspired, or inspiring, about it.

Second, a musical's source is no indication of quality. Adaptation has always been at the core of this particular art form ever since the days when Rogers and Hammerstein took a now little-remembered play called Green Grow the Lilacs and turned it into Oklahoma!. Is West Side Story a lesser musical because it's a reworking of Romeo and Juliet, or My Fair Lady because it's based on Pygmalion? There have been great musicals based on other sources (yes, even movies) and terrible musicals based on original concepts. It's not where they come from, but what they do with it. (FWIW, I've listened to the cast recordings of both LND and the Olivier-winning Legally Blonde, and--while neither are what I'd call terrific--I do believe LB has the better score. I will always have more respect for a show that knows it's just silly fun and embraces it than for a show that tries to be high art and fails miserably.)

~LCD

I also went to see it last night. I have purposely stayed away from most LND groups/threads other than having read Forsyth's book a while back.

What struck me is that the Phantom is suppose to be this mysterious character, but we see him from the beginning setting the tone of the musical. We see him A LOT. I also thought that Meg, Mme Giry, and Raoul were all out of character from their personas in POTO. Eww.

Some of the music was lovely. Some didn't hold my attention like POTO does.

The costumes were sublime. I loved all of Christine's, especially the Peacock Dress!!!!

I'm glad I saw it, but I don't consider it a "sequel". It's a nice bit of musical fan fiction. I think ALW would have been better served by skipping this endeavor altogether.

I do agree with not vewing it as a sequel; even if it's suppose to be, I never felt like I was watching a sequel, maybe that's why I dont hate it as many do; I see it as more of another "episode" or story containing characters from Phantom, but it hasnt tarnished my love for the original or how I view it at all, to me they are two very different things in terms of story, tone, and style. I suppose I equate it with how Wicked didnt tarnish my view of the original Wizard of Oz, although Wicked is suppose to be a prequel, to me Oz (like Phantom) is such a timeless classic that anything before or after it feels more like a "what if" rather than fundamental truth.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:I do agree with not vewing it as a sequel; even if it's suppose to be, I never felt like I was watching a sequel, maybe that's why I dont hate it as many do; I see it as more of another "episode" or story containing characters from Phantom, but it hasnt tarnished my love for the original or how I view it at all, to me they are two very different things in terms of story, tone, and style. I suppose I equate it with how Wicked didnt tarnish my view of the original Wizard of Oz, although Wicked is suppose to be a prequel, to me Oz (like Phantom) is such a timeless classic that anything before or after it feels more like a "what if" rather than fundamental truth.

Your mental mindset wouldn't work for me. Wicked has almost nothing to do with The Wizard of Oz other a couple of characters who have the same names as in WofOz but bear no resemblance to them at all. Dorothy, the main character in WofOz is barely seen. I don't remember anything happening in Wicked that really ties in to the original story other than the names of the characters and the supposed setting of Oz.

Love Never dies not only has characters with the same names as in POTO (Christine, the Phantom, Raoul, the Girys) but is specifically tied in to the original story with the recaps of "Ten Long Years" and "Beneath a Moonless Night,"to name just two things.

It's easy for me to consider Wicked as something completely separate from The Wizard of Oz; it is impossible for me to consider Love Never Dies as completely separate from POTO despite the differences in story, tone, and style. Even if I can still see Phantom with a largely untarnished view (I couldn't help thinking of LND during the Final Lair as Christine left with Raoul when I saw the original in London recently), the more LND plays to audiences who don't know a lot about POTO and the more little changes (if they actually are) that are made in the original to accomodate the sequel, the more tarnished POTO is even if not in the minds of some of its fans.