Love Never Dies - all views allowed

I'm not so sure that even 50% of the fans actually are that keen on getting a sequel. The only people who can make ourselves heard though are us ourselves, especially the fans who live in London around the time when the sequel is opening and might be getting quite a bit of news cover. When the articles report that fans have been waiting for this for years, write to the reporters and show them this and other discussion pages and what's on Facebook and Twitter to show them that loads of fans hate the idea. They might think it's a bit of fun and actually write about it. Reporters like conflict .

I do think its unfair as only the fans who are for it are allowed to be given a "public platform." However, I can sort of live with that. I know that not all the fans are happy about the sequel and I know that I've not been waiting years for a sequel. I don't even think I'll go see it even out of curiousity.

The only time when I start to get annoyed is when the viewpoint is put across that those who are for the sequel are true Phantom fans. It implies that because I am not for the sequel then I am not a real Phantom fan? And that's what annoys me.

ruthy wrote:I do think its unfair as only the fans who are for it are allowed to be given a "public platform." However, I can sort of live with that. I know that not all the fans are happy about the sequel and I know that I've not been waiting years for a sequel. I don't even think I'll go see it even out of curiousity.

The only time when I start to get annoyed is when the viewpoint is put across that those who are for the sequel are true Phantom fans. It implies that because I am not for the sequel then I am not a real Phantom fan? And that's what annoys me.

You mean articles like this? http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/articles/2009/10/09/1255019597019.html

Oh sorry Andrew Lloyd Webber I might have to turn in my Phantom Phans Membership then (I tried to think of something with three P's alas I am not quite awake yet.) Did you make a post on WOS today? I assume it is you if it isn't then sorry but you raised a point there that actually made me a bit sad about how the show at Her Majesty's wouldn't have as much emotional impact because people knew it was all okay and the story continued. That's made me sad because it is probably true

I'm emotional as they come though and as I won't be going to see the sequel (in a way I feel I don't know if I could go back to the original and erase the sequel from my mind after actually seeing it) I'll still be leaving Her Majesty's in tears. Although it has got to the point I originally start crying about Raoul and then somehow start crying just about everything in general yes I'm a mess but it's just one line in the Final Lair gets me everytime. And perhaps people with think I'm even more of a loon for getting so upset and if anyone dares say to me: "Don't worry pet, it must all work out or there wouldn't be another show" I won't be held responsible for my actions.

ruthy wrote:Oh sorry Andrew Lloyd Webber I might have to turn in my Phantom Phans Membership then (I tried to think of something with three P's alas I am not quite awake yet.) Did you make a post on WOS today? I assume it is you if it isn't then sorry but you raised a point there that actually made me a bit sad about how the show at Her Majesty's wouldn't have as much emotional impact because people knew it was all okay and the story continued. That's made me sad because it is probably true

Yeah that was me. I am getting a bit sick of the "oh, but you shouldn't judge till you've seen it!"" nonsense. If someone had told me that they were going to test out the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I don't think I would have wanted to have waited to see what happens before judging the idea. What will any of these people say once I HAVE seen the show?

The only time when I start to get annoyed is when the viewpoint is put across that those who are for the sequel are true Phantom fans. It implies that because I am not for the sequel then I am not a real Phantom fan? And that's what annoys me.

Oh, that one's easy to counter. The original Phantom let Christine go and then snuffed it. No room for a sequel. End of.

And does that mean that Hal Prince is a not a true Phantom fan either then?

--------

EDIT: Baz is at it again.....

The Phantom is taking shape...

Phantom Of The Opera sequel Love Never Dies is like a theatrical version of Avatar, in that it's a long-awaited work from a giant of the genre, it will (hopefully) push musical theatre forward as Phantom did in its day, and it will (hopefully) make lots of money.

The producers are obviously looking at how many tickets have been sold - so far, the advance is £8.5 million. But the primary focus is on getting the show right and the behind-the-scenes work has been going on for more than a year, so it is more than 'right' by opening night.

