Love Never Dies - all views allowed

Paula74 wrote:Details about some of the "changes" being worked into the show. Pretty odd making such changes AFTER previews and opening.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/EXCLUSIVE_Changes_To_LOVE_NEVER_DIES_More_To_Follow_20100606

I noticed in the first comment to that article someone's asserting that they've heard that LND will close in August. Has anyone found anything else to back this up?

~Madame~

After what happened to Jeff and Rebecca, this whole thing makes me sick. Really, really sick.

Madame Giry wrote:

Paula74 wrote:Details about some of the "changes" being worked into the show. Pretty odd making such changes AFTER previews and opening.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/EXCLUSIVE_Changes_To_LOVE_NEVER_DIES_More_To_Follow_20100606

I noticed in the first comment to that article someone's asserting that they've heard that LND will close in August. Has anyone found anything else to back this up?

~Madame~

RUG posted a statement shooting down that rumor. Although from what I've heard, the changes being made are merely cosmetic. They aren't addressing the core problems with the show. You know, like it existing and such.

R.

Raphael wrote: They aren't addressing the core problems with the show. You know, like it existing and such.

R.

I've just caught up with what happened last week re RUG and Facebook. I don't really want to discuss it lest it causes an angry debate, but all I can say is that it leaves me with such an appalling aftertaste that, to be brutally honest, I will be happy to say 'good riddance' when this thing closes (send all hatemail to nonexistent@madeup.com please). And for me personally, this may just confirm my suspicion that a certain newspaper and RUG in cahoots, following that other article that spewed all that tripe about emotionally vulnerable housewives housewiphes. Yay corrupt British media!

On a less repulsed note, something occurred to me a few days ago regarding one of the arguments this show's fans use to justify its existence (for the record, I think the sequel is the definition of unnecessary), i.e. 'Don't you want to know what happens next? Isn't a bit empty of the original show just to leave you hanging there? I mean, that's not very satisfying, is it?'.

Apart from my opinion that having the need for someone to tell you exactly what happens next suggests a lack of inspiration on the part of the audience demanding it, I'm surprised that no-one I have seen has pointed out that some of the greatest plays of all time have similarly -- if not more -- ambiguous finales. Take En attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot). We never find out who Godot is, nor do we find out if he ever comes. Samuel Beckett would have sooner jumped off a cliff than write a sequel to reveal to us this information so crudely and straightforwardly. Take Wedekind's Frühlings Erwachen (Spring Awakening -- the original play that is, not the recent musical). We are not told who the masked man is, nor do we find out where he takes Melchior. We don't find out whether Molière's Misanthrope really does leave society altogether. These are all to do with plot, of course, but the same applies for characters' motives -- not everything needs or should be explained. We never quite know in so many Shakespeare plays what makes characters tick. Why does Iago go to all those lengths to destroy Othello? He never says. Was Hamlet really mad? It's open to debate. Sometimes a bittersweet ending is far more effectively haunting. I much prefer the ending of Shaw's Pygmalion to having to see Eliza go back to Henry Higgins as she does in My Fair Lady. This even extends out of the world of theatre and into literature and the arts as a whole. Just because I don't know exactly what Josef K. is accused of doing in Kafka's Der Prozeß (The Trial) does not mean we even should be told; nor do I wish for Kafka to tell me whether he was guilty of it or not.

Hal Prince knew what he was doing when he staged that ending in Phantom; he was drawing on theatrical tradition. Like a true showman, he wanted to make the audience gasp. Will they still do that if they know they only need to walk a few streets to the Adelphi to see this silly "continuation" that ALW has foisted upon the world?

Scorp, everything you have written justifies what I think.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

@Scorp


Brilliant, you summarized everything perfectly!

Scorp: amen. A very good point.

What they said!

From me to.

Hello Phantom phans!

Well, it's been a while since I've posted, but I managed to swing by the Adelphi this past Saturday night, so here are my thoughts...

First of all, it's not that bad! Like many, many, many others, I was opposed to a continuation of the story, and still feel the legend of the the original Phantom has become somewhat tarnished by it.

