Re: Love Never Dies - all views allowed

**Raphael** Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:13 am

I understand that some changes were implemented during LND's 4-day hiatus. Anyone have the details? Might make for interesting discussion on the latest "tweaking" of the show.

R.

starryeyed Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:20 am

I have pretty substantial details on the changes, I can either post them here or PM them to anyone who is interested. I will warn you though they were told to me by a major fan of the show so they are a bit biased to say the least. I know someone going tomorrow evening who did like the "original" version but has a bit more of an objective viewpoint so just let me know if you want me to post them here or PM them to you.

One thing I will say though is they've cut my favourite bit Sad

Christine and Gustave's little waltz!

Klavirista Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:11 pm

I heard that they added more tunes from original "Phantom of the Opera" and Raoul doesn't go but stays on stage in the final while Christine is bleeding Suspect

The more they change the show, the less sense it has...

**MasqPhan** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:28 pm

I think it would be fine to post info on changes here since this thread is about LND. Maybe just put "Spoiler Alert" so folks know what's coming and if they don't want to read it then they can skip.

Scorp Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:55 pm

Klavirista wrote:The more they change the show, the less sense it has...

And who thought that was possible? Rolling Eyes

Apparently they also have the Paris Opera House burning down. Which of course has never happened. *sigh*

Klavirista Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:21 pm

Apparently they also have the Paris Opera House burning down. Which of course has never happened

But it happened in Schumacher's film... May be ALW finally decided to continue only film plot in sequel??? pale

Scorp Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:26 pm

Klavirista wrote:
Apparently they also have the Paris Opera House burning down. Which of course has never happened
But it happened in Schumacher's film... May be ALW finally decided to continue only film plot in sequel???

Schumacher burned down a fictitious (and horrible) opera house that never even existed in the first place. The Palais Garnier, on the other hand, is very much a real monument, and one that still stands in 2010...

starryeyed Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:20 pm

Right guys, this post (once I've edited it) will contain a lot of SPOILERS. So if you don't want to see them, don't read thank you. I'm just putting this post here to let you know I am embarking on the mammoth task of typing up all the changes I am aware of. I'm going to add them into this message but just setting a little marker for myself.

Act One Changes (SPOILERS)

As stated before the scary doll/mask thing is no longer used on the curtain it's a black and white image of the opera house. As the show begins the image does indeed burst into flames and you see newspaper headlines along the lines of The Phantom has now disappeared. There is also an image of a ship (presumably the one the Girys smuggled The Phantom out of France in.)

Then we go straight to the Aerie and we are treated to Till I Hear You Sing which was previously about a million songs into the show (okay around five or six maybe...) This is still preceded by the Christine doll moving to the front of the stage, cloth blown off etc but The Phantom now enters from a trapdoor under the stage rather than just walking on stage. (Pay attention this will become a theme, he seems to not just walk in doors anymore, probably slightly more effective but still not a rival to the Mirror scene of the original personally.)

Next the screen is used once again to show newspaper articles about the Freaks of Coney and all the entertainment Coney has to offer and we are straight into a new song sung by Madame Giry, Meg Giry and the ensemble. They sing the "Coney island..." part from the original prologue. This leads into the original Coney Island waltz with original projections, Madame Giry apparently appears to control everything in this scene now and doesn't do her stand in the stage turning round in "oh my god" fashion anymore.

Then we have Welcome to Coney which is a big ensemble dance number performed by Meg and the ensemble. After which we have Meg confronting her mother about whether the Phantom was there to watch her but Madame Giry says he wasn't as Christine was arriving today to perform at Oscar Hammerstein's new opera house (first major plot change.) Now the song where the Giry's confronted the Phantom has been moved to here but it is just Meg and her mother who perform it now basically moaning about all they've done from him.

Then it's to the pier scene where Christine, Raoul and Gustave are arriving ready to travel to Manhattan to the new opera house. Then as before the glass carriage arrives and the freaks have more lyrics/ changed lyrics not sure on the specifics though. The screen has been changed to show the carriage travelling towards Manhattan at first but then diverting and going to the direction of Coney Island.

Then we have the hotel scene where Gustave now plays the aria on the piano not Christine. Raoul mentions he dislikes the music but Gustave thinks it's... wait for it... beautiful (shot for you if you're playing the LND drinking game.) Also, the music box is now the monkey from the original show. A man enters telling Raoul Mr Hammerstein wants to meet him in the hotel bar (oh pesky Phantom and your pesky tricks) and Chrisitne as before begs him not to drink before he leaves. Gustave is still playing with the music box and we go into Look With Your Heart which is the same but they've cut the dance! (I personally liked the dance.)