The score is certainly melodic and finds Andrew Lloyd Webber at his most haunting and romantic. Director Jack O'Brien was at pre-rehearsals on Monday working with singers and dancers, and going over various circus stunts and illusions.

Next week, the full company will assemble and be divided up into groups at a theatrical rehearsal complex in South London.
Centrepiece in the largest of the halls being used is a giant 'revolve', costing some £100,000, which will resemble the revolving stage that is about to be installed at the Adelphi Theatre, where Love Never Dies will begin previews on February 20.

The revolve will be used only for the four weeks the Love Never Dies folks are south of the river, although it can be dismantled and shipped for LND productions in New York and Sydney.

Principal members of the company - Ramin Karimloo, Sierra Boggess and Summer Strallen, who play the Phantom, Christine and Meg Giry, respectively - know their roles well because they spent a lot of time working on the show's concept album.

Sally Dexter and John Barrowman performed as Madame Giry and Raoul on the record, but Liz Robertson and Joseph Millson have those roles for the stage show.*

The album will be released around the same time as the official first night of Love Never Dies on March 9.
But while O'Brien and choreographer Jerry Mitchell put the cast through their paces - observed, by the way, by associates visiting from the U.S. and Australia - designer Bob Crowley is busy overseeing the paint room at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where the backdrops are being painted, and backstage at the Adelphi, where his incredible Coney Island roller-coaster and fairground is being built.

It's certainly the biggest - and most important - musical of the year. And, as O'Brien observed, 'it brings full circle what Andrew has been doing for the past quarter of a century'.

It's a score full of the emotion of the composer's life.**

* This is confusing -- the Joseph Millson fansite says that this is wrong and that Joseph is actually on the album. But I know Barrowman recorded stuff too. By the way, did anyone actually pre-order the album? I admit I did from RUG no less ...but I want to cancel my order...how do I do that?

** Oh, I see, ALW's "broken soul/can't be alive and whole/till [he] hear[s] [Sarah Brightman] sing once more"?

I didn't pre order the recording, couldn't see the point of it since you wouldn't get it before it was released anyway. I sincerely doubt that the demand will be so big that it will be difficult to get a copy (if I want one).

About the pro-fans getting the media coverage: The reason for this is that the reporters aren't aware of the fact that there is a big group of fans who hate the idea of the sequel. The reporters get ALW:s press releases and of course he will write that "fans have been awaiting for this for years" and such nonsense in those press releases, it's his marketing his show after all. It's up to us to balance that picture.

Joseph Millson himself has stated that he is on the recording. It was re-recorded so perhaps assuming John Barrowman didn't reprise his role from the original recording perhaps? Although I am not really sure.

And good point about Hal Prince. Yes, I think Hal should lead this "not true Phantom Phans" group if i'm honest

ETA: I can't believe someone basically implied you were an obsessive fan of the show! We know what obsessive fans are really like and to be honest they usually obsess over particular characters/actors not the show in general!

ruthy wrote:

ETA: I can't believe someone basically implied you were an obsessive fan of the show! We know what obsessive fans are really like and to be honest they usually obsess over particular characters/actors not the show in general!

They've retracted that statement now. I was fortunate to be debating the sequel with someone intelligent and not some rabid fangirl. Looks like he's taken on board my points, and I've taken on his. To be fair I am obsessive, albeit not in the way that he meant.

And what's this about that rumour that a Starlight Express song is being recycled for LND (see WOS)? *shudders at the thought*

Oh sh*t, I can't believe I've wasted my afternoon debating this stuff when I should have been getting on with my mountains of work. Right, I'm banning myself from this thread again until I go see it in Feb.

Well, the big wild rumor that is all over BWW, All That Chat, and a few other place is that Lloyd Webber is reportedly willing to financially back a transfer of the about-to-close Finian's Rainbow into the Neil Simon Theatre (about to be vacated by Ragtime)...supposedly to keep the theatre available for LND in the fall and prevent any other show from taking it.

Tons of things don't make sense about the story, but it's getting quite a bit of buzz.

I posted this on The Phantom of Manhattan thread, inspired to share my story after seeing the burning of the book then realised this would be more appropriate in this thread.