That said, it's a refreshing piece of musical theatre, with a lot of visual spectacle and some cracking songs; it's just a shame they've been wasted on a sometimes-brilliant-but-ultimately flawed show. The pace is very awkward. Scenes that you imagine would hold great emotional potential often jerk and feel very contrieved. But on the positive side, some scenes that sounded terrible on the recording turn out to be quite entertaining. It's very hit and miss!

The cast are truly outstanding. If your curiosity gets the best of you, as mine did, I would urge you to go see the original cast. They've obviously taken the roles to their hearts and do their best with what they're given.

Mixed feelings, then. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either. Part of me wanted to, but it just doesn't deliver the emotional gutter-punch that Phantom gives me everytime. Overall I feel Webber's onto another winner. If it was a brand new show with a completely different story but the same songs, it would go down a storm. But would he be able to write such a score for any other characters than his beloved trio? That I think is the crux of the situation here, and in all fairness, you do feel it's quite a personal piece he's given us and credit is due for the romanticism of it all. It might be that it's too personal, then? I didn't feel any sympathy for anybody at the end (with the exception of Raoul perhaps, poor sod!) and it just kind of fell flat.

Anyway, better leave it there. I'm not going to rant. It's here, there's nothing we can do about it. It may not be for long, but we'll just have to wait and see, won't we!?

Aled_Boyo wrote:

The cast are truly outstanding. If your curiosity gets the best of you, as mine did, I would urge you to go see the original cast. They've obviously taken the roles to their hearts and do their best with what they're given.

I've said this elsewhere, they're a good cast but they're not strong enough for Phantom, though. When they were in Phantom, I didn't even like them then. :/ If the show had the same flavor as the original show, and the same creative team, and the same overall tone, AND a different story, maybe... but I just don't care for it.

Not that it's anything ground breaking but I went to Legally Blonde on Friday (cue the "how can you like Legally Blonde" backlash I expect?I got that once on LSD...) and started talking to a woman in the interval. Now this woman seemed one of your "normal" theatregoers and by that I mean sees a few shows a year etc and she said she loved the music but hated the story. This seems to be the general consensus it seems, can the story really be saved?

Also, Scorp I had missed your earlier post but I like the way you summed everything up and the fact it was intelligently put aswell.

I am REALLY late to the party. I have my own opinions on the show, but I feel they may be unfair because I live in California. Basing the musical strictly on the CD, no matter how bad I thought that was, would be very biased. But there were alot of REALLY interesting comments Dolly-ry made during her review so I wanted to touch on a couple of things.

dolly-ry wrote:Look With Your Heart - Okay I'll admit it. I was actually sitting thinking "awwww" this whole scene. It started off with Sierra cradling Tyler as she sang her lines and then they were sitting facing each other I'm sure. This was one of the scenes I actually really enjoyed Sierra's acting she seemed very genuine in it and her and Tyler had great chemistry and their voices actually blended very well. Now the cutest part (sorry for the cuteness overload) the instrumental at the end they actually waltz around the hotel room together and before Christine sends Gustave to bed with a nanny he bows to her and she curtseys, it is unbelievably cute.

I'm surprised! Personally, and again this opinion is forming only from the CD, I felt like ALW was taking the Daddy issues he put on Christine in Phantom and moved them to Gustave. But this does sound really stinkin' cute. I'm glad to hear that you were actually happy with Sierra's acting here. Judging from the rest of the review that happiness was very limited.

What I'm curious about is what your opinion on "Look with your heart" was before you saw the show. Listening to the song with my mom and sister they were both of the same opinion that it was very "future mommy issue"-y and felt (again, this is STRICTLY from the CD) that it was a bit fake. I know hearing on CD and seeing live are two totally different things, but I also feel like artists should be able to get the same emotion across to those who SEE the show, and those who are only able to LISTEN to it.

"Mother Please I'm Scared" - Has been changed a lot since the CD. There are a couple of "Little Vicomte" references in here which really annoyed me. It was really spiteful the way Ramin said it and I felt like "he is just a kid, it isn't him you hate." Then The Phantom walks out the balcony doors... where does he go? Sierra does a funny look up into the sky as though he flew away...