Gustave goes to bed then the Phantom enters through the balcony doors (my bad he is still using doors clearly!) and Christine says she had a feeling he had planned this to which he tells her "If you had known the pain I had been in, you would have seen that I had no choice." Beneath a Moonless Sky is the same but it is Christine who begins to sing not the Phantom.

Now I don't understand really what happens next but apparently there's a new song centred around the tune of "Seal My Fate" from the original where the Phantom tells Christine he has been waiting ten years for this opportunity and it was his plan all along to get her to sing for him. He says if she doesn't sing he will keep her son to pay off the debt she owes him (for what I don't know I'm assuming this is in reference to the fact she got to go off and leave the Phantom in the original I don't know.) Christine is angry, doesn't understand why he would do this and he says "You sing, you leave together, pockets full, debts paid. If you refuse he stays and you leave alone." (Is anyone else really confused now?) He then mocks her (nice) and she agrees to sing for him. He leaves.

Raoul returns and complains he couldn't find Mr Hammerstein anywhere (god these characters are slow) and Christine is visibly shaken and says "Things have changed Raoul!" (Yes a lot more original Phantom in this sequel/non-sequel now.)

Then during the Bathing Beauty rehearsal Madame Giry says the Phantom is writing again and it must be for Meg as Christine is in Manhattan performing not in Coney! Oh wait...

Then Dear Old Friend through to the end is the same as before apart from the freaks stay throught The Beauty Underneath Christine tells them to take him away before The Phantom Confronts Christine which has some changes. After she tells The Phantom Gustave is his son he says "Take him now. Take him now. And go- go and be free. But promise me one thing, he will never know." (I can imagine this going to the same tune as the end of the Final Lair but I doubt it is (never know!) Christine promises but says she still wants to sing for him (why?) It then ends as it did previously.

END OF ACT ONE

Thoughts so far anyone? I really think they should have sorted out the very end (Madame Giry throwing a jacket down the stairs!) And it still doesn't seem as though the plot makes much sense to me.

Act Two Changes

Why Does She Love Me? remains the same. However after Raoul says to Meg "What about the concert?" she now says "Once the Phantom hears Christine sing he will definitely want more, he may never let her leave." Raoul laughs and says Christine would follow him anywhere and it is he who decides who stays and who goes. As Meg leaves The Phantom does his "hello..." trick and says to Raoul if he takes Christine away this will mean Christine has broken her vow to him (the Phantom.) Then it is Devil Takes the Hindmost some lyrics have been changed.

We are then treated to a new song where the Freaks theme tune plays and we see their silhouettes. They then move forward and introduce us to the two acts Meg and Christine. Then into Bathing Beauty where Meg now comes down in the balloon and there are now male and female dancers. Not just female as was previously.

Mother Did You Watch? Madame Giry now tells Meg the Phantom has no need for them anymore.

Before The Performance only change is that before the Phantom enters the lights on the dressing table flicker and then The Phantom enters from the trap door not the door.

Devil Take the Hindmost (reprise) and Love Never Dies remain unchanged.

Ah Christine...! Raoul's letter now says he will wait until the end of the performance to sort their affairs out for the boys sake but after this Christine will never see him again.

Gustave! Gustave! Fleck's line has been changed to "silent as a tomb." Apart from that no change.

Please Miss Giry I Want to Go Back When they arrive to find Meg she now pushes Gustave towards them all and points the gun at The Phantom and begins to threaten him. He still does his "we can't all be like Christine" line and the gun accidentally goes off shooting Christine. The Phantom tells Madame Giry to take Meg and go. Gustave asks "Mother. Where's father?" Christine replies "Gustave please forgive me." The Phantom "No. You promised." Christine "No he needs to know. You are all he has left now. This is your father..." Gustave takes one look at The Phantom and runs off stage screaming "Nooooooooooo." Then The Phantom and Christine have their little "Once Upon Another Time" reminisce as before and they kiss and Christine dies. Then in the background we see Gustave and Raoul holding hands, they then rush to Christine's side and Raoul kisses Christine. Raoul then looks at The Phantom and Gustave hugs Raoul then goes over to The Phantom and hugs him. The Phantom slowly begins to hug him back and then.... curtain!

