Love Never Dies - all views allowed

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

Is BaMS really a specific tie-in to the original story, though? It recalls an event that never took place in the first musical.

R.

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

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

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

Wicked is also not a straight retelling but an alternate-perspective version--it takes a familiar story and retells it through the eyes of its main antagonist, giving a new take on her motivations and character in doing so. Such a revision requires imagination, wit, and style to be carried off, and carried off it is. The story of LND, meanwhile, can be--and has been--concocted by any fifteen-year-old E/C shipper on Fanfiction.net.

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:
...snipped...
Such a revision requires imagination, wit, and style to be carried off, and carried off it is. The story of LND, meanwhile, can be--and has been--concocted by any fifteen-year-old E/C shipper on Fanfiction.net.

~LCD

(and sometimes written better than LND... )

---


StrangerThanUDreamt: That's probably why I don't mind LND as much, either since it's an alternate reality, so to speak. Kind of like those comics that are a one-off retelling of superheros. Not canon but enjoyable all the same.

Raphael wrote:

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

Is BaMS really a specific tie-in to the original story, though? It recalls an event that never took place in the first musical.

R.

You're right that it does not occur during the first musical, but she refers to stealing to his side, tormented by her choice, the choice she made in the Final Lair of POTO.

It seems like a tie-in to me.

I like both Wicked/Wizard of Oz story/musical and POTO/LND.
I can´t separate both. Yes Wicked and Wizard are from different ones, but I like to combine it.

Some things could be happen in the original and we never had seen it.
Something is phantasy...!

LND could have a better story, we all know that.
But it has his lovely, nice moments...

@Bric:
Even if I can still see Phantom with a largely untarnished view (I couldn't help thinking of LND during the Final Lair as Christine left with Raoul when I saw the original in London recently), the more LND plays to audiences who don't know a lot about POTO and the more little changes (if they actually are) that are made in the original to accomodate the sequel, the more tarnished POTO is even if not in the minds of some of its fans.
----------------------------------------

Why do you think that? And what do you think would change in the minds of its fans?
People who don´t know much about POTO wouldn´t think about it. I think so, if they go only one time.

The recurring theme on this thread is that those who can somehow enjoy LND is that they don't view it as a sequel. As I said earlier, no-one should have to pretend the show is something that isn't in order to be able to stand it. As a sequel, it's an outright failure, and these days the show DOES market itself very much as a sequel. Even though I would still consider the storyline ridiculously soap-opera-ish and the lyrics beyond trite, I would have far less of a problem with LND if it completely disassociated itself with Phantom. ALW should have clearly done this; he obviously was not keen on writing a "sequel" per se in view of his attempts to portray it as a standalone show. It seems the ONLY reason it was written as a sequel was because he wanted a hit, a hit he hasn't had in ages, and he felt the only way to do that was to parasitise the success of the original.

The other difference between Wizard of Oz and Wicked is that they weren't written by the same people, so you don't have the issue of people taking the latter as canon -- whereas I think you do with LND -- and the marketing/staging of Wizard of Oz is NEVER retroactively altered in order to accommodate Wicked, so even if you were a die-hard Oz fan but hated Wicked, you could quite easily ignore the latter. You can't, sadly, with LND, and it is this that grates. It also helps that Gregory Maguire's novel, at least, was rather well written. You can't say that about Phantom of Manhattan, and definitely not about Ben Elton's s***pile of a book.

Bric wrote:You're right that it does not occur during the first musical, but she refers to stealing to his side, tormented by her choice, the choice she made in the Final Lair of POTO.

It seems like a tie-in to me.

I never took that line reading that way. But then again, when I am forced to sit though BaMS, I mentally superimpose my own, far superior lyrics over Slater's pabulum.

Seriously, I deserve a medal for managing to get the words "porked", "rode", "pe@rl necklace", "dirty s@nchez", "rusty tromb0ne", and "69" all in one verse.

R.

Scorp wrote:The recurring theme on this thread is that those who can somehow enjoy LND is that they don't view it as a sequel. As I said earlier, no-one should have to pretend the show is something that isn't in order to be able to stand it. As a sequel, it's an outright failure, and these days the show DOES market itself very much as a sequel. Even though I would still consider the storyline ridiculously soap-opera-ish and the lyrics beyond trite, I would have far less of a problem with LND if it completely disassociated itself with Phantom. ALW should have clearly done this; he obviously was not keen on writing a "sequel" per se in view of his attempts to portray it as a standalone show. It seems the ONLY reason it was written as a sequel was because he wanted a hit, a hit he hasn't had in ages, and he felt the only way to do that was to parasitise the success of the original.

