Love Never Dies - all views allowed

operafantomet wrote:

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:On an unrelated note; I cant help but wonder why almost every major character from POTO was carried over into LND except Carlotta...now while Im a fan of the score I do believe the show has it problems, but do you think Carlotta's presence could've helped flesh out the thin story-line? It would seem to me if any character were to seek revenge on Christine it would be this one, for some reason I imagine it turning into a higher-art version of little mermaid with Carlotta trying to "steal" Christines voice, LOL.

Well, Carlotta IS in LND. Kinda. Meg Giry is now Carlotta, the grand Prima Donna and Christine's sworn enemy, while Fleck is Meg, the young dancer on the sideline. It's the same structure, basically, just with other names.

You are right. "Beauty underneath" is the continuation to "Phantom of the Opera".
The whole story could be better...all characters could show more...

Two of my friends went to Her Majesty's to see Phantom for the first time this week (incidentally, not hearing good reports about Donnelly's Raoul...curious). They both enjoyed the show and looked up the plot to LND afterwards. Both are now on medication and undergoing therapy.

OK, the medication/therapy part is not true, but they were both bamboozled by the insanity of the plot, which, without my help, they too labelled "unnecessary". One likened to the show to an episode of Jeremy Kyle (host of a trash daytime UK show similar to Jerry Springer). Very appropriate.

I have some faith, then, that people are still seeing through the hype, not that there is any more hype about this show in the UK at least. What worries me is that the powers-that-be have learnt that they must brand this show as "Phantom 2" and reveal as little about the plot as possible. And that worries me because people will then buy tickets, if only out of morbid curiosity...

Ramin on LND:

Ramin 'young and sexy' Karimloo wrote:The thing I’ll say about Love Never Dies is that I don’t regret anything about it. I still believe in what the show should have been, and I also think that the story was over-complicated. We were trying to get into the heads of five characters, and there wasn’t enough time to do that. But even with the problems that existed, the people I look up to loved it, and we got standing ovations every night. And I've got first refusal if Broadway ever happens, although I'm not sure at this point that I could get back to the mask.

Source: http://london.broadway.com/shows/les-miserables-london/buzz/159717/ramin-karimloo-on-trading-the-phantoms-mask-to-play-jean-valjean-in-londons-les-miserables/

Ramin, it's not that the story was "overcomplicated", it's the fact the story was absurd.

Love Never Dies IS coming to US theatres! Feb 28th and March 7th 2012 @ 7:30pm
check link below to see if you have a participating theatre near you!

http://www.fathomevents.com/performingarts/event/loveneverdies.aspx

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Love Never Dies IS coming to US theatres! Feb 28th and March 7th 2012 @ 7:30pm
check link below to see if you have a participating theatre near you!

http://www.fathomevents.com/performingarts/event/loveneverdies.aspx

Oh thank god, the day after my birthday! If my birthday was tainted with that, and my friends tried to get me to see it...

The Good Lord wrote:
"How marvellous it would have been to have seen (film of) Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman in the original Phantom!"

WTF? It never occurred to him at all to do it? Ever? I can't believe that.

However, THIS...

Andrew Lloyd Desperate wrote:Will the film of the show perhaps lead to an Australian stage version on Broadway?

"Oh, please, please, yes ... if I could get it into the right theatre in America and persuade everybody to do it there, it would be an absolute dream come true."

...I can believe.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/arts/phantom-scales-the-heights-again/story-fn7euh6j-1226265037350

Also, a ridiculous interview for you to laugh at/bang your head against the wall over here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/andrew-lloyd-webber-love-never-dies_n_1252728.html

*headdesk*headdesk*headdesk*

Kind of a DUH moment. Fans have been saying that for years. Where has he been?

I wonder if because of all the "controversy" around LND that he feels more protective of it than his other musicals...?