Is it immature on that receiving a leaflet that said "Following my visit to The Phantom of the Opera in January 2008 (I was thinking why pick that date out of all the times I've been anyway...) I should book some tickets to LND." It was a huge leaflet and had the wrong date printed on it (Helen also mentioned this somewhere on the site.) I posted it to RUG with a post-it saying "No thanks."

It felt like a good idea at the time, now I've realised they probably know who I am and that's probably why last time I was at Her Majesty's for the first time since well over a year ago I was searched (I do like a good conspiracy theory.)

I just want Andrew to invite the original team who created the original show to the opening night and hope and pray that they either all snub their tickets.... or they all, openly, dislike the entire thing and make it known.

I've thought a lot about this. What is unfortunate, I think, is that ALW has become more of a businessman over the past ten years or so than a composer (with his reality shows, star promotion, and theatre acquisitions). He has been spending far more time on business ventures than he has on being creative, and his artistic output has suffered due to this distraction, I think.

I believe that Phantom was his last true masterpiece...and he's returning to the well again hoping that he can regain some artistic success and notoriety. And who's to say that he won't? But I can't help shake the feeling that the sequel seems more like an attempt to make a lot of money by returning to the familiar "brand" than an attempt to write beautiful music.

I don't wish ill upon the show and would be fully prepared to enjoy it and acknowledge if it's any good. I'll be checking it out in May with as open a mind as I can. That said, there is a part of me that really feels that the story should end in the Final Lair of the original. The Phantom makes a huge sacrifice and is left alone. There is no more powerful scene, I don't believe, in musical theatre. To some extent, I think that the sequel has the potential to cheapen and take away from that ending. The sequel would have to be pretty darn good for me to shake those feelings off.

If the sequel is good, I'll be the first to acknowledge it. I don't think anybody is fooled into thinking, though, that it'll be anywhere near the calibre of the original (as it was in 1986, mind you). How could it ever be? It would be unfair to expect the show to be that good.

ruthy wrote:
Is it immature on that receiving a leaflet that said "Following my visit to The Phantom of the Opera in January 2008 (I was thinking why pick that date out of all the times I've been anyway...) I should book some tickets to LND." It was a huge leaflet and had the wrong date printed on it (Helen also mentioned this somewhere on the site.) I posted it to RUG with a post-it saying "No thanks."

That's so funny! Is it immature that I want to do exactly the same thing?! I don't think I'll be seeing it, but my curiosity may get the better of me eventually. I'd have to go on a matinee so that I could see the original in the evening. My "visit to the Phantom of the Opera" was in June 2006. I'd seen it once before then and several times since. It still amuses me that they managed to put the wrong date on it.

auctioneer wrote:That said, there is a part of me that really feels that the story should end in the Final Lair of the original. The Phantom makes a huge sacrifice and is left alone. There is no more powerful scene, I don't believe, in musical theatre. To some extent, I think that the sequel has the potential to cheapen and take away from that ending.

That's what many of us have been saying, auctioneer; and probably THE primary reason I'm completely against the project in its entirety. And since I have no sway over it, I'm doing what I can to protest by not going to see it or put any of my money into their coffers for anything related to it.

People often say, "don't judge until you've seen it", but in reality, we make such judgment calls very single day of our lives. For example, when I go to the movies and watch the trailers, if I see one that doesn't ring my chimes, I make a judgment call right then and there not to see it based on 1-2 minutes of footage that more often than not doesn't even truly represent the finished product - not watch it anyway when it comes out since I "don't really know until I see it if it's good or not". And if I won't pay $12 to see a movie I have no interest in seeing, I'm sure as heck not going to spend $100 to see LND.

Anyway, that's my rant. As you were, people

R.

Yeah - as I've been reading through, I've seen that that thread is fairly pronounced. I guess that what it comes down to is that I'll watch the sequel with as open a mind as I can, but my fist may be clenched just a little bit......and hopefully it will unclench as the night goes on.