The other difference between Wizard of Oz and Wicked is that they weren't written by the same people, so you don't have the issue of people taking the latter as canon -- whereas I think you do with LND -- and the marketing/staging of Wizard of Oz is NEVER retroactively altered in order to accommodate Wicked, so even if you were a die-hard Oz fan but hated Wicked, you could quite easily ignore the latter. You can't, sadly, with LND, and it is this that grates. It also helps that Gregory Maguire's novel, at least, was rather well written. You can't say that about Phantom of Manhattan, and definitely not about Ben Elton's s***pile of a book.

This. This. This. This.

Raphael wrote:

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

Is BaMS really a specific tie-in to the original story, though? It recalls an event that never took place in the first musical.

R.

No, I suppose not a specific tie-in---depends on how you look at it, I think. Since it occurs at some time after the last scene of POTO and refers to a decision Christine made in the last scene, I see it as a tie-in, but ya wouldn't have to.

ALW promoting the LND DVD in a half-hour radio interview with the BBC. At around the 5 minute mark, he talks about LSD (I think he calls it "Love Must Die" or something like that), and again perpetuates what I think is a lie, i.e. that LSD made up the fake blog reviews that were all over the Net during the show's previews. Is there really ANY evidence of this? All the posts that the press talked about the WOS board were made by regular users, who all have profiles and a post history. They don't look like fake accounts, and what's more, they also describe the show in detail before it opened - so how can they be fake? I hope no-one buys this rubbish. I suspect ALW even believes it himself because his support team lied to or simplified things for him. Either that, or he knows he's lying through his teeth.

When asked about his recent clash with Tim Rice about the JCS reality show, he refuses to comment.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cwrtj/Front_Row_Andrew_Lloyd_Webber_on_Phantom_sequel_Love_Never_Dies/

It begins at 5:44

I don't know whether he is lying or just believes what he is told by whoever "researched" LSD. I think it's clear that he likes believing what he says; it helps him to explain why LND failed in London (besides blaming the failure on his illness).

I've never been an insider, but I am as sure as I can be that the LSD group was not "professionally organized," something he states as fact. There was a TIMES interview with the young man who began it (and then stepped away) in which he was described as "a young professional." That's as close to professional it got.

I am confident that all the others involved then and now are volunteers. It looks like ALW can't believe that there was a spontaneous dislike of LND, mostly by POTO fans, and that those people posted what they thought.

Yes, they gathered negative reviews and linked them. It's *possible* some individuals put their personal reviews on more than one message board, maybe even using more than one name. There has never been any person or committee that had any power or control over what anyone wrote.

Nonetheless, there were plenty of independent bloggers, posters on message boards, and professional critics who were critical of his "baby"----and still are, despite the improvements in the visual appeal and some streamlining of the flow of the story.

One encouraging thing for me comes out in the interview. He seems to be saying, for now at least, that he is not going to produce any further productions of LND. He does say that there are a couple of Broadway producers in Sydney seeing the show, but if part of his reason for all of the private screening for influential media people was to attract Broadway money for a RUG production, it hasn't happened. MAYBE some producer will be sufficiently impressed in Sydney to come up with the money SOME day.

Bric wrote:
One encouraging thing for me comes out in the interview. He seems to be saying, for now at least, that he is not going to produce any further productions of LND. He does say that there are a couple of Broadway producers in Sydney seeing the show, but if part of his reason for all of the private screening for influential media people was to attract Broadway money for a RUG production, it hasn't happened. MAYBE some producer will be sufficiently impressed in Sydney to come up with the money SOME day.

So, what's the over/under on how long it will take him to publicly admit the silly thing just isn't as good as he wants to believe it is? I give it five years or the press tour for his Profumo Affair musical, whichever comes first.

~LCD

Bric wrote:
Yes, they gathered negative reviews and linked them. It's *possible* some individuals put their personal reviews on more than one message board, maybe even using more than one name. There has never been any person or committee that had any power or control over what anyone wrote.

Nonetheless, there were plenty of independent bloggers, posters on message boards, and professional critics who were critical of his "baby"----and still are, despite the improvements in the visual appeal and some streamlining of the flow of the story.

