Love Never Dies - all views allowed

It annoys me that being outside Her Majesty's! I don't know why, it just does.

Hmmm.... Glad it all amused you... I think other forum members might also have some...

It was lying face down last night, i wonder if someone intentionally did that?

ruthy wrote:It was lying face down last night, i wonder if someone intentionally did that?

Scorp, where were you last night?

I think you restrained yourself admirably Anéa. After all you could have sneaked there during the dark hours of the night to vandalise it. And yet you didn't .

My sentiments exactly, Anea.

~LCD

operafantomet wrote:

ruthy wrote:It was lying face down last night, i wonder if someone intentionally did that?

Scorp, where were you last night?

Please Mademoiselle, don't look at me...as God's my witness...

Erm, well the evidence doesn't look good I have to say... I was in the area and I was completely off my face, but if it was me then I have no recollection of it. That said, I have little recollection of last night in general, so, er...

operafantomet wrote: I think other forum members might also have some...

Is that a cue for me to post the one of me?

Oh go on then, I don't usually (well, I pretty much never) post pics of me on forums but I'll make an exception and oblige in this case.



Oh and yeah, some very familiar names in the cast, a lot of them previously involved with RUG (quite a substantial amount were in the Evita and Joseph revivals). Interesting Celia Graham's in it...wonder if she auditioned for Christine?? I agree with operafantomet about her -- fantastic acting, especially opposite JOJ (those two had great chemistry), but I'm less keen on her voice.

By the way, I forgot to tell operafantomet when we saw Phantom that I reckon ALW might have spotted his nonsensical timeline error re: LND, since in the newest cast programmes, they're now setting the show far less precisely in the "late nineteenth century" as opposed to 1881. I'll have to check how long they've been using "late nineteenth century" for, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's a recent alteration to make a bit of an allowance for the mistake. Not that this really rectifies the LND timeline at all, though... Anyone know what they're using now in any of the productions in the States? Bev Hislop's 'Phenomenal Phantom' article has also been modified to include mention of the sequel...*sigh*

I must go check my programmes. If that's right, and it is because of the timeline issue it is yet another piece of evidence of him re-jigging the original to fit the "sequel/ not sequel" it should be the other way around.

operafantomet wrote:

ruthy wrote:It was lying face down last night, i wonder if someone intentionally did that?

Scorp, where were you last night?

I was there! It wasn't me, I was too busy hating the purple signage! I notice Annette Yeo is in Love Never Dies. I saw her as Madame Giry a few years ago. I wonder if she's understudying the role in the sequel.

Scorp wrote:
By the way, I forgot to tell operafantomet when we saw Phantom that I reckon ALW might have spotted his nonsensical timeline error re: LND, since in the newest cast programmes, they're now setting the show far less precisely in the "late nineteenth century" as opposed to 1881. I'll have to check how long they've been using "late nineteenth century" for, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's a recent alteration to make a bit of an allowance for the mistake. Not that this really rectifies the LND timeline at all, though... Anyone know what they're using now in any of the productions in the States? Bev Hislop's 'Phenomenal Phantom' article has also been modified to include mention of the sequel...*sigh*

Does this mean they also re-branded Daae's crypt to read: "Died 1890-ish"?

The September '09 Vegas playbill still uses 1911 and 1881, and my June '09 Broadway playbill says the same. Anyone who's seen the show post-LND official announcement may have more current info, though.

R.

My tour program from last week still said 1911 and 1881.

OK, I just checked my programmes.

Do you want the good news or the bad news?

I'll give you the bad news, since that's the most important bit: they are changing the original Phantom to make it fit with Love Never Dies. I have a programme from the London show which I saw in late October, and it's still 1881. My programme from last week, however, says "late 19th century". Now, why would they do this after two decades of using 1881? Does it have anything to do with the fact that 1907 is not ten years after 1881? I think the answer is most definitely. I wonder whether it was one of the creatives for LND who realised or whether they saw all the criticism about that on boards like these...?

(Oh, the good news was that the ambiguity of "late 19th century" means you can make it more consistent with Leroux's novel, the events of which are not precisely dated but seem to fall IMHO between 1882 (after the opening of the Musée Grévin) and 1884 (it can't be 1885 or after because the Phantom has promised Mme Giry that Meg will be an empress by that year......as opposed to an Ooh La La Girl )).