That old "don't judge it until you've seen it" argument annoys me so much in this case, because most of the people who use it are misusing it. Their reasoning is almost always something like "Andrew Lloyd Webber writes amazing music and you haven't even heard it yet so you should just shut up!" or "I bet Ramin and Sierra will be amazing and you shouldn't judge them based on one video!" Those are valid points, but I've seen very few phans take issue with the music or performances so far. Our problems are with the plotline and the ridiculous changes to the characters, which we do know about. I don't need to wait until I've seen the show to know that these things - a Phantom who is still after Christine, a Christine who has had sex with the Phantom, a Raoul who's squandered his entire fortune, and a Meg who seems more like a Pussycat Doll every time we hear something about her - change everything. The music could be the most glorious score ever composed for the theatre, and the cast members' performances could be worthy of every accolade in existance. But those things don't overshadow the fact that the plotline distorts or destroys most of the original show, its characters, and its emotional heart.

I agree with that.

One of the reasons I'm not excited about the sequel, is that I haven't liked the music I've heard so far. So bland and dull, and the lyrics wanted me to pull my teeth out. And then there's the story line and character description, which doesn't appeal to me at all.

I wasn't a fan of the sequel idea to begin in, so I won't claim I went into this with an open mind. But I hoped that as soon as I got to hear some of the music or read some of the material, I would be wowed. But it had the opposite effect on me. I was very disappointed after the press launch (and people, stop saying that "I had to be there"... Of course things appear different live, but that doesn't make the music or lyrics more well written!).

Several has described this as "Andrew Lloyd Webber's best score in years". Considering what he's written the last couple of years, that's no quality stamp in itself... But with those comment I thought it implied that he was back to his old standard. That is far from the case, judging the stuff released so far.

And from there things have went downhill. The more I hear, the more appalled I am. Prejudice? Probably. But also a genuine disappointment.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. A little add to the idea of how it can be possible to judge the music: The only pieces of music that I have judged so far are those two pieces I've heard, the Coney Island waltz and the song Ramin sings. I assume that those two pieces are what ALW decided that he wanted to market his show with and therefore this music is what defines the show. Of course this could be wrong, but still, it's not strange to think that you take what you think is your best for marketing purposes. I like neither of those two pieces. I might still like some of the other music in the show of course, but I wasn't impressed with the music ALW chose to market the show with.

I have to agree with operafantomnet that I haven't been overly impressed with what I've seen/heard yet, either. What I remind myself of is that countless creators of masterpieces have gone back to the well to try and re-capture the glory, the result of which is they produce something mediocre at best (I'm thinking Star Wars, for example). Sadly, this can affect the attitude toward the original, but what normally happens is that people forget about the sequels, largely, and it is the original that remains. What will probably happen is that this will open, run for maybe a couple of years based on the success of the brand, and then close. In five years, chances are HerMaj will still be raking in the audiences, and this production will just be another added to the list of more obscure works that ALW has written in the past fifteen years that didn't do so well. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that the original can come out of this unscathed -- but let's just hope that ALW leaves the original alone. And who knows - maybe the new one won't be too painful?

auctioneer wrote:I have to agree with operafantomnet that I haven't been overly impressed with what I've seen/heard yet, either. What I remind myself of is that countless creators of masterpieces have gone back to the well to try and re-capture the glory, the result of which is they produce something mediocre at best (I'm thinking Star Wars, for example). Sadly, this can affect the attitude toward the original, but what normally happens is that people forget about the sequels, largely, and it is the original that remains. What will probably happen is that this will open, run for maybe a couple of years based on the success of the brand, and then close. In five years, chances are HerMaj will still be raking in the audiences, and this production will just be another added to the list of more obscure works that ALW has written in the past fifteen years that didn't do so well. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that the original can come out of this unscathed -- but let's just hope that ALW leaves the original alone.

*breaking self-imposed ban on posting in this thread*

That's exactly my line of thinking as well, auctioneer. Even the 2004 film's legacy hasn't been as huge as I thought it would be (fortunately IMHO, as I hated it), and if LND only runs 5 years or so then its legacy will hopefully be even less as an ephemeral theatre production rather than a film that's permanent and readily available to all.