Exactly! I am 100% certain that the online postings newspapers like The Times were reporting on were not ones from diehard Phantom fans - this is a myth. Well, they might have been fans, but they weren't anyone connected with communities like Deserted Phans. IIRC, the original Times article was referring to postings on the WOS board, which are anything but fake -- you can tell because they are under registered usernames. Considering how much moderation goes on that board and how detailed some of the descriptions are of the show (a show that was only in previews, with no images of the set having yet come out), it seems EXTREMELY unlikely they are all the same person as ALW alleges (who seriously would have the time to do that?), particularly since all of those posters had individual extensive post histories. In fact, I know (online) one of the ones who was quoted by the Times; he's not a Phantom fanatic, but an ALW fan, and (to my chagrin) he's actually come round to the show in its Australian incarnation and enjoys the DVD (although he assures me he still hates the story), but his post on WOS board after seeing a London preview is anything but fake.

LadyCDaae wrote:So, what's the over/under on how long it will take him to publicly admit the silly thing just isn't as good as he wants to believe it is? I give it five years or the press tour for his Profumo Affair musical, whichever comes first.

I've seen him knock the Schumacher film in interviews more frequently now, and it's 2012. Film got released at end of 2004. So maybe he'll start trashing LND around 2018/2019. Unless his next one premieres before that and he wants to market it as his big comeback return, in which case I'm sure we'll start seeing him say how he was never happy with Ben Elton's story anyway and how Glenn Slater also let him down and how, really, everyone except himself is to blame.

Funny thing in that interview is that he says he might stop pushing so hard for the Broadway run because he's scared of LND being seen as some kind of vanity project. I think it's too late to prevent giving that impression, Andrew...

For the first time, Michael Crawford comments on "Love Never Dies":

"I haven't seen Love Never Dies. I really did love Phantom, and I felt it resolved itself in the end, that was the end of the story, and when I saw there was going to be a sequel, I couldn't quite imagine him resurrecting himself in the way that they had in mind."

From video, here: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8433914/the-phantom-of-the-opera-is-here

operafantomet wrote:For the first time, Michael Crawford comments on "Love Never Dies":

"I haven't seen Love Never Dies. I really did love Phantom, and I felt it resolved itself in the end, that was the end of the story, and when I saw there was going to be a sequel, I couldn't quite imagine him resurrecting himself in the way that they had in mind."

From video, here: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8433914/the-phantom-of-the-opera-is-here

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Michael is the Pope of All Phantoms.

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:

operafantomet wrote:For the first time, Michael Crawford comments on "Love Never Dies":

"I haven't seen Love Never Dies. I really did love Phantom, and I felt it resolved itself in the end, that was the end of the story, and when I saw there was going to be a sequel, I couldn't quite imagine him resurrecting himself in the way that they had in mind."

From video, here: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8433914/the-phantom-of-the-opera-is-here

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Michael is the Pope of All Phantoms.

~LCD

And if I might take this opportunity to quote from LND for the first and last time...

"YES!!!!!!"

R.

MC, you done us proud.

Thanks for sharing that, Anea. Really brought a smile to my face.

~Madame~

Crawford, thy name is holy Phantom father.

Who have seen Celia Graham in LND?

So I finally decided that today was a just as good as any other day to (wo)man up and watch LND. Here follows my opinion on it.
(I suppose that everything that needs to be said about LND already have been spoken but oh well.)

It seems like those behind the Australian version have listen to some of the criticism about the show. For example did they decide to explain why 10 years later suddenly became 1905 instead of 1892...by saying that the original part was happening in 1895. Of course this still doesn’t explain why the POTO stage version says that it’s taking place 1881/1882. Or in the movie version 1871, and because of the whole “big fire at the opera” they mention in the beginning we can suppose that they decides too follow the movie version cant we? Not really because they seems to have mixed and matched the movie version, the original stage version and the 25 year celebration version as they pleased. (And spiced it up with a whole lot of things which doesn’t match any version but I digress).

It do exist good thing in the musical actually. Particularly if you compare it to the London version which was one big mess. The costumes was better and so was the stage décor.

