Re: Love Never Dies - all views allowed

operafantomet Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:08 am

http://billbuckleylondon.blogspot.com/

I feel uncustomarily nervous because I shall be slating one of the giants of musical theatre. There's no logical reason to be, as I shall only be proferring an honest opinion. That opinion will be that the show is a total turkey. With stuffing, cranberry sauce and chipolatas.

(...)

I am not one of Theatreland's sneering snobs who routinely dismiss Lloyd Webber. I love Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Sunset Boulevard and the original Phantom. But please, if you are thinking of spending £50 of your hard-earned money on a West End musical, don't waste it on this bum-numbing tosh. Not when Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Wicked, Billy Elliot, Sister Act and especially Legally Blonde are around. If you want high drama, suffering and quasi opera rather than feelgood fun, catch Les Miserables. It's still doing good business after more than 24 years. Love Never Dies doesn't deserve to run for 24 days.

Erm.... Ouch...

justin-from-barbados Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:37 pm

Found one of Fleck on getty images (they have lots)

justin-from-barbados Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:44 pm

Paula74 wrote:

the 2 on the right in black, Fleck and Gangle (in the top hats)

there is a better one of Fleck but i donth think i should post it because it has a big getty images watermark. But she has this freaky leg brace thing, It seems the freaks all have some sort of metal thing to them (squelch has that rib cage thing)

starryeyed Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:57 pm

This is the official music video for the title song, Love Never Dies, performed by Katherine Jenkins (who is a mezzo-soprano I'll point out.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7DNdTCxKqI

Aled_Boyo Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:52 pm

Until now, I've remained quite open-minded about this whole thing. I didn't want it to happen, never in a million years. But I eventually accepted it - after all, ALW can do whatever he wants! It's his show...

When I first heard the music, I was left a little underwhelmed, but i think that's beacuse I love Phantom so much (like all of us!) and was expecting something just as good. After a few more listens, TIHYS grew on me and I actually quite like the Waltz. Then I heard those preview clips - I didn't get it. It was all over the place. So many things going on. But I thought 'Hey, they're just little clips, it might still be brilliant.'

So with this feeling, I was still intending to see the show, just out of curiousity - it is Phantom after all! Then today I come online and see these pictures... C'mon, seriously!? THIS is what it's going to look like? It's so cheap!! What the heck is going on? Where's the set!? Where's the budget gone!!? The Phantom looks like a guy in one of those ebay Phantom Adult Costume pics. It's just wrong. So, so wrong.

I hope this was indeed a photocall, not the finished product, for the sake of the talented performers involved, more than anything. It's just embarassing.

Sort it out Lordy. Mad

Paula74 Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:05 pm

Aled_Boyo wrote:The Phantom looks like a guy in one of those ebay Phantom Adult Costume pics.

You just freaking nailed it perfectly.

Madame Giry Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:21 pm

I'm not sure what it is, but the more I look at the photos, the less I feel that the Phantom commands the stage like he does in the original show. On one hand I suppose I could blame the lack of awesome cloak and dramatic fedora, but even when the Phantom in the original show was 'naked' he still ruled the scene. Hell, even when he wasn't on stage you could feel his presence. Here, he just seems bland and boring. Maybe he has other wardrobe pieces we haven't seen yet, but the stage presence, the charisma and gravitas, just is not there. Maybe it's the lack of menace and danger. In trying to make him 'normal' and accepted they've deprived him of an essential element of his attraction.

As I said before, the whole production looks so cheap and low-budget. Gaudy and bright, yes, but not very interesting or inspiring.

~Madame~

starryeyed Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:30 pm

There is one of the Phantom's costumes that I think looks like a cheap version of what Raoul wears in the box during Think of Me from the original. It really irritates me for some reason, it seems as though we would be better off calling The Phantom in the sequel Raoul and Raoul in the sequel The Phantom. If you get what I mean, that made more sense in my head...

Madame Giry Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:20 pm

Hey, has anyone seen a photo of Madame Giry yet? I haven't managed to spot her so far.

~Madame~

LadyCDaae Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:34 pm

Haven't seen pictures, but a lot of reviews seem to indicate she dresses pretty much the same way as she did in the original. Apparently the dress was the only thing of her character she was allowed to keep.

