Love Never Dies - all views allowed

I'm sure I have something going on that day. Trimming my toenails, maybe.

~LCD

This show is sooooooo standalone and totally can sell itself without connecting itself to anything else...



parasite |ˈparəˌsīt|
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
• derogatory a person musical that habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Scorp wrote:

parasite |ˈparəˌsīt|
• derogatory a person musical that habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Reading that made me laugh out loud. I nearly spilt water all over my computer.

I found this ticket site in german for LND Copenhagen:
http://www.ddance.de/theater/musical/love-never-dies/57993-love-never-dies

Im a bit curious; some "phans" seemed to point out and critique the show when it was promoted as a "sequel" saying Phantom needs no sequel, then when it was promoted as a stand-alone piece the same outrage was sparked again; I agree it should be promoted as one or the other, and it seems it will forever be known as the "sequel" , however Im curious as to if its just the distaste for the show in general that has some disagreeing with any move it makes or if even those who dont like it would rather see it promoted as a sequel or standalone piece?

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Im a bit curious; some "phans" seemed to point out and critique the show when it was promoted as a "sequel" saying Phantom needs no sequel, then when it was promoted as a stand-alone piece the same outrage was sparked again; I agree it should be promoted as one or the other, and it seems it will forever be known as the "sequel" , however Im curious as to if its just the distaste for the show in general that has some disagreeing with any move it makes or if even those who dont like it would rather see it promoted as a sequel or standalone piece?

I can only speak for myself, but to me the issue is that ALW and the original LND team pushed the musical so hard as a standalone piece. At the launch in London ALW said that "I don't regard this as a sequel. I regard this as a completely stand-alone piece", and all eventual inaccuracies was due to it NOT being a sequel. People ought to free their minds from the original and whatnot.

But the musical proved to not being able to survive on its own, and by the time it hit Australia it was in all ways a sequel - using a lot more of the original music, lyrics, leid motifs, and clear nods in the design (though the latter was also done for London).

I personally think it should have been marketed as a sequel from the beginning, and adapted to at least fit the original stage musical, if not Leroux. The stand-alone idea is nonsense, seeing the show uses the person gallery, main plot, musical motifs AND design ideas from the original. By now LND seems to get it both ways - it should be considered a unique stand-alone piece when there are stuff that don't make sense, but a sequel when it wants to sell tickets and DVDs. I mock that. I really do. Cause I think it's goddamnannoying. Especially when the official POTO pages tries to sell me LND stuff time and time again. Standalone, you said? No. Sequel, you said? No, not quite that either. Just very, very, very, very, very, very, veeeeery unique.

/rant

operafantomet wrote:

StrangerThanUDreamt wrote:Im a bit curious; some "phans" seemed to point out and critique the show when it was promoted as a "sequel" saying Phantom needs no sequel, then when it was promoted as a stand-alone piece the same outrage was sparked again; I agree it should be promoted as one or the other, and it seems it will forever be known as the "sequel" , however Im curious as to if its just the distaste for the show in general that has some disagreeing with any move it makes or if even those who dont like it would rather see it promoted as a sequel or standalone piece?

I can only speak for myself, but to me the issue is that ALW and the original LND team pushed the musical so hard as a standalone piece. At the launch in London ALW said that "I don't regard this as a sequel. I regard this as a completely stand-alone piece", and all eventual inaccuracies was due to it NOT being a sequel. People ought to free their minds from the original and whatnot.

But the musical proved to not being able to survive on its own, and by the time it hit Australia it was in all ways a sequel - using a lot more of the original music, lyrics, leid motifs, and clear nods in the design (though the latter was also done for London).

I personally think it should have been marketed as a sequel from the beginning, and adapted to at least fit the original stage musical, if not Leroux. The stand-alone idea is nonsense, seeing the show uses the person gallery, main plot, musical motifs AND design ideas from the original. By now LND seems to get it both ways - it should be considered a unique stand-alone piece when there are stuff that don't make sense, but a sequel when it wants to sell tickets and DVDs. I mock that. I really do. Cause I think it's goddamnannoying. Especially when the official POTO pages tries to sell me LND stuff time and time again. Standalone, you said? No. Sequel, you said? No, not quite that either. Just very, very, very, very, very, very, veeeeery unique.

/rant

^ What operafantomet said. It is in no way contradictory and hypocritical to say that Phantom doesn't need a sequel (it doesn't) and to criticise the sequel for heavily associating itself with the original when it was stressed again and again for a long time (and still is, particularly by ALW) that it is a "standalone" show that doesn't have any effect or impact on the original. Some even used the 'standalone' idea as a justification for its total inconsistency with the original. Yet it indubitably portrays itself as a follow-up, as in a SEQUEL, and not as an entity that does or can exist independently of Phantom.