The stage choreography was really good even if my thoughts more went to The Moulin Rouge than give me the gothic romantic Edgar Allan Poe feeling the original Phantom gave me but it was still good. Also some of the music was actually rather pleasant. Unfortunately the lyrics and the story is still absolutely horrible.
It actually surprise me that there are E/C phans who likes this because it completely ruins the ship. In LND I don’t feel that E/C belongs together, as a matter of fact I think that Christine should run as far as she can! Neither do I like the Phantom, quite the opposite. He’s an horrible and very unsympatic character. Honestly, the way they (Phantom and Raoul) treat Christine -like she was a object to be owned instead of an human being- makes the original musical seem like a feminist manifesto! Neither do I care about the actor who plays the Phantom.
Of course he isn’t the only character which gets on my nerves in this play.
Madame Giry is an greedy selfish woman who only cares about money and have happily watched her daughter prostitute herself.
The character of Raoul have been molded after some bad fanfics. Even then he’s a better and more well rounded character the Phantom.
The tree “freaks” annoys me greatly.
So does Gustave.
Christine…well. I suppose they haven’t messed up her character all to dramatically if you forget that they have dumbed down her and made her even more indecisive and confused. (The actress on the other hand is quite good).
In the end it’s only poor Meg which have my unreserved sympathy!

Some scenes I would have enjoyed much more if they haven’t been in an POTO sequel. “The Coney Island Waltz” for example. The feverish tone of the scene would have perhaps worked if they decided to do an POTO prequel but the Phantom as an freakshow owner? You doesn’t need to have graduated in psychology to understand why that would be rather unlikely. And Mister Y? Phantasma? Oh La La girls? Please…
The vaudeville music worked very well for the era in which the musical is set but could anybody see the Phantom write such music?
The number which I enjoyed the most was “Dear old friend“, it was nice to see that they decided to not completely ruin Christine’s and Meg’s friendship, it was also quite well performed and directed. I liked it, even if at least half of the characters in the scene was ooc.

The part I liked the least was everything which comes after that scene Beauty underneath etc till the ending of the first act. “The Beauty underneath” creped me out, “Beautiful” made me embarrassed and the ending was a complete let down. And what was it with the Phantom makeup? Why had they toned it down?
Then of course there are the huge plot holes which have been mentioned times before so I’m not going to drag them up again. Same thing can be said about most of the uneven score.
Something that considerably irritated me was the use of music from the original. In a stand alone musical? Really ALW, I actually thought you where going to accept that some phans don’t see LND as an official sequel set in stone…instead of trying to force it down our throats.

My final thoughts about it? I didn’t hate it with as much venom I feared I was going to. Probably because I have already listen to the OLC read the summary and watched clips on you tube, so I was prepared. But I can’t say that I liked it.
So now I think I’ve been giving this musical enough of chances.
I didn’t, as many other phans, hate the idea of a sequel. I wanted to like it. I thought when I first heard about it in the late 90’s that in was an great idea. I was looking forward too it. Even right before its release I was hoping that LND would be ALW’s big comeback and that it would be just as fantastic as POTO was.
I simply can’t force myself to enjoy LND no matter how much I tries. Me and the fans of it (and ALW) simply have to agree to disagree.

Well now this is interesting...it seems a scathing review was removed from Time Out Australia after the LND PTB threatened to pull their advertising dollars. Read the critic's story (and her wonderfully insightful analysis of the flaws inherent in the characters and plot) here.

~LCD

That, LCD, was an enormously satisfying read, and really does hit the nail on the head with regard to many of the flaws I see in the show. Thank you for sharing it here.

And very telling that the powers at LND felt so threatened by it that they used their commercial clout to essentially censor the review.

Edit:

I've been giving some thought to this and, admittedly without knowing the full facts of the situation, I think that Out Now should have stood firm and defended its reviewer and the review against censorship. At that point, what could LND have done? It could hardly have filed a lawsuit against the newspaper/reviewer, because critical reviews are subjective opinions.

If LND had persisted in trying to get the review removed, I think that Out Now could have struck back by publishing a separate article exposing LND's bullying tactics. This would be terribly bad publicity for the show and something I think that LND would really want to avoid. Also, this would have boosted Out Now's reputation by giving it the integrity that a "our opinion / silence can't be bought" stance affords.

Anyhow, too late now, I suppose. Just a missed opportunity to make an example out of production companies that abuse their influence.

~Madame~

"The plot of Love Never Dies is so thin it should be put on a cheeseburger diet"

As for the review, it is wonderfully snarky and rather hilarious. It states clearly where the issues of the musical lies. But it is a bold style going directly on Andrew Lloyd Webber, and I can sorta - SORTA - see how the powers-to-be was able to get it offline. They could argue it was not a review (well, in the traditional sense), and with some uncalled for comments (ALW on botox comes to mind). Personally I though the review was a lot more innovative AND informative than your general review. Especially this:

What really hurt was witnessing the one-thousand odd invited guests pour into the Capitol Theatre, many dressed to the nines, sit through this regressive exercise in egomania, and not only applaud the show, but applaud themselves for Supporting the Arts. It hurt knowing that for many this will be the only performance they see all year, and they didn’t even have to pay for it. It hurt being forced to endure two and a half hours (really more like three when the absurdly long interval was taken into account) of sentimental, nonsensical, ideologically conservative drivel, and know that across town, local and international works of much greater innovation were struggling to sell venues of half the capacity.