*stops before she goes on an epic rant on how awesome ALW!Giry is in the original and how her treatment here is a travesty of everything she stood for*

~LCD

operafantomet Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:04 pm

Or as Maria Bjørnson put it in 2001:

I think you must never talk down to your audience, that's a big mistake, especially with musicals. A lot of people do - they make things into easy listening and easy viewing, which isn't right.

operafantomet Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:24 pm

dolly-ry wrote:This is the official music video for the title song, Love Never Dies, performed by Katherine Jenkins (who is a mezzo-soprano I'll point out.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7DNdTCxKqI

Might be due to the darker timbre, but it felt like she put more emotion into it. The "lowered" last part seems like a good choice. Too bad the visuals in the refrain was made soooo cheezy in this video. The start was promising in terms of atmosphere, but suddenly I felt like I was watching the AIAOY music video with Brightman and Cliff Richard! And whazzup with Ken!Phantom?

I don't fancy the refrain of the song musically, either. Verse, fine. Listenable, enjoyable. But the refrain, which should somehow be the highlight, really kills the song.

justin-from-barbados Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:17 pm

Costumes aren't really my thing, but it must be hard to make an ordinarl black tux look nice. (lately the tayloring in the original has gone down hill)

what I dont get, if the mask is the same, and the make up doesnt change, why go to the expense of getting those re-designed and having to pay someone a tidy sum for that?

from all the pics I;ve seen online, this was just a press photo shoot, there seems to be no mics and only 3 scenes. (and I dont really remember the freaks being in that scene at the gate of Coney Island)

But as with the design, they can;t really change much.

Yes the Phantom is out and about so he is more tan, but i think Ramin just looks too nice and the mask does not look like it fits him

Christine's Shadow Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:42 pm

Broadway.Com has a few pictures, two are with Raoul. With how average the Phantom looks, it's almost hard to differentiate the two of them. Oh, and there's a shot with Gustave in there somewhere as well.

Le Clicky!

I have to admit, the only thing I like is how Gorgeous Sierra looks, but then one can't commend the show for that...

**MasqPhan** Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:39 pm

I have listened to the album and looked at all the photos.

The costumes look like they're trying to make counterparts to those in the original show.
Fleck's costume reminds me of Meg's Masquerade costumes
Gangle or Squelch - forgot who's who. aka Skeletor - Looks like he's borrowed from the idea of Andre and Raoul's Masquerade costume.
Christine's dressing gown is definitely reflected in the new show.
The showgirl/ooh la la outfits remind me a bit of the Slave girl costumes in some ways. The beading off the shoulders, the colours of Meg's outfit.

Ramin's mask just does not look to fit his face right. Not sure if he doesn't have makeup on the good side of his face or not. These are press-call shots and not from the live show according to the Getty site. In the LND official YouTube videos there is one about Ramin's makeup and there doesn't seem to be much if anything done to the good side.
And like everyone else says, he looks/sounds far too young.

Music - Perhaps some spoilers -
The little Amazon samples are so fragmented. When listening to the actual album things do fit together much better. There are actually some portions musically that I really enjoyed. However I wouldn't put it anywhere in the same league as the original show.

I can't stand "Beneath a Moonless Sky". The starting of it sounded pretty but not in a billion years can I fathom that scene happening. And Christine having intercourse with the Phantom the on the night before Christine's wedding?? Shocked

She's been unfaithful to Raoul before she even married him.

I don't think Raoul behavior has anything to do with wondering if the boy isn't his. In "Devil Takes the Hindmost" Raoul boasts how he has a son and the Phantom asks him if he's sure. Raoul sounds totally caught off guard asking what he meant. Phantom comes off as a bully. By the end of Raoul's scenes in the show, I'm feeling sorry for him.

The song "Giry Confront the Phantom" annoys me sooooo much. In the original she obviously knows more about the Phantom than others but she does not act like she's close to him. She seems very respectful and even scared of him. ie - Giry running from Raoul when he questions her.
Well in this new song she's harping on the Phantom how she and Meg have been the ones who have been there for him all along. They are the ones who have ALWAYS loved him. They are the ones making things happen behind the scenes. She's totally rubbing his nose in it.
Sure folks can change a lot in ten years but I don't see this ever happening. It's like she's saying she and Meg were running the show from right back in the original Phantom.

"Beauty Underneath" - The Amazon clips are weird. The song starts weird but there's a portion of the melody I actually got to like. However those words just come across creepy. Gustave sounds like he's having an orgasm with his constant screams of "YES!" scratch

Riene Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:49 am

Gustave looks like a cute little guy.