So... opinions? I like Raoul is there at the end now although he still seems a bit forgotten about in this show. I've picked up some of the new lyrics/ dialogue from various places but I don't know in what scenes they are said so didn't think there was much point in including them. They are mainly new Phantom lines such as "A man as hideous as this is capable of anything." Things like that. Sorry this is sort of vague but it does outline the main points. I know someone who went this evening so they may be able to tell more.

Cape Twirl of Doom Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:03 am

Scorp wrote:
Klavirista wrote:
Apparently they also have the Paris Opera House burning down. Which of course has never happened
But it happened in Schumacher's film... May be ALW finally decided to continue only film plot in sequel???

Schumacher burned down a fictitious (and horrible) opera house that never even existed in the first place. The Palais Garnier, on the other hand, is very much a real monument, and one that still stands in 2010...

It also never really had a masked murderer living in the lake underneath...

operafantomet Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:15 am

Cape Twirl of Doom wrote:
Scorp wrote:
Klavirista wrote:
Apparently they also have the Paris Opera House burning down. Which of course has never happened
But it happened in Schumacher's film... May be ALW finally decided to continue only film plot in sequel???

Schumacher burned down a fictitious (and horrible) opera house that never even existed in the first place. The Palais Garnier, on the other hand, is very much a real monument, and one that still stands in 2010...
It also never really had a masked murderer living in the lake underneath...

True enough. But.... Palais Garnier is an as important lead role of the original novel as the Phantom, Christine and Raoul. Translator Mireille Ribière had some interesting notes about this. She commented that the notes about the opera house is the first thing translators and various movie versions cut, but they don't realize that they by doing that removes a vital "character" of the story. Hal Prince and Maria Bjørnson also grasped the importance of the setting, and modeled the stage version closely after the Palais Garnier.

Now, you can twist and turn the story in many ways. But LND is now clearly a POTO sequel, in all possible ways. The original, as well as Leroux, clearly use the Palais Garnier as basis. That opera never burned down. So the change feels very unmotivated - introducing the "opera house burned down" plot, while anchoring LND as a sequel to POTO. Someone wants it both ways.

Or rather, LND really IS a sequel to the movie rather than the stage version. Neutral

starryeyed, thanks a lot for taking the time to share the changes with us. I really appreciate it.

Klavirista Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:47 am

starryeyed wrote:
Gustave takes one look at The Phantom and runs off stage screaming "Nooooooooooo."

Is Gustave screaming because his mother is dying or because he doesn't want to believe the Phantom is his real father? Laughing

operafantomet wrote:
Or rather, LND really IS a sequel to the movie rather than the stage version.

When I saw Ramin's ruched shirt (in Till I Hear You Sing), I thought the same... Rolling Eyes

starryeyed Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:52 am

I've heard conflicting reports on Gustaves reasons for running off screaming, I've heard it's in distress and also heard it being referred to as being "in fear of The Phantom."

Also, guess what, the poofy shirt is no longer, it is just a plain black shirt now (but unbuttoned half way...) Marginally better perhaps.

Scorp Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:10 am

Scorp wrote:
I think you've missed the point slightly. I had this argument on another board. Artistic licence is all well and good, but the minute you start setting stories in precise period contexts, it is inherently limited, or else the story becomes completely unbelievable. LND was already unbelievable; to burn down the Palais Garnier in the story makes it even more so (also note the lack of continuity AGAIN: I wonder how they discovered the monkey box in the vaults of the theatre in the original if the entire thing burned down?).

.

And how did it end up in the vaults of the theatre in 1911 if Gustave got it in New York in 1907? Or is that one just a replica?

However, I think that the changes makes the sequel sound slightly more logical (I mean compared to the weird story that was before). I still have a problem with its overall concept however and I find it rather interesting that they made such big changes considering that ALW had "the best libretto in years" or how he put it. I definately think it's an improvement to keep Raoul there to the end and to make the Phantom meaner. If he is stalking Christine still after ten years then he is mean so it's only reasonable to show it.

I'm sorry, I think I managed to edit out Scorps original post here and post this myself under his nick. I meant to quote scorp but not edit his post. Sorry again. Phantomlove/Josefine

Bric Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:17 am

I think one of the long-time members of that board also made a good point when he said,

"All fiction requires suspension of disbelief in the first place, but only in the first place. Once the fictional world has been established the situations and characters must play out in a way that is consistent with that world. If they don't - if the internal history is rewritten, if personalities change at the drop of a hat, if people act in unrealistic ways just to kick the plot in the right direction - then it's bad fiction. It doesn't have to be that way, and with good fiction it isn't."