That is of course the issue of all theatre, that "worthy" production often looses out to those with the right connections and/or economical muscles. But it's especially apparent with LND, where the composer decided long before the world premiere that it was something the world needed. It would not have survived West End on its own (that is, without RUG covering the weekly economical losses), and no other musical would get such a second chance. I don't even doubt it'll get a great third chance. Not because of its quality, but because of the composer's love for the project.

Thank you for interesting thoughts on the DVD, Lalilaloli!

I find her comparisons with Twilight particularly apt. It bothers me a little that more people aren't disturbed by a plot that puts the female lead on the same level as a poker chip.

~LCD

The misogyny in the piece is pretty striking, so I thought about writing the review as a hard-core piece of academic feminist deconstructionism.

I've thought the same from the beginning and would love to read someone's analysis of this.

R.

Raphael wrote:

The misogyny in the piece is pretty striking, so I thought about writing the review as a hard-core piece of academic feminist deconstructionism.

I've thought the same from the beginning and would love to read someone's analysis of this.

R.

Agreed. I think there is a case for misogyny generally in the Lloyd Webber canon (the women tend to be whores or angelic virgins), but it is very, very blatant in LND.

This whole thing seems to be another depressing reminder of how corrupt the system is. First that false quote attributed to the London Times, then the whole debacle with the Telegraph and now Time Out basically being financially blackmailed. Every time I think it can't get worse with this show, it does. I don't know if it's ALW or RUG who come up with this ridiculous behaviour, but it really really reeks of the actions of a spoilt brat. A producer friend of mine I mentioned this to today told me unfortunately this sort of behaviour, though completely unethical, is common practice in the theatre world. Saddens me.

I'm laughing so hard... Just cause I also did it... If only with fewer criteria, and watered out ouzo!

LND Drinking Game - Final Tallies
Christine says “Darling”: 6
Ben uses his ~mysterious~ voice: 6
Any variation of “10 years” : 11
Raoul & Alcohol (references/drinks): 15
Blatantly obvious autotune: 18
GET THIS KID AN ADULT moments: 22
Someone says “Beautiful”: 23
POTO motifs/references: 30
Ben’s Crazy Eyes/Faces: 36
Someone says “Beauty”: 38
-
Estimated amount of liquid consumed (sips only): 55 oz/1559.223 g
Total Drinks taken: 205
Approximate Amount of Equivalent Shots: 37
Moral of the story: Should be done non-alcoholically/not at all

http://wanderingchild.tumblr.com/tagged/LND-drinking-game

Hahaha, Anea, that's hilarious! Wow, combined 61 times of use of some permutation of "beauty". I knew it was pervasive, but holy moly!

The only time I can recall offhand the use of the word in the original show is, "this repulsive carcass who dreams of beauty, secretly, secretly..."

Way more effective than any use of the term in the entirety of LND, I think.

Also, that's some serious drinking, there.

~Madame~

Madame Giry wrote:Hahaha, Anea, that's hilarious! Wow, combined 61 times of use of some permutation of "beauty". I knew it was pervasive, but holy moly!

The only time I can recall offhand the use of the word in the original show is, "this repulsive carcass who dreams of beauty, secretly, secretly..."

I think "Turning from true beauty" in Wandering Child may be the only other occasion.

So another production of "Love Never Dies" is announced. At Det Ny Teater in Copenhagen.

They've been interested in the show since it premiered in London, but they went to see the London production and said there needed to be big changes before they would touch it. So I'm guessing they've gotten free hands, or they've seen the Aussie version and thought the changes were substancial enough.

A couple of Phantom people are announced in the creative team so far - most noticeable Per Engström as conductor, and Karen Hoffman as translator. And somehow I would not be surprised if we see Tomas Kofod (Raoul/Phantom u/s) as Mr. Y.

Most of all I'm surprised they have announced a long season for the show, almost a year playing from September 2012 to May 2013. This is a theatre in desperate need for money, and they announce LND as their grand production? Oi... I have no doubt it'll be a grand production, but one attracting the audience? Not convinced.

Well, at least they'll get Andrew Lloyd Webber's attention.