Beautiful - Really annoying use of projection just to show a winding stair case. Completely pointless. This is preceded by a very Phantom-y voiceover "Bring the child up here to me, it is time that I repay him his debt, if it's dark he wants to see, then dark he shall get." It is to the same tune as the voiceovers in the original basically. There are more "Little Vicomte" references, they really irritate me and then as Gustave plays the piano The Phantom asks really sarcastically "Does the dear Vicomte play?" or something like that. Okay in this scene I'll admit I was distracted by the half covered steel gorilla thing as I knew very soon it was going to be unveiled and I was really dreading the whole WTF moment. At the end of this The Phantom and Gustave uncover everything in the Phantom's "lair" and then it lights up.

I'm actually very happy to hear that portrayal of the Phantom. Especially after that comment about how he "half heartedly threatens Mdm. Giry with a gun" it's nice to see that some of that immaturity someone with zero social skills who grew up in an abused setting/underground for part of his adulthood would stick with him to Coney Island. Listening to the CD, my opinion was that he was too nice. The thought actually occurred to me "He thinks this is Raouls kid, wouldn't he be bitter and spiteful to him?"

Also, I don't think the Phantom would like kids period. Face it, most of them are annoying.



Just a couple thoughts. Fantastic job with your review luv

Thank you for the comments.

Yes Sierra really didn't strike me with her acting, I found her very literal throughout most of the show. She seemed to act best with Tyler if memory serves me correctly. I'll agree "Look With Your Heart" has to be seen on stage, I listened to it once through before and skipped it any other time, however it is a song I'll admit I listen to on occasion now - I think this is because I've seen the stage blocking. Before the show I found it a boring, far too sunshine and daisies song but it does work on stage.

Now I read your comment I do in fact see where you're coming from in regards to The Phantom being spiteful towards Gustave. It was very as though his spite was directed at Raoul though and it struck me very much as taking it out on the wrong person. However, when you consider the Phantom should be socially awkward and not learned on conventions when it comes to annoyance etc it does make sense he would take it out on Gustave, especially as Gustave is the character he sees most. The Phantom only comes face-to-face with Raoul once in the whole show and he has to get his feelings out somehow I guess.

dolly-ry wrote:Now I read your comment I do in fact see where you're coming from in regards to The Phantom being spiteful towards Gustave. It was very as though his spite was directed at Raoul though and it struck me very much as taking it out on the wrong person. However, when you consider the Phantom should be socially awkward and not learned on conventions when it comes to annoyance etc it does make sense he would take it out on Gustave, especially as Gustave is the character he sees most. The Phantom only comes face-to-face with Raoul once in the whole show and he has to get his feelings out somehow I guess.

Haha yes, I thought the same thing. Men try to prove themselves alpha male, which the Phantom does time and time again with Raoul, but they are a completely different breed when it comes to children. (Wordplay! Ha!)

In the wild, some species of Male Dolphins are known to kill juvenile's in order to possess the female (aka the mother). This comes from their instinct to procure as many children with THEIR genetic information as possible, and eliminate any other genetic threats. Likewise today, although it is deemed socially unacceptable, some men and women do not feel any affection for a step child even when they love either the birth mother or father. Way back when, this behavior was noted as "awkward" and could create tension in a house-hold but was not deemed socially unacceptable. This can be seen in "Cinderella", the fairy tale touches on the Wicked Step Mother loving Cinderella's father deeply, but despising the daughter.

Another thought is that the Phantom see's Gustave yet another competitor for Christine's affections. "Great, she's married to Raoul whom she loves and now I have to get rid of the brat as well?" This could be especially threatening because Mothers tend to love their children more than their spouses.

I just read a post on another forum by a phan whose pro-LND argument rested solely on the 2004 movie.

I only got a third of the way into it before I shoved my head through the nearest wall.

R.

Raphael wrote:I just read a post on another forum by a phan whose pro-LND argument rested solely on the 2004 movie.

I only got a third of the way into it before I shoved my head through the nearest wall.

R.

Yeah, I have a feeling ALW made LND strictly because even if the play fell through, he'd have the movie sequel to "fall back on".