ETA

From Huffington post:

What compelled you to write a sequel to the original?
I'm obviously very fond of the principal characters, of Christine and the Phantom. Without giving anything away, in a sense, I was wanting to develop the relationship and close it. It closes a chapter in my musical life, which I wanted to complete.

He wanted to kill off Christine...?

I wrote what I thought was right from the story. That's the inspiration for any show -- the story inspires you. I'm very story driven.

Up until now, I would have agreed with that...Haven't got a clue how Phantom of Manhattan could have been inspiring...

Raoul is almost a villain in "Love Never Dies." Why did the love story become exclusively the Phantom and Christine's?
Raoul could never offer her the music, everything that makes a performer tick. That was aways going to be a problem...

Raoul may not have been able to her music, yet she's still able to perform, so Christine still has an outlet for what she wants to do. And I'd have to say it was pretty modern of both Raoul and Christine so she could continue on to sing and perform. Something I don't think the Phantom would have allowed her to do.

...The development of the relationship between Phantom and Christine is what interests me, the moment where they actually see each other again for the first time in ten years.

Okay. I admit it. If the Phantom had lived, I kind of think the moment where they meet again is interesting, too..

And the Phantom and Christine spent a night together once?
It happens after the end of the old Phantom, it's always clear. "The Phantom of the Opera" is about love, it's as simple as that. It's a piece of high romance, and that's what I originally wanted to write 25 years ago and that's what the piece is --love never dies -- it's about precisely that. The one thing you do of course know is that in her heart of hearts she's overjoyed to see him again. I think we've all had that experience.

*headdesk*headdesk* My head hurts after reading this article and I also feel slightly sick

Without giving anything away, in a sense, I was wanting to develop the relationship and close it.

Silly me, I thought the relationship was closed when they acknowledged how mutually destructive it was and went their separate ways. Obviously I've never properly understood the story.

Wee Andy has, in so many ways, lost the plot.

~LCD

PhantomsGhost wrote: Haven't got a clue how Phantom of Manhattan could have been inspiring...

I don't think the book, Phantom of Manhattan, was an insipiration actually. I always understood ALW & Frederick Forsyth to have had a boozy lunch somewhere, to discuss the plot for a musical follow up to Phantom & ideas were scribbled down on the back of a napkin. When Andy decided to put the project on ice as it were, Mr Forsyth thought "bugger it, I'll right a novel!"
Cut to his Lordship reviving the idea TEN LONG YEARS (give or take) later, he digs out his metaphorical napkin & says to his mate Benny Elton "Oi! What can you do with with this". Then a RUG lawyer says
" 'ere we better give Freddy a credit, he was co-author of the napkin...we don't want another Sunset fiasco on our hands!". So to conclude my tale, pretty sure Andrew Lloyds Bank has never read Phantom of Manhattan.

ML6 wrote:

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Love Never Dies IS coming to US theatres! Feb 28th and March 7th 2012 @ 7:30pm
check link below to see if you have a participating theatre near you!

http://www.fathomevents.com/performingarts/event/loveneverdies.aspx

Oh thank god, the day after my birthday! If my birthday was tainted with that, and my friends tried to get me to see it...

Im pretty sure you have free-will of what to see; nobody is forcing you to watch it, and it's only a film; While I am a fan of the LND score (the story not so much) the amount of energy some of you guys put into "hating" it is...rather interesting...just a thought.

PMB1034 wrote:I don't think the book, Phantom of Manhattan, was an insipiration actually. I always understood ALW & Frederick Forsyth to have had a boozy lunch somewhere, to discuss the plot for a musical follow up to Phantom & ideas were scribbled down on the back of a napkin. When Andy decided to put the project on ice as it were, Mr Forsyth thought "bugger it, I'll right a novel!"
Cut to his Lordship reviving the idea TEN LONG YEARS (give or take) later, he digs out his metaphorical napkin & says to his mate Benny Elton "Oi! What can you do with with this". Then a RUG lawyer says
" 'ere we better give Freddy a credit, he was co-author of the napkin...we don't want another Sunset fiasco on our hands!". So to conclude my tale, pretty sure Andrew Lloyds Bank has never read Phantom of Manhattan.