Incidentally, I decided to find out when exactly it was they realised their original "1861" mistake that was used in the OLC programme. It must have been either when they transferred the show to Broadway or just before, as my programme with the second London cast (Dave Willets, Claire Moore, Michael Ball) uses 1881, and so does my OBC playbill with Crawford and Brightman. So they've been using 1881 since at least 1988...and now they've changed it for LND. I will be very interested to see if and when they make the same change to all the playbills in the worldwide productions...keep a look out, people.

Would anyone like to inform Love Should Die?

Thinking that ALW must be hating Joel Schumacher now for making it even worse for him by dating the filmthatshallnotbenamed in 1870!

That's just ridiculous and in my opinion, pretty stupid. If this sequel ends up being a flop, they'll have changed something like that for nothing. Still, I'm glad that it's something minor. I admit, when you said that they were changing the original to fit the sequel, I had a mini panic attack. And what you said about Leroux is a plus also. Unfortuantly, ALW seems to put a lot of consideration for the original and its phans.

Scorp wrote:

Thinking that ALW must be hating Joel Schumacher now for making it even worse for him by dating the filmthatshallnotbenamed in 1870!

Haha

TGITPC wrote:ThI admit, when you said that they were changing the original to fit the sequel, I had a mini panic attack. And what you said about Leroux is a plus also.

Likewise! I envisioned something like changing lyrics and scenes. Phew!

Meh, I suppose the only thing we can keep in mind is that as far as Love Never Dies goes, "This, too, shall pass." (and hopefully pass right soon!)

~Madame~

*facepalm* Nicole's involvement revealed: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/xs/646815/Nicole-Scherzinger-turns-tail-on-the-Pussycat-Dolls.html

God, he's trying to turn her into another Sarah *frickening* Brightman. That really pisses me off considering that I feel she's talentless hack. This whole project has offically gone down the tubes for me.

I know I previously said I wouldn't post in this thread (seems ignoring this thing is the best way to reduce stress levels), but I just saw some comment posted on a YouTube video and a user claims to be playing Gustave in LND and says his character is Raoul and MEG's son. Despite that, he still somehow has a "mystical connection" (his words) with the Phantom. My brain can't take this, I'm going for a lie down.

P.S. I think he's real. His name's Tyler Fagan, he has an IMDb page that says he was born in '98, and the name rings a bell because there was a Tyler Fagan who was in London's Mary Poppins.

Scorp wrote:I know I previously said I wouldn't post in this thread (seems ignoring this thing is the best way to reduce stress levels), but I just saw some comment posted on a YouTube video and a user claims to be playing Gustave in LND and says his character is Raoul and MEG's son. Despite that, he still somehow has a "mystical connection" (his words) with the Phantom. My brain can't take this, I'm going for a lie down.

P.S. I think he's real. His name's Tyler Fagan, he has an IMDb page that says he was born in '98, and the name rings a bell because there was a Tyler Fagan who was in London's Mary Poppins.

Ok, confused now
I recognize his name, come to think of it I believe he played Gavroche in the recent Les Mis concert on Isle of Wight.

EarlFan wrote:

Scorp wrote:I know I previously said I wouldn't post in this thread (seems ignoring this thing is the best way to reduce stress levels), but I just saw some comment posted on a YouTube video and a user claims to be playing Gustave in LND and says his character is Raoul and MEG's son. Despite that, he still somehow has a "mystical connection" (his words) with the Phantom. My brain can't take this, I'm going for a lie down.

P.S. I think he's real. His name's Tyler Fagan, he has an IMDb page that says he was born in '98, and the name rings a bell because there was a Tyler Fagan who was in London's Mary Poppins.

Ok, confused now
I recognize his name, come to think of it I believe he played Gavroche in the recent Les Mis concert on Isle of Wight.

OK, he's real. Forget the Meg/Raoul thing, it turns out he meant Christine not Meg. Though, to quote him, "Meg has gone a bit mad" in the sequel.