That is exactly what happened with LND. They took well-established characters, established for nearly 25 years, and distorted them to make their story work. They ignored the significance of the events of the last scene of POTO because they wanted to run the characters through another version of the same conflicts and plot one more time. Now, they've burned down the Opera House to make sure, I think, the audience understands that the main male character in LND used to live there and was once The Phantom of the Opera. That's something that can be easy to miss in LND, I should think.

LadyCDaae Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:58 pm

*sigh* Oh, where to begin?

To their credit, they have apparently listened to the criticisms that the Phantom needs to be darker. But here's the thing: you can't make him darker and then still treat him like he's a poor misunderstood Woobie who just wants to be loved. The Phantom's original story is tragic, yes, but it's tragic in the old Greek sense, where his own failings doom him to his fate. And in the end, he proves himself better than those failings, he shows that somewhere deep inside is the better man he might have been in a kinder world, and that enables us to feel empathy for him. I felt very little empathy for the Phantom in the original LND, and I feel even less for him now. He threatens a child, uses and abuses the people who care for him, and one way or another destroys everyone around him. He's a selfish coward, one who can neither love Christine properly nor leave her in peace. Everyone else suffers for his behavior, and he walks away scot free with the kid.

Christine, Christine. When someone threatens to take your child from you, the proper response is not "Yes dear, I'll do whatever you say." It is "If you so much as come within ten feet of my son, I will end you." Then you leave, as far and as fast as you can (probably stopping by the police so you can tell them about the insane madman who's wanted in several countries and is threatening your kid). You found your backbone by the end of the original, why did you lose it again? And speaking of blown lines--Raoul, what's with this "It's okay, kid, just go away with the career criminal who is at least partially responsible for your mother's death. You're his little sperm-blossom, so that makes it okay."? Challenge that bastard to a duel or something!

It hurts my head.

~LCD

Phantomlove Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:09 pm

Hm, the last post by Scorp was written by me. I don't know how I managed to post it under scorps nick.

Bric Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:03 pm

Oh, well said!

I've long thought the LND Phantom character unsympathetic because of his return to complete selfishness and self-centeredness and because of all the suffering he causes, but you put him in context and show how characters with any character would have behaved in the circumstances ALW and company cook up for them in LND.

Riene Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:13 pm

LadyCDaae wrote:*sigh* Oh, where to begin?

To their credit, they have apparently listened to the criticisms that the Phantom needs to be darker. But here's the thing: you can't make him darker and then still treat him like he's a poor misunderstood Woobie who just wants to be loved. The Phantom's original story is tragic, yes, but it's tragic in the old Greek sense, where his own failings doom him to his fate. And in the end, he proves himself better than those failings, he shows that somewhere deep inside is the better man he might have been in a kinder world, and that enables us to feel empathy for him. I felt very little empathy for the Phantom in the original LND, and I feel even less for him now. He threatens a child, uses and abuses the people who care for him, and one way or another destroys everyone around him. He's a selfish coward, one who can neither love Christine properly nor leave her in peace. Everyone else suffers for his behavior, and he walks away scot free with the kid.

Christine, Christine. When someone threatens to take your child from you, the proper response is not "Yes dear, I'll do whatever you say." It is "If you so much as come within ten feet of my son, I will end you." Then you leave, as far and as fast as you can (probably stopping by the police so you can tell them about the insane madman who's wanted in several countries and is threatening your kid). You found your backbone by the end of the original, why did you lose it again? And speaking of blown lines--Raoul, what's with this "It's okay, kid, just go away with the career criminal who is at least partially responsible for your mother's death. You're his little sperm-blossom, so that makes it okay."? Challenge that bastard to a duel or something!

It hurts my head.

~LCD

I've thought this many times, and you've just said it out loud. Thank you.

Scorp Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:00 am

I know she's biased, but I do think there is some truth in these comments by LuPone in her autobiography... It's something I've thought for a long while:

"This was yet more proof of the total disregard Andrew seems to have for the directors, designers and actors who present his work to the public. From his point of view, there was nothing collaborative in the success of any of these shows; they sprang purely from his own musical genius. The rest of us who took what we were given -- shaped it and made it work -- had nothing to do with it. And we did make it work -- not to take anything away from the writing, but you can't put a score on a bare stage and have an audience feel and care and stay interested for two and a half hours. It's a collaboration."