Is it just me, or does Ramin look really young? Shocked

Christine's Shadow Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:09 am

Riene wrote:Gustave looks like a cute little guy.

Is it just me, or does Ramin look really young?

Nah it's not just you, everyone in this thread I think has commented on how young he is.

LoveShouldDie Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:11 pm

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/161742/Andrew-Lloyd-Webber-I-still-take-risks-

http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2010/03/not-so-much-a-sequel-as-a-backlash/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7050417.ece

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/article7050528.ece

LSD

operafantomet Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:45 pm

Hitler rants about the Phantom sequel. I actually laughed out loud!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxxx4JLTxyA

phantomphan1992 Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:05 pm

operafantomet wrote:Hitler rants about the Phantom sequel. I actually laughed out loud!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxxx4JLTxyA

Umm, major win.

**Raphael** Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:53 pm

From an article about the re-opening of "Peepshow" in Las Vegas:

Producer Scott Zeiger, head of BASE Entertainment, welcomed the audience, which including Cirque du Soleil cast members. Also in the audience, Luxor President Felix Rappaport, who is meeting with Scott today about possibilities at the Luxor. Scott told me that as a producer and investor in The Phantom of the Opera, he’ll fly to London for Tuesday’s world premiere of its sequel Love Never Dies with Sierra Boggess, who was his star here in Phantom -- the Las Vegas Spectacular at The Venetian.

“We are automatically an investor in the American production of Love Never Dies, which will open at the Marquis Theater on Broadway in November. There are no plans whatsoever for it to come to Las Vegas for many years. Phantom is still doing good business here. Our Jersey Boys is still a sellout every night. Phantom has a good five years yet here, and we can always add guest name stars if necessary,” he said.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/02/holly-madison-empeepshowem-back-and-better-ever/

R.

Paula74 Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:14 pm

BWW has more photos, including the last one of the "freaks."

I'd upload them and post them, but I'm on the way out to a museum...and running late.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo_Coverage_New_Photos_Released_of_LOVE_NEVER_DIES_20100305

LoveShouldDie Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:04 am

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=347893076949

In response to THE TIMES' article concerning the overwhelmingly negative fan response to LOVE NEVER DIES, Andrew Lloyd Webber's unnecessary, ill-conceived and ludicrous sequel to THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (5 March 2010, 'No Love Lost for Lloyd Webber Sequel', page 9), Lloyd Webber's PR team at the Really Useful Group have spoken to THE TIMES' Arts Correspondent Ben Hoyle in the 6 March 2010 edition of THE TIMES.

In the article (link provided at the end of this note), Lloyd Webber is quoted as saying: "There’s a whole sad culture around the world of people who seem to only live by the old Phantom of the Opera.”

Does Lord Lloyd-Webber realize that it is precisely this "sad culture" that he apparently regrets that has been lining his pockets for the past two decades, especially since he has not had a surefire global hit since THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA?

It is one thing to insult the integrity of his own show by mounting a sequel that directly contradicts Harold Prince's award-winning vision of it. It is quite another to insult the very audiences that have made his own show a sucess.

Lloyd Webber also hypocritically claims that people were wrong to dismiss LES MISÉRABLES when it began previewing, despite the fact that he himself was one of its detractors, calling Cameron Mackintosh a "catastrophic idiot" for pursuing the idea (according to the journalist Edward Behr).

If his Lordship does not wish for people to judge a show on its previews, then perhaps his company, The Really Useful Group, should not have had the arrogance or greed to charge exorbitant prices for previews. Former collaborator and present rival Cameron Mackintosh heavily discounted for the previews of AVENUE Q, with tickets at just £10. Consequently audiences realized what they were seeing was not the finished product. In the case of LOVE NEVER DIES, its official website characterized the first preview as the opening night by the inclusion of a countdown to 20 February and not 9 March, while charging nearly £70 a ticket hardly gave any impression that what was to be seen was not intended to be a polished show. Let us not forget that the reason that Andrew Lloyd Webber himself gave for delaying the opening of LOVE NEVER DIES (having originally intended a 2009 opening) was so that the show would be virtually entirely presentable to audiences.

Having dismissed PHANTOM OF THE OPERA fandom as "sad", Lloyd Webber then adds: "But I suspect in a year’s time most of those [fans], if they come to see [LOVE NEVER DIES], will understand and enjoy it."