Couldn't tell quite how tongue-in-cheek your comment was, but "Manhattan" WAS the blueprint for what was to become "Phantom 2" (sort of a test run in prose form) - and I imagine if it hadn't been blasted by just about everyone who read it (consumers and critics alike), that's the story that we would have seen adapted into stage musical format. And quite frankly, it's much better than what ALW ended up putting on stage.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:While I am a fan of the LND score (the story not so much) the amount of energy some of you guys put into "hating" it is...rather interesting...just a thought.

Oh I don't know. When something is the antithesis of everything you love about the original, the little effort you expend in order to comment on it isn't a big deal We are all welcome to like it or hate it or be neutral about it. I think the majority of us here simply don't particularly care for it.

R.

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:on an unrelated note; I cant help but wonder why almost every major character from POTO was carried over into LND except Carlotta...now while Im a fan of the score I do believe the show has it problems, but do you think Carlotta's presence could've helped flesh out the thin story-line? It would seem to me if any character were to seek revenge on Christine it would be this one, for some reason I imagine it turning into a higher-art version of little mermaid with Carlotta trying to "steal" Christines voice, LOL.

Personally, although I'm a big fan of Carlotta, I think it would've been hard to explain her presence on top of all the already recurring characters. It's easy to insert characters like Carlotta, the managers, and Buquet into an Opera House setting because they are established character types. But putting her in LND would require backstory and exposition that might just bog it down more.

I also think they may have wanted to avoid repetition. As Anea pointed out, Meg already fills the role. And with both Meg and Raoul effectively functioning as villains, another revenge-seeking cameo character might've felt like a bit much. Although Carlotta, as you said, has plenty of reason to hate Christine/the Phantom, with Carlotta in the villain's role, it would've been all the same conflicts from POTO. At least this way the Meg twist creates something new, even if only nominally.

Also -and this is just me- I fear the very pro-Phantom tone of LND would never be able to do Carlotta justice. I always got the feeling in LND that ALW wanted to sort of gloss over the Phantom's violent and selfish history in order to make him a more appealing and less threatening love interest. Bringing up his criminal behavior and the cold-blooded murder of Piangi might work against that. Anyway, that's my take on it.

PMB1034 wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote: Haven't got a clue how Phantom of Manhattan could have been inspiring...

I don't think the book, Phantom of Manhattan, was an insipiration actually. I always understood ALW & Frederick Forsyth to have had a boozy lunch somewhere, to discuss the plot for a musical follow up to Phantom & ideas were scribbled down on the back of a napkin. When Andy decided to put the project on ice as it were, Mr Forsyth thought "bugger it, I'll right a novel!"
Cut to his Lordship reviving the idea TEN LONG YEARS (give or take) later, he digs out his metaphorical napkin & says to his mate Benny Elton "Oi! What can you do with with this". Then a RUG lawyer says
" 'ere we better give Freddy a credit, he was co-author of the napkin...we don't want another Sunset fiasco on our hands!". So to conclude my tale, pretty sure Andrew Lloyds Bank has never read Phantom of Manhattan.

Are you me?! That is exactly how I always envisioned the 'beginning' stages of PoM went down! I'm seriously thinking that to be cannon. I almost want to write a story now about it. Hah.

StrangerThanUDreamtIt wrote:Im pretty sure you have free-will of what to see; nobody is forcing you to watch it, and it's only a film; While I am a fan of the LND score (the story not so much) the amount of energy some of you guys put into "hating" it is...rather interesting...just a thought.

I did not say 'if my friends took me'. Key word in the phrase was 'tried'.

Ok you're gif of Gomez and Morticia WINS! lol seriously I love Angelica Houston.

Raoul is almost a villain in "Love Never Dies." Why did the love story become exclusively the Phantom and Christine's?
Raoul could never offer her the music, everything that makes a performer tick. That was aways going to be a problem...