Oh and yeah, I am likely to criticise most moves it makes, because all of its strategies so far, from flip-flopping as to its 'sequel' status to its proclaimed worldwide openings (first simultaneously in 3 cities, then widely seen ads in Britain saying it would open in New York and Shanghai and Melbourne and Toronto in 2011 -- only one of these happened), have been incredibly and sometimes hilariously incompetent.

Simon Philips, who directed the Oz production, even made the bold (but completely ridiculous and untrue) claim that the fans' negative reaction was not justified because (his words, not mine) "they didn't care that ALW was writing a sequel to Leroux's novel" and that their reaction was not "literary". HUH?!?!?! To claim it's a sequel to Leroux's novel makes even LESS sense, not more!

The whole show's history is one headdesk/facepalm after another. Someone should write it up; it would read as a story even more incredible (in the literal sense of the word) than The Producers and 'Springtime for Hitler'.

Here's what I wrote on the subject when I did my review of the cast recording:

As a sequel to PotO, it’s obviously pants. It does no good to say “well, people change in ten years” because a lot of the character derailment (such as Gustave’s conception) happens not long after the original. But does it work as a stand-alone, as the production staff insists it does? In my opinion, no. First, there are too many allusions to the original (especially in the score) to allow any real separation between the two. Second, even taken on its own the work has enormous problems. I’m sorry, but people who are saying this is one of ALW’s best scores must not be counting anything before Sunset Boulevard. It’s a mishmash of styles and ideas, and the few good things that crop up are either saddled with terrible lyrics (“Till I Hear You Sing”) or run into the ground (“Dear Old Friend,” “Coney Island Waltz”). The book is a cheap soap opera acted out by horrible characters. The Phantom is a self-absorbed jerk (since the musical wants us to believe he’s a romantic ideal, this has the curious effect of making him less empathetic than he is as an insane murderer). Christine and Gustave are ciphers with no personality. Raoul is a bad fanfic cliché, Mme. Giry is bitter and spiteful, and Meg is a needy whiner. There’s no reason to care about any of them, or what they do.

As Scorp and Anea have mentioned, there's been a lot of flip-flopping on whether or not it's a sequel or standalone, but in the end it doesn't matter--either way, it's just not a good show.

~LCD

LND is for me a possible (one of many possibilites) sequel. It stands not alone and yes it´s unique.

Went to the screening last night at our local theatre; suffice to say ( and possibly to the dismay of those against LND) the theatre was fuller this time around than it was for its first screening, a very sizable crowd for a wednesday night, I was very surprised.

SweetChristine wrote:LND is for me a possible (one of many possibilites) sequel. It stands not alone and yes it´s unique.

One of the things about LND that I dislike most is that it takes ONE of those many possibilities and makes it the official sequel to ALW's Phantom of the Opera.

The longer it survives and the more people who see it, the more people will assume that what happens in the sequel is what happens, and despite other possibilites that exist just in the Final Lair, Christine is in love with the Phantom and has the hots for him enough to look him up before her marriage and have a night of passion, and.....you know all the rest.

The offical Blu-Ray and DVD packaging are printed with "The Sequel to The Phantom of The Opera" so I think it's now settled, lol.

SweetChristine wrote:LND is for me a possible (one of many possibilites) sequel. It stands not alone and yes it´s unique.

It's not possible. The Paris Opera House never burnt down. 1905 is not ten years after 1881. Gustave cannot be the Phantom's child if he's 10 years old. Giry in the original musical never helped the Phantom into the opera house; she was scared of him. It's not possible for the characters to age backwards. Etc etc etc.

Not possible.

Scorp wrote:

SweetChristine wrote:LND is for me a possible (one of many possibilites) sequel. It stands not alone and yes it´s unique.

It's not possible. The Paris Opera House never burnt down. 1905 is not ten years after 1881. Gustave cannot be the Phantom's child if he's 10 years old. Giry in the original musical never helped the Phantom into the opera house; she was scared of him. It's not possible for the characters to age backwards. Etc etc etc.

Not possible.

Agreed. Of course, some people are going to say that LND isn't sequel to Leroux, but to the ALW musical/2004 film. However, even if you take the route of the 2004 film being the 'official' predecessor to LND in lieu of the original stage show, the 2004 film takes place in 1870. That's 35 years difference from 1905.