It's a shame that "phan" is beginning to have a negative connotation. But that's the thing about 13-year-old girls, they like Twilight and ruin everything.

Raphael wrote:I just read a post on another forum by a phan whose pro-LND argument rested solely on the 2004 movie.

I only got a third of the way into it before I shoved my head through the nearest wall.

R.

If we're thinking about the same post, her follow up somehow manages to get worse.

I'm very doubtful about any movie being made of Love Never Dies. If some of ALW's former hits have never been turned into films, then this most certainly won't. I know ALW wants to see most/all of his shows on film, but there are other ones of his that would take priority, e.g. the remake of JCS and Sunset. One might also hope one day for a remake of Phantom...

I note that the posters all over London for LND have now changed YET AGAIN, this is the third time now. The weird burnt sexbot logo has now been replaced by a picture of Ramin and Sierra with the mask very much in profile, and of course with the Phantom lettering very very bright and noticeable, in fact more so than the 'Love Never Dies' lettering. It's obvious as to why they've done it. So I guess they've completely abandoned the standalone 'it's not a sequel' idea completely.

Let me take a moment to gloat about this.






OK, done. Anyway, Ramin's mask is still ugly and I wonder if Maria Bjørnson's estate gets any royalties given that the half mask was HER invention?

For all the poster changes to make the Phantom element more obvious, one has to wonder whether this too will backfire; I mean, if you're passing these posters on London Underground whilst going up an escalator, a quick glance at that poster (if you're blissfully unaware of the existence of Love Never Dies) might fool you into thinking it is advertising Phantom itself rather than the sequel! Especially since the quote they're using reads 'The allure of the Phantom never dies...'

Scorp wrote:I'm very doubtful about any movie being made of Love Never Dies. If some of ALW's former hits have never been turned into films, then this most certainly won't. I know ALW wants to see most/all of his shows on film, but there are other ones of his that would take priority, e.g. the remake of JCS and Sunset. One might also hope one day for a remake of Phantom...

I note that the posters all over London for LND have now changed YET AGAIN, this is the third time now. The weird burnt sexbot logo has now been replaced by a picture of Ramin and Sierra with the mask very much in profile, and of course with the Phantom lettering very very bright and noticeable, in fact more so than the 'Love Never Dies' lettering. It's obvious as to why they've done it. So I guess they've completely abandoned the standalone 'it's not a sequel' idea completely.

Let me take a moment to gloat about this.


OK, done. Anyway, Ramin's mask is still ugly and I wonder if Maria Bjørnson's estate gets any royalties given that the half mask was HER invention?

For all the poster changes to make the Phantom element more obvious, one has to wonder whether this too will backfire; I mean, if you're passing these posters on London Underground whilst going up an escalator, a quick glance at that poster (if you're blissfully unaware of the existence of Love Never Dies) might fool you into thinking it is advertising Phantom itself rather than the sequel! Especially since the quote they're using reads 'The allure of the Phantom never dies...'

Some movie fans are calling for Butler and Rossum to star in the "Oh-boy-I-hope-they-make-one!" movie. They don't realize that Butler is now far too old for the role. If a movie was made, no over-40 actor would be hired. The Phantom is aging backwards, ya see. It would be ironic if it did work out that way since so many of them were first and foremost in rejecting Michael Crawford because of his age.

I think any royalties to Maria Bjornson's estate should be cancelled in honor of her alleged comments to ALW about the ending of POTO---although since she is unavailable for comment, we don't know what she might have thought about the sequel.

If there are any masochists present, read more of the Symbol Queen's elaborate symbol structure. She goes through the movie scene by scene.

CLICK HERE FOR PHANTOM GERRY.NET SYMBOLIC SCENE SUMMARIES

Bric wrote:
CLICK HERE FOR PHANTOM GERRY.NET SYMBOLIC SCENE SUMMARIES

Oh my stars and garters.... not THAT godawful piece of rubbish. I remember back when the movie had just been released on DVD, this was the talk of the pro-Gerik forums. I thought it had died a much-deserved death a while ago. It seems I was wrong. Drat.