So for a musician/performer to have an working and healthy relationship, the person they have the relationship with must always be another musician. Or else they are doomed as a couple

I bought my LND DVD today. Review are following soon. I´ll watching it tomorrow or weekend.

Lalilaloli wrote:

Raoul is almost a villain in "Love Never Dies." Why did the love story become exclusively the Phantom and Christine's?
Raoul could never offer her the music, everything that makes a performer tick. That was aways going to be a problem...

So for a musician/performer to have an working and healthy relationship, the person they have the relationship with must always be another musician. Or else they are doomed as a couple

Well, obviously. That's why Lloyd Webber's marriage to Sarah Brightman worked out so....um, never mind.

~LCD

SweetChristine wrote:I bought my LND DVD today. Review are following soon. I´ll watching it tomorrow or weekend.

Lucky you! Were did you find it at such an early release date? My BluRay is on preorder from the UK but it wont be released until March 12th

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:

SweetChristine wrote:I bought my LND DVD today. Review are following soon. I´ll watching it tomorrow or weekend.

Lucky you! Were did you find it at such an early release date? My BluRay is on preorder from the UK but it wont be released until March 12th

In Austria, Germany and another country, I think Switzerland it was released for the 9th February. It surprised me.
It´s funny the Phantom 25th DVD is also released now. The CD was in the stores since the last year.

Now I´ve watched the DVD, but I am very confused. So many impressions...!
LND is not POTO, never! It´s wonderful filmed, wonderful...we see all so near...!
The music is great...but about the rest I must think a little bit...
The whole cast is good, but details are following...

Im anxious to hear! Im heading to the theatre in a few weeks to catch it during the screening; and getting my bluray from the uk shortly after as thankfully theirs are region free!

So, I watched it a second time. I had lost some tears at the end. It was better...!
The music make me dizzy, absolutly!
The costumes and sets are great, but sometimes too much.
I like Anne´s voice, Ben is strange, but he can more...both can show more.
Simon as Raoul was sympathic and I liked him. His voice, his personality...he is a Man!
Mme Giry and Meg were both great as well.
I see that Meg miss Christine as her friend. But something has changed over the years.

I am happy with the DVD, the story has his weaking...we all know that.
I love to hear the Original music in LND. I love it.

Well, I caught the clip of "Beuaty Underneath" and I can't say I was impressed. It looked like a drugged-out Cirque du Soleil routine and the song still sounds like something David Copperfield would have sawed ladies in half to back in the eighties (not to mention the uncomfortable NAMBLA undertones of the lyrics). I may rent it if the local library gets a copy though--although it would be primarily to provide snark fodder for the riffing site I frequent (you can see some of our other PotO related comments here).

I think I need an intervention....

I said in another post I liked LND and was excited to see it. And now after seeing it, I like it a bit more. (help!). The story is so WTF it's laughable, but at the same time the demise of Meg, Madame Giry and Raoul is heartbreaking. And I don't really give a flip about the Phantom or Christine. They seem to be made for each other (and not in a good way).

I was highly entertained by everything in it (which is probably why I like it). The sets and costumes are very lovely (not as detailed or as ornate as POTO, though), Ben Lewis and Anna O'Byrne are a treat to listen to and pretty good, as are the people playing Meg, Mme Giry, and Raoul. (and the whole supporting cast, of course)

It's a HUGE improvement over the London version.

It's weird. It's a sequel...but not a sequel. I can't believe the characters from POTO became these people at all. The timing of all this doesn't add up, as discussed somewhere else. The plot of POTO would have had to take place in 1895 for LND to take place in 1905. Oh, and just like in the 2004 movie, the Opera Populaire had burned down.