At this point, though, I'm really just inclined to just sort of sigh, roll my eyes, and move on when LND and ALW's shenanigans in promoting it come up. Maybe it's because I'm at such a busy and critical point in my life and just can't waste the time or energy to go on extended tirades about LND anymore. It's a silly, unnecessary musical that offends the integrity of the original novel and musical, of course; but what's done is done. The people who love it aren't going to be convinced by any amount of reasoned and logical ranting I do to try and change their minds.

I set foot in the Adelphi today for the first time in 5 years (well, unless you count a disastrous encounter with ALW there, but yeah) to see Sweeney Todd. The Good Lord is so desperate he's filled up the foyer with flyers. This wouldn't be unusual in itself, as the theatre has always stocked flyers advertising shows, but these are specially made flyers advertising the LND DVD! I've never seen such a thing ever before. He really doesn't give up with this one...

Ready for this, folks? An officially recorded promo single, with Louise Fribo singing the title song in Danish:

http://www.sharesnack.com/A69AE986AED/auia655n

operafantomet wrote:Ready for this, folks? An officially recorded promo single, with Louise Fribo singing the title song in Danish:

http://www.sharesnack.com/A69AE986AED/auia655n

She's got a lovely voice. Not sure I'm entirely ready for this but I actually liked it better than the original, so that's always something.

operafantomet wrote:Ready for this, folks? An officially recorded promo single, with Louise Fribo singing the title song in Danish:

http://www.sharesnack.com/A69AE986AED/auia655n

I like it...I am looking forward how her Christine will be...

EarlFan wrote:

operafantomet wrote:Ready for this, folks? An officially recorded promo single, with Louise Fribo singing the title song in Danish:

http://www.sharesnack.com/A69AE986AED/auia655n

She's got a lovely voice. Not sure I'm entirely ready for this but I actually liked it better than the original, so that's always something.

Are the lyrics just as bad in Danish or do they sound better? Is that "infiltrates your soul" line still in there?

operafantomet wrote:Ready for this, folks? An officially recorded promo single, with Louise Fribo singing the title song in Danish:

http://www.sharesnack.com/A69AE986AED/auia655n

Thank you very much!
Um... is it by any chance sold anywhere on-line? I'm afraid I cannot google for myself, with no knowledge of Danish.

The song itself is as redundant and boring as before, but Fribo is just beautiful. I can't resist going.

Scorp wrote:Are the lyrics just as bad in Danish or do they sound better? Is that "infiltrates your soul" line still in there?

You mean I have to listen to it again and pay attention to the lyrics? Thanks... I think that line is translated into "den fylder helt din sjæl" (it completely fills your soul). But I am happy to say the line "hearts may be broken" is all gone. That was such a lame line. Also, because Danish "kærlighed" is three syllables, while English "love" is one syllable, there's been lots of re-phrasings of the "love never dies" line. Which is a good thing, as it creates variations instead of endless repeats.

Louise Fribo is, as expected, fantastic. She has a nice hesitation in the phrasing, like she thinks about the words she's saying. And what a voice. Still, by the time she hits the high notes at the end it's clear just how bad that part of the song is. It's a killer for every soprano, even Louise Fribo with her solid upper range sound squeakish, and the lyrics are drowned out. It would work better as a pure cadenza or otherwise vocalization without words.

As for the lyrics, they're good. The rhyme hjerte/smerte (heart/pain) is a big no-no in Scandinavia, except for bad country songs, and yet Karen Hoffman has managed to use it in both "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" and "Love Never Dies"... Haha. But she is such a good translator overall. She seems to always get a good grasp of what the song tries to tell, and she makes an effort to keep the original vowels (and if possible, words) in the Danish translation. It makes the songs familiar. But her Danish lyrics always has a personality of their own, they don't just feel like translated lyrics. I saw "Singing in the Rain", also by her hand, some weeks ago, and had many of these thoughts throughout. It was recognizable (I'm singing in the rain/Jeg synger her i regn and Good morning/go' morgen comes to mind) and yet with some unique phrasings. So I'm a fan of hers.