I hope LND will more than anything make ALW look in the mirror and acknowledge his hubris.

Meanwhile the Daily Fail completely reverses its earlier opinion that the show was a "masterpiece" (declared before it even opened):

It was meant to be the show that reinforced Andrew Lloyd Webber’s position as the uassailable king of musical theatre. [...] But, unfortunately for Britain’s most celebrated theatrical composer, the critics came too – and roundly panned the show.

Sadly the rest of it becomes another RUG-propelled propaganda piece, with the false claim that the original Phantom similarly suffered bad reviews at the beginning... Rolling Eyes

LadyCDaae Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:12 pm

Well, the original PotO did get some less favorable reviews from the critics. The audience, on the other hand, was on board from day one. By this time in the original's run, it was sold out at least a year in advance and a Broadway production was not a question of "if" but "when." LND is practically giving seats away and is struggling to get other productions off the ground. There's a slight difference in the circumstances.

~LCD

Scorp Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:57 pm

LadyCDaae wrote:Well, the original PotO did get some less favorable reviews from the critics.

It did get some, but the vast majority of the London reviews were rather favourable. Even the ones that weren't so hot on the show had nothing but praise for Michael Crawford. The same can't be said for Love Never Dies or Ramin Karimloo. What I am objecting to is the myth that is being propagated by RUG that Phantom went through the same ordeal as Les Mis or even We Will Rock You, where the majority of the verdicts were outright pans and yet it was still a success.

I have most of the original reviews for Phantom's opening in the West End and on Broadway. If you tally them up, the positive reviews vastly outweigh the negative ones. Most of the negative ones came from the Broadway reviewers, the worst being John Simon's review and Frank Rich's. But none of the reviews -- perhaps Simon's excepted -- are as bad as Love Never Dies' pans. And again, if you tally up the numbers, Love Never Dies has received few positive reviews. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are those in The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Express. Those and The Guardian's mixed review aside, every other review is pretty damning. It would not be a lie to say that LND's reviews were mostly negative.

Incidentally I continue to receive discount offers for Love Never Dies in my inbox and via snail mail. They all go straight in the bin, both virtual and real.

operafantomet Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:19 pm

Another thing they keep repeating is that POTO went through as many changes as LND before and when it opened. Which is wildly untrue! And a bit funny, since the original team has always commented upon how unique it is for a show to go through as few changes as POTO did from rehearsals to premiere to international productions, and that everything came together just right from the beginning. I think it was repeated as late as in the newest "Behind the Mask" documentary from BBC.

Bric Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:21 am

It you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

I added a comment to the Mail story mentioning both the POTO reviews and the changes (lack of them). Perhaps at least a few people who don't already know the truth might read it there.

LadyCDaae Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:24 am

Scorp wrote:
It did get some, but the vast majority of the London reviews were rather favourable. Even the ones that weren't so hot on the show had nothing but praise for Michael Crawford. The same can't be said for Love Never Dies or Ramin Karimloo. What I am objecting to is the myth that is being propagated by RUG that Phantom went through the same ordeal as Les Mis or even We Will Rock You, where the majority of the verdicts were outright pans and yet it was still a success.

I have most of the original reviews for Phantom's opening in the West End and on Broadway. If you tally them up, the positive reviews vastly outweigh the negative ones. Most of the negative ones came from the Broadway reviewers, the worst being John Simon's review and Frank Rich's. But none of the reviews -- perhaps Simon's excepted -- are as bad as Love Never Dies' pans. And again, if you tally up the numbers, Love Never Dies has received few positive reviews. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are those in The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Express. Those and The Guardian's mixed review aside, every other review is pretty damning. It would not be a lie to say that LND's reviews were mostly negative.

Ah, okay. I guess I was thinking mostly of Frank Rich's review--although now that I look at it again, even that was more charitable than Rich's successor Ben Brantley's savaging of LND (he did have some nice things to say about Hal Prince and Michael Crawford, after all).

~LCD

ML6 Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:25 am

I miss the days when we only had one version of Webber's Phantom to worry about - the stage play. Not the stupid film or this trash. I thank my lucky stars I got to experience three years of Phantom of the Opera fandom without the two sullying it up.