I can easily see ALW wanting to stage a version of POTO to take place in 1894-1895 so it would work better with LND, though. (scary thought actually)

Husband chose to watch this with me today. He said the most unbelievable part for him was how Mme Giry and Meg said they were 'there' for the Phantom while Christine and Raoul just left. But that obviously didn't happen since we see the Phantom push R/C away as the mobs are coming down to get him. We also had a problem in act II, right before Christine is going to sing, Gustave is wandering around backstage all on his own, yet all *three* of his parents are all lost in their own selfish thoughts, which is how Meg is able to take Gustave away. The death scene. Still way too long, and husband was very impressed with a woman who is shot in the stomach, dying, but who can still belt out an aria. And the Phantom's Darth Vader-like scream "NOOOOOOO!!" when Christine finally dies was laughable.

And yup. I still like it. This is definitely a guilty pleasure.

(help!)

PMB1034 wrote:
I don't think the book, Phantom of Manhattan, was an insipiration actually. I always understood ALW & Frederick Forsyth to have had a boozy lunch somewhere, to discuss the plot for a musical follow up to Phantom & ideas were scribbled down on the back of a napkin. When Andy decided to put the project on ice as it were, Mr Forsyth thought "bugger it, I'll right a novel!"
Cut to his Lordship reviving the idea TEN LONG YEARS (give or take) later, he digs out his metaphorical napkin & says to his mate Benny Elton "Oi! What can you do with with this". Then a RUG lawyer says
" 'ere we better give Freddy a credit, he was co-author of the napkin...we don't want another Sunset fiasco on our hands!". So to conclude my tale, pretty sure Andrew Lloyds Bank has never read Phantom of Manhattan.

Best story ever!

PhantomsGhost wrote:
It's weird. It's a sequel...but not a sequel. I can't believe the characters from POTO became these people at all. The timing of all this doesn't add up, as discussed somewhere else. The plot of POTO would have had to take place in 1895 for LND to take place in 1905. Oh, and just like in the 2004 movie, the Opera Populaire had burned down.

Phantom would also have to be set in the Opéra Populaire, which it categorically isn't (except in Schumacher's film).

So I actually watched the DVD with as open a mind as someone with a fully-formed opinion can watch something. And mostly... I was just really bored by it. I honestly couldn't even hate it, I was so apathetic about it. I didn't detect any real plot, and what little story was there seemed pretty poorly thought out (things I knew going into it that were confirmed when I watched it). And the music was decent-ish, though nothing like the original, and certainly not good enough to carry the entire show (then again, music should never carry an entire show). I feel like I could rant about what was wrong with the show for an hour or two, but I just don't care enough about the show to do it. I will say, I thought the cast was actually pretty great. Had they been playing decent roles, I think I would have liked them a lot more.

The thing is, after having watched it, I really wish I had liked it, maybe because if I had found that I actually liked it, I wouldn't have wasted 2 hours of my valuable time that could have been spent, I don't know, napping.

phantomphan1992 wrote:So I actually watched the DVD with as open a mind as someone with a fully-formed opinion can watch something. And mostly... I was just really bored by it. I honestly couldn't even hate it, I was so apathetic about it. I didn't detect any real plot, and what little story was there seemed pretty poorly thought out (things I knew going into it that were confirmed when I watched it). And the music was decent-ish, though nothing like the original, and certainly not good enough to carry the entire show (then again, music should never carry an entire show). I feel like I could rant about what was wrong with the show for an hour or two, but I just don't care enough about the show to do it. I will say, I thought the cast was actually pretty great. Had they been playing decent roles, I think I would have liked them a lot more.

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.

That said, I haven't seen the Aussie DVD in full. I will eventually, if only to enjoy the design. I think the Aussie LND is a first-rate example of "razzle-dazzle them, and they'll never question why.....".

The thing is, after having watched it, I really wish I had liked it, maybe because if I had found that I actually liked it, I wouldn't have wasted 2 hours of my valuable time that could have been spent, I don't know, napping.

THIS!!

I don´t like the movie and never will. But - I was surprised - I like LND Australia, I like it.
I can´t say it was boring.