Scorp wrote: Forget the Meg/Raoul thing, it turns out he meant Christine not Meg.

Ah, ok. That makes more sense

He did indeed play Gavroche in the Les Mis concert. Interesting about him playing Gustave, a lot of people were impressed with him in that concert.

http://westend.broadwayworld.com/article/LOVE_NEVER_DIES_Reported_to_Already_Have_Near_13_Million_Advance_20100101

According to BWW, Love Never dies supposedly already has nearly a $13 million advance sales in tickets.

~Madame~

The world want to be deceived...

Not only that, but I see now RUG is getting fans who attended the LND Press Release to write entries to the LND blog describing their experience and how excited they are to see the sequel. http://www.loveneverdies.com/blog/

It seems like anyone can email an entry for the blog, but of course they retain the rights to edit/omit for length and content. (Darn...)

I guess they want to give a perception that a majority of the phan community is all for this project. :p

~Madame~

Madame Giry wrote:I guess they want to give a perception that a majority of the phan community is all for this project.

Very true

EarlFan wrote:

Madame Giry wrote:I guess they want to give a perception that a majority of the phan community is all for this project.

Very true

Does that mean they're worried about all the fan negativity? I find it hilarious I have to say that most of the comments on those YouTube "Phans can't wait!" videos are from fans saying that they CAN wait (one of which admittedly is a comment from me).

RUG are certainly putting a lot of effort into promoting this in a way that was sorely lacking with The Woman in White and the Evita revival. Maybe they've learnt their lesson about their recent poor advertising.

I'm not sure how much those statistics re advanced sales mean to be honest. The show is hardly sold out for months and months like ALW's shows were in his heyday. Looking at See Tickets right now, it looks like I can easily book for a performance in May!

My flatmate who's a producer told me he heard that the show would need to run at 85% capacity for around 5 years or something to recoup...don't quote me on that as I'm not 100% sure, I should double check. I have doubts as to whether LND can achieve that though.

Rehearsals started this week but supposedly things don't get going properly till Monday. I did a detour past the Adelphi last night when I was in the West End to see The Misanthrope (best line in it was "You could make the front page, like a Lloyd Webber musical...or some other natural disaster" ) and interestingly the foyer (closed to the public) was crammed full of these big crates. Wonder what was in them? Pic:



Looking at the Adelphi now makes me sad. I have such fond memories of seeing the original Sunset and the fantastic Evita revival there...



...and now it's set to be defaced...this was how it looked last night (i.e. they were about to put up the marquee but didn't quite manage it, maybe because of the snow)...wonder if they've put that horrible logo up nice and big over the front of the theatre yet?





Yeah, you'd be right in thinking that I needed to go elsewhere to wipe the above from my mind, so I did just that (didn't see the show, but just admired how much nicer HMT looks without hideous automaton Christine masks):

Scorp: amen! And nice pics.

Must admit I've only seen the "Evita" revival at Adelphi, and I wasn't crazy about the theatre. Too much cinema feeling in the auditorium for my liking. But it's had some great stuff running there in the past, and it'll be interesting to see how LND will hold up there.

Surprised by how RUG tries hard to present this as something all phans are crazy about and has wanted for years. Sure, those exist too. But I think it's a 50/50 split in, and I'm still annoyed it's the "Yay this is awesome" 50% they present to the world. Do I see why they do it? Absolutely. But it's still an inaccurate picture of the situation.

God, I sometimes envy the Les Mis phans, who don't have to deal with a lousy movie musical version and a most unwelcome sequel...

operafantomet wrote:
Must admit I've only seen the "Evita" revival at Adelphi, and I wasn't crazy about the theatre. Too much cinema feeling in the auditorium for my liking.

Ah, but the cinema feeling is exactly why it was the perfect place to house Sunset Blvd...

God, I sometimes envy the Les Mis phans, who don't have to deal with a lousy movie musical version and a most unwelcome sequel...

They get more cast recordings too... *sigh*

operafantomet wrote:
God, I sometimes envy the Les Mis phans, who don't have to deal with....a most unwelcome sequel...

Except that ghastly novel, Cosette. But I don't think anyone would consider making a musical or movie of that piece of garbage!