Scorp Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:54 am

Bric wrote:It you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

I added a comment to the Mail story mentioning both the POTO reviews and the changes (lack of them). Perhaps at least a few people who don't already know the truth might read it there.

Good idea - anyone else wishing to add a comment can do so here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335755/Andrew-Lloyd-Webber-pulls-Love-Never-Dies-West-End-stage-facelift.html

I miss the days when we only had one version of Webber's Phantom to worry about - the stage play. Not the stupid film or this trash. I thank my lucky stars I got to experience three years of Phantom of the Opera fandom without the two sullying it up.

So do I. Back then the only fights were about who was a better Phantom or whether Christine should have chosen the Phantom or Raoul. But at least I knew I had something in common with every other 'fan', as we obviously liked the same stage musical (and hopefully the original novel too). The problem with LND and Schumacher's film is that I find it difficult to relate to their fans. Sure, they're entitled to like those and they may all like the stage version and the original novel too, but to me even to like the sequel is surely to miss one of the key points of the original. In short, I begin to wonder whether those who liked Phantom before the film and sequel appeared and subsequently liked either of those even liked the same thing as me to begin with. That's not a bad thing per se, as it shows that the whole entity offers something different to everyone for them to take away, but it engenders the realisation that what I took to be a mutual enthusiasm wasn't mutual at all. Does that make any sense?

Klavirista Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:06 am

Scorp wrote
The problem with LND and Schumacher's film is that I find it difficult to relate to their fans.

Oh, I remember I had chated with film fans (there was an awful experience, but funny Smile

) and they asked what does "ALW" mean and also they insisted that Leroux himself (!) wrote the screenplay of the Schumacher's film.

Andrew discusses LND with Simon Lee (would rather watch they talk about closing of LND):

starryeyed Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:04 pm

I just managed to book some good stalls seats (second or third row I'm not sure which) for a Friday evening for Love Never Dies through the Get Into London Theatre offer for £35 each. Make of that what you will.

Bric Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:02 pm

starryeyed wrote:I just managed to book some good stalls seats (second or third row I'm not sure which) for a Friday evening for Love Never Dies through the Get Into London Theatre offer for £35 each. Make of that what you will.

I've seen offers for cheap seats on Twitter. From a distance (across an ocean), I make of it that the Powers That Be want to get as many butts in seats as possible during this time right after the newest changes.

You didn't get one of the free tickets for Monday?

Bric Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:14 pm

Scorp wrote:
Bric wrote:It you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

I added a comment to the Mail story mentioning both the POTO reviews and the changes (lack of them). Perhaps at least a few people who don't already know the truth might read it there.

Good idea - anyone else wishing to add a comment can do so here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335755/Andrew-Lloyd-Webber-pulls-Love-Never-Dies-West-End-stage-facelift.html

I miss the days when we only had one version of Webber's Phantom to worry about - the stage play. Not the stupid film or this trash. I thank my lucky stars I got to experience three years of Phantom of the Opera fandom without the two sullying it up.

So do I. Back then the only fights were about who was a better Phantom or whether Christine should have chosen the Phantom or Raoul. But at least I knew I had something in common with every other 'fan', as we obviously liked the same stage musical (and hopefully the original novel too). The problem with LND and Schumacher's film is that I find it difficult to relate to their fans. Sure, they're entitled to like those and they may all like the stage version and the original novel too, but to me even to like the sequel is surely to miss one of the key points of the original. In short, I begin to wonder whether those who liked Phantom before the film and sequel appeared and subsequently liked either of those even liked the same thing as me to begin with. That's not a bad thing per se, as it shows that the whole entity offers something different to everyone for them to take away, but it engenders the realisation that what I took to be a mutual enthusiasm wasn't mutual at all. Does that make any sense?

The film, I think, began a BIG dividing of the ways for fans. There ARE different camps who value different things---all the way from Leroux purists to fans whose main interest is the ALW stage musical to Gerik fans who think he is hawt to those who love the stage musical but hate the sequel to those who love both the original ALW show and also love Love Never Dies---and more. There have always been differences, but the differences now are more numerous and, perhaps, deeper than when people "fought" about which Phantom was the best.

I usually just ignore movie fans now. The least comprehensible to me are those who think "doing the double," seeing POTO in the afternoon and LND in the evening, is WONDERFUL and they "...Just can't wait!!!!" to do it again.

Sponsored content