What exactly does he expect fans to understand? If his Lordship thinks that fans will "understand" why on earth Phantom appears extremely younger ten years later, or why 1881 to 1907 apparently equals ten years, or why on earth the Phantom would regress to being a stalker out to lure Christine having already released her in a redemptive sacrificial act of love, or why Christine would return to the Phantom to have sexual relations with him despite leaving him, or why Raoul would turn from heroic suitor into drunken wreck, or why the impish Meg Giry would turn from promising ballerina at the Paris Opera to murderous whore, or why Andrew Lloyd Webber would choose one of Frederick Forsyth's rare FLOPS to adapt into a musical, then we feel he is incredibly mistaken.

Finally, we would like to add that PHANTOM fans' objections to the show are extremely unlikely to be annulled by seeing LOVE NEVER DIES. It is the story of LOVE NEVER DIES to which devoted PHANTOM fans object in principle. No amount of refinement in previews will change the story; it has been set in stone, according to THE DAILY MAIL. Seeing the show will neither change the story. It is what it is: a ludicrous piece of offensive trash that is doomed to failure and destined to flop.

If you are a passionate fan of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and are similarly disgusted by Andrew Lloyd Webber's remarks, you can write to the Lord himself at:

Lord Lloyd-Webber
c/o The Really Useful Group Ltd
22 Tower Street
London WC2H 9TW
United Kingdom

You can also write to the Really Useful Group by email at online_team@reallyuseful.co.uk

We also urge all our fans to comment on the article itself with their views. The link is provided at the end of this note.

Alternatively, you can write to THE TIMES (with your real name, postal address and telephone contact number---these will not be published without your consent) at letters@thetimes.co.uk

Your views need not go unvoiced.

Read the source article in question at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/article7052118.ece

justin-from-barbados Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:27 am

Paula74 wrote:BWW has more photos, including the last one of the "freaks."

I'd upload them and post them, but I'm on the way out to a museum...and running late.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo_Coverage_New_Photos_Released_of_LOVE_NEVER_DIES_20100305

wow, very gerry butler looking

and that bar scene i almost mistook it for Sunset Blvd's pool scene

LadyCDaae Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:28 am

The more I look at those photos, the more they look like a mid-range regional version of Y/K to me. :geek:

~LCD

operafantomet Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:59 am

Of course Andrew Lloyd Webber is disappointed in the reactions, being surrounded by yes men who seems to have sheltered him for any public opinions on the sequel until now.

But to call Phantom fans "sad" because we love the original, has kept it running for 20 + years in both London and New York, and want some kind of continuity/logic in the story of the sequel? silent

If anything, Cameron Mackintosh will get a good laugh of his comment of it being wrong of people to dismiss Les Mis... Whereas I agree, the good lord himself wasn't impressed with the concept and voiced his opinion on the matter. But I guess that HIS objections was based on solid facts, dismissing it before it had opened?

operafantomet Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:00 am

LadyCDaae wrote:The more I look at those photos, the more they look like a mid-range regional version of Y/K to me. :geek:

~LCD

Don't insult the Y/K version like that! Laughing

LadyCDaae Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:28 am

operafantomet wrote:
LadyCDaae wrote:The more I look at those photos, the more they look like a mid-range regional version of Y/K to me. :geek:

~LCD
Don't insult the Y/K version like that!

Point taken; I've seen some pretty good things done with that one on limited budgets....what's a better analogy for "mediocre production values, including a mask that was bought from the costume shop down the road because they didn't have the time or money to tailor one to the actor's face"?

~LCD

Christine's Shadow Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:37 am

LadyCDaae wrote:
operafantomet wrote:
LadyCDaae wrote:The more I look at those photos, the more they look like a mid-range regional version of Y/K to me. :geek:

~LCD
Don't insult the Y/K version like that!

Point taken; I've seen some pretty good things done with that one on limited budgets....what's a better analogy for "mediocre production values, including a mask that was bought from the costume shop down the road because they didn't have the time or money to tailor one to the actor's face"?

~LCD

i believe the word you are looking for is "crap". I had another idea for a word, but I have a feeling it's censored, and we want to keep this forum family friendly. Wink

LadyCDaae Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:55 am

I was hoping for something more poetic than that, but...yes, I think "crap" should do nicely. Razz

~LCD

Sponsored content