~Madame~

Okaaaay.... I've only read parts of it but... Uuhhh.... Wow. That's just... wow. I think parts of my brain just died. This is one reason I hate analysing stuff, be it a picture, a text, whatever - people analyse it death! Do they really believe all that? Sometimes a spade is just that, a spade. Take the 'dark stories of the north', for example. It just means that they read stories from the north, as in, stories from the place Christine and her father comes from. That's all.

But in my experience there's little to no use trying to convince people that they're taking things too far so I'll just drop the subject for now. But, on the other hand, this was posted some years ago so whoever wrote this might have seen the light (as in, Leroux wrote the story and what he says is the truth).

Vicomtesse de Chagny wrote:Okaaaay.... I've only read parts of it but... Uuhhh.... Wow. That's just... wow. I think parts of my brain just died. This is one reason I hate analysing stuff, be it a picture, a text, whatever - people analyse it death! Do they really believe all that? Sometimes a spade is just that, a spade. Take the 'dark stories of the north', for example. It just means that they read stories from the north, as in, stories from the place Christine and her father comes from. That's all.

But in my experience there's little to no use trying to convince people that they're taking things too far so I'll just drop the subject for now. But, on the other hand, this was posted some years ago so whoever wrote this might have seen the light (as in, Leroux wrote the story and what he says is the truth).

That person just joined the other forum and is going about it ALL. OVER. AGAIN.

Viscountess wrote:

Vicomtesse de Chagny wrote:Okaaaay....
...But in my experience there's little to no use trying to convince people that they're taking things too far so I'll just drop the subject for now. But, on the other hand, this was posted some years ago so whoever wrote this might have seen the light (as in, Leroux wrote the story and what he says is the truth).

That person just joined the other forum and is going about it ALL. OVER. AGAIN.

From what I've read, these symbol theories are articles of faith for the one who just joined the forum. She is carrying the word to the unwashed and unconvinced with somewhat cautious but missionary zeal, and I suspect that nothing will change her mind. I couldn't resist, however, *mentioning* that many of her theories are based on false assumptions.

Scorp wrote:For all the poster changes to make the Phantom element more obvious, one has to wonder whether this too will backfire; I mean, if you're passing these posters on London Underground whilst going up an escalator, a quick glance at that poster (if you're blissfully unaware of the existence of Love Never Dies) might fool you into thinking it is advertising Phantom itself rather than the sequel! Especially since the quote they're using reads 'The allure of the Phantom never dies...'

Hahahaha! What a wonderful thought! And you're right, it could definitely backfire. If it looks like Phantom, people might as well seek out Phantom, not some obscure new musical across town.

I didn't even need to click on that link to know what site was being referred to. As soon as there was mention of symbols, I immediately thought of PGN and the Hidden Plot.

That site started out as a movie-centric, but very friendly and generally fun alternative to PFN. There was a lot of respect for people who liked the stage version as much as or more than the movie and a lot of good off-topic chatter. Then, when WB closed their Phantom movie board, the owner of PGN was nice enough to give the displaced members a new home. So, they moved to PGN, but instead of becoming part of the existing community, insisted on being given their own quasi-private subforums. They claimed they didn't feel "welcome" on the main board...which wasn't the case and, gee, if they wanted their own forum in the first place (it's NOT that hard to create a board). And they were not exactly welcoming of any regulars - no matter how friendly - who ventured into their subforums.

Eventually, they ventured out of their subforums into the main board's Phantom sections to preach about the Hidden Plot. I say "preach" because they wouldn't allow an actually DISCUSSION. Anyone who didn't wholly accept the theories was attacked and insulted. No one could say...no matter how politely and respectfully..."Well, I don't agree with that interpretation because..." No matter how one intelligently supplied reasons to back up a dissenting opinion, it was met with insults and personal attacks.

And it didn't help that the original owner of the site had left (for health issues, I think) and all the mods she'd assigned were part of the Hidden Plot crowd.

Let's just say it got pretty ugly. And that's not counting the nasty PMs, including from mods.

Eventually, a lot of people either just left or were banned or requested their accounts be deleted. Most of the people who left like that were the same people who'd really been the heart and soul of the board from the start.