As for LND, I've pretty much blocked out how the original English version goes, so I won't compare them. CAN'T compare them. But if you'll forgive a grammar that would make every Dane LOL and slap their knee, here's my transcription of the Danish lyrics, with rough English translation underneath:

Hvem ved, om kærlighed begynner i dit sind
Hvem kender denne kraft, som du har lukked' ind.
Du tvivler ikke mer, den føles så markant
Den fylder helt din sjæl, du ved, den taler sant

(Who knows if love takes form in your mind
Who knows this force, the one you've hidden within
You doubt no more, it feels so significant
It completely fills your soul, you know it speaks the truth)

Prøv at benægte, og prøv at gå fri
Men du er i dens magt, som var det magi

(Try to deny it, and try to stay clear
But you're in its power, as was it magic(al) )

Kærlighed ser, kærlighed vinder
Dybt i dit hjerte bor den gemt
Kærlighed er, aldri den svinder
Selv din smerte, aldri glemt
Selv i din smerte, aldri glemt

(Love sees, love wins
Deep in your heart it lives, hidden within
Love is, it never disappears
Even in your pain/despair, never forgotten
Even in your pain/despair, never forgotten)

Og når du gir dig hen, og overgiver dig
Er kærlighedens kraft langt større end dit jeg
Den kommer som en storm, og vælter dig omkuld
Du sanser da en fryd, så sterk og underfull

(And when you let go and succumb to it
The power of love is much grander than yourself
It comes like storm, and sweeps you off your feet
You then feel a delight so strong and wonderful)

Den gir dig glæde, og den gør dig ondt
Du lever fuldt i verd, eneste sekund

(It gives you pleasure, and it gives you pain
....I don't quite understand this line..... You live to the full, every second??)

(instrumental)

Dybt i dit hjerte, bor den gemt
Kærlighed ser, kærlighed lever
Selv i din smerte, aldri glemt
Selv i din smerte....

(Deep in your heart it lives, hidden within
Love sees, love lives
Even in your pain/despair, never forgotten.
Even in your pain/despair....)

Kærlighed ser, kærlighed giver
Aldri vil kærlighed forgå

(Love sees, love gives
Love will never pass away)

Kærlighed ser, ??? forbliver
Alltid vil kærlighet bestå
Dybt i dit hjerte, vil bestå

(Love sees, ???? remains
Love will always remain
Deep in your heart, (it) will remain)

Paul Farnsworth did a super awesome design for Det Ny Teater's Wicked. One of the coolest designs I've seen. He also did the London revival of Passion, as well as Flashdance and Lend me a Tenor.

Therefore... Therefore I had high hopes for his "Love Never Dies" design for Copenhagen. I thought he would bring along the innovative, yet lyrical nerve he showed in Wicked. Instead...




A burlesque clown design trying to maintain the main false proscenium structure of Phantom. But without really... achieving anything.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE SIDE CLOWNS IS OCCUPYING MY PRIVATE BOX, GODDAMNIT!!

From here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=490684514290737&set=a.127173677308491.19149.125311077494751&type=1&theater

I love how at the very top the frog is holding the clown's eyes open so it's forced to watch the abomination that's about to take place onstage *LOL*

R.

Raphael wrote:I love how at the very top the frog is holding the clown's eyes open so it's forced to watch the abomination that's about to take place onstage *LOL*

R.

LOL! And the clown looks like he's about to vomit on what's going on onstage. The design is very apt.

I assume DNT wants ALW to come over to Copenhagen to see it and then praise it as the best thing to happen to humankind? And thereby put DNT firmly on the international cultural radar?

Scorp wrote:

Raphael wrote:I love how at the very top the frog is holding the clown's eyes open so it's forced to watch the abomination that's about to take place onstage *LOL*

R.

LOL! And the clown looks like he's about to vomit on what's going on onstage. The design is very apt.

Yeah, it's like the Ringling Brothers version of A Clockwork Orange.

~LCD

Oh my god. Clowns. I can't believe that the theme is clowns. It's the closest in respect to what Coney Island would have looked like. By the way, I went to 'today' Coney Island on my NY trip, what a trip that was.

operafantomet wrote:

AND IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE SIDE CLOWNS IS OCCUPYING MY PRIVATE BOX, GODDAMNIT!!

Private box? Tell me more.

Did you not instruct that it should be kept empty?

ML6 wrote:Oh my god. Clowns. I can't believe that the theme is clowns. It's the closest in respect to what Coney Island would have looked like. By the way, I went to 'today' Coney Island on my NY trip, what a trip that was.

And how was your trip?

I find the new set a little bit strange, but we´ll see....I think I´ll see in December oder January, maybe sooner.

To be honest it's the closest to an authentic Coney Island look of all the versions staged thus far; I dont hate it, loves the vintage looking prints on the drapes but I do think the colors of the clowns are a bit harsh, I somehow think the original london mask logo, with its muted colors would've looked better at the top, however if they tone down the brightness and age it a bit to look well worn, it could work very well.