My favorite incident involved a "grimace" that ALW's wife supposedly made in a screenshot of Sarah Brightman's performance at the Kennedy Center Honors. It was "proof" that she KNOWS ALW is still in love with Sarah and therefore, the Phantom and Christine lived happily ever after (with lots of musical lovemaking).

I was wondering what they made of the sequel over there in Hidden Plot Land...just not enough to peek.

Paula74 wrote:I didn't even need to click on that link to know what site was being referred to. As soon as there was mention of symbols, I immediately thought of PGN and the Hidden Plot.

...Eventually, they ventured out of their subforums into the main board's Phantom sections to preach about the Hidden Plot. I say "preach" because they wouldn't allow an actually DISCUSSION.

...My favorite incident involved a "grimace" that ALW's wife supposedly made in a screenshot of Sarah Brightman's performance at the Kennedy Center Honors. It was "proof" that she KNOWS ALW is still in love with Sarah and therefore, the Phantom and Christine lived happily ever after (with lots of musical lovemaking).

I was wondering what they made of the sequel over there in Hidden Plot Land...just not enough to peek.

I wasn't as familiar with the whole ugly story as you are, but I have run across this symbols bunch before. "Preaching" is the correct word. In this current outbreak of the Symbols virus, the poster is unwilling or incapable of admitting that anything she says could be incorrect or capable of being interpreted in any other way.

From what I've read, and I've read all I need to now, they have completely tied the sequel into the whole symbolic system.

Bric wrote:CLICK HERE FOR PHANTOM GERRY.NET SYMBOLIC SCENE SUMMARIES

Who the hell-o thought Schumacher really put THAT much thought into a film?

I managed to see LOVE NEVER DIES this past Friday evening! I was in London for one night, got to my hostel at 6:45pm, dropped off my things and managed to get to the theatre by 7:30. While the house did appear full, there were seats available in every price range, even right up front. On a Friday night in the middle of summer, 2 minutes before showtime, that doesn't seem like it bodes well for future sales. Now onto the show:

My seat was in the front row of the balcony (Upper Circle) and it was a perfect view of the entire set, which I have to say looked amazing. The projections, backdrops and set-pieces were really wonderfully done. When I first heard Ramin sing "Til I Hear You Sing" a few months ago, I wasn't really impressed, however during the show I was blown away! I thought it was simply because it was live and in character, but at intermission I went to buy a program and found out that it was actually the understudy Tam Mutu on as The Phantom! Wow! He is outstanding! What a stunning and powerful voice. Sierra's voice was gorgeous, and the boy who was on as Gustave (Harry Child) was much better than the one on the cast album. His voice was angelic and pure. In fact, I was impressed by all the performances. "The Beauty Underneath" was just as bizarre and yet captivating as other people have said. (4-armed skeletal gorilla playing the organ WTF!? )

I have to be honest and say that, as a show, if you completely forget that it's a sequel to POTO and that we've seen the characters before, it was pretty good. As I said, the actors were all wonderful, and the sets and scenery were visual and technical achievements. I thought the music was memorable and haunting, though it helps that I had already heard the cast album. Certainly seeing the dialogue scenes between the tracks made the album make more sense.
Of course, as a sequel to POTO, the plot is shit. Yes people could change within 10 years, but it's not likely that every character would do a complete 180 from how we knew them before. It's a complete fantasy that these are how the characters from POTO would end up, it's like a bad fan-fiction romance novella or something. Once I just told my brain to pretend it was a show with new characters instead of a sequel, I quite liked it. (And it seemed like if it must be a sequel, it was clearly a sequel to the film version, and not the stage show.) During the end sequence, maybe it was just my view, but it didn't look like Meg shooting Christine was accidental. I haven't been keeping up with what changes have happened since the opening, but it looked to me like she raised her arm, aimed the gun at Christine, the Phantom shouted and lunged at her and she fired.

I'm very glad I decided to see it for myself. I honestly don't think it will run that well in NYC, if it does open, as it looked to me like sales weren't that great, and the NYC reviewers will probably savage the show much more harshly than in London. As a sequel, it's a nonsensical failure, but as a standalone show I would definitely say I was entertained and got my money's worth, though I know that sounds like two competing viewpoints.