But if ALW dares to go beyond changing dates of the original and starts doing things like deleting lines like Mme Giry's reference to the Phantom's past in Persia so as to keep the idea that Giry harboured him in the Opera all this time, I WILL GET VIOLENT.

Oh, did I tell anyone that Leroux's estate aren't particularly keen on the sequel either? I was cheeky and decided to ask Leroux's grandson about it. He says the estate has never envisaged a sequel and that they'd assert their "moral right" if needs be...though how on earth they'd do this if, for instance, LND ever played France (which it wouldn't), I've no idea given that I believe the copyright's expired in France now as well as everywhere else. In any case, if Hugo's estate lost the battle against the publication of Cosette, there's not a lot Leroux's estate can do about it. Since Phantom was out of copyright in the UK and US (not in France I don't think) when that show originally opened in the 80s in the West End and on Broadway, I assume Leroux's family haven't actually profited directly from the musical?

Hear, hear. Other examples from theatre would include the sequel to Grease (a VERY short run on Broadway -- six months or something) and, I believe, A Chorus Line (very short-lived, too, I think!). Nobody really talks about them. That's probably what will happen here.

What I am actually offended by is ALW's seeming dismissal of the original, but that's more of a personal reaction, and I do my best to try not to let that pre-judge what I think of the sequel. His statements along the line of "you haven't really got an ending, have you?" that he's been making with respect to the original show that maybe he, too, misses the point of the last scene (or, at the very least, is being reductionist about it). If you look around the theatre during that scene (which I do a fair bit), there are still few dry eyes in the theatre when Christine brings back the ring and the Phantom is left alone. To use this "non-ending," as ALW puts it, as a marketing ploy for the new one is highly disturbing. It's the dramatic high point of the whole show, bringing about a cathartic curtain call.

Then I have to remind myself that ALW only wrote the music and not the lyrics or dialogue...!

auctioneer wrote:
Then I have to remind myself that ALW only wrote the music and not the lyrics or dialogue...!

Granted, but he's the one who approves of them nevertheless. I think ALW has what the good people at TVTropes call "Protection from Editors" (no I'm not linking, google TVTropes yourself if you want to waste your afternoon). Basically this is when an artist amasses so much wealth/fame/street cred that they get away with putting out low-quality products, because nobody has the authority and/or guts to tell them "you know, this could stand some improvement." So if he gives his blessing on poor lyrics and story, who's going to contradict him? Besides us, obviously.

~LCD

Another thing that irks me (although it is in general the plotline that does so.) Is, no offence to Ramin, I loved his Phantom but he is being held as the sort of bench mark for future Phantoms (it is going to run at least a few cast changes I'd say.) The casting notice (which I won't dwell on too much Ramin doesn't fulfil the age requirement ho hum) classes the Phantom as a Rock Tenor. Whilst I liked Ramin as a change to the "traditional" Phantom in the original I wouldn't want to see all Phantoms in the sequel being rockier sounding.

And as I'm big on continuity even the ages of the actors are annoying me. Emma Harris as Meg will be older than Summer Strallen as Meg; David Shannon as The Phantom will be older than Ramin Karimloo as The Phantom and I am not entirely sure I think Gina Beck as Christine and Sierra Boggess are around the same age. The only progression will be Joseph Millson (who does in fact have exactly 10 years on Simon if I have Joseph's age correct.) Minor point really but having actors around the corner so to speak in the original being older than those in the sequel... why?

LadyCDaae wrote:

auctioneer wrote:
Then I have to remind myself that ALW only wrote the music and not the lyrics or dialogue...!

Granted, but he's the one who approves of them nevertheless. I think ALW has what the good people at TVTropes call "Protection from Editors" (no I'm not linking, google TVTropes yourself if you want to waste your afternoon). Basically this is when an artist amasses so much wealth/fame/street cred that they get away with putting out low-quality products, because nobody has the authority and/or guts to tell them "you know, this could stand some improvement." So if he gives his blessing on poor lyrics and story, who's going to contradict him? Besides us, obviously.

~LCD

In both cases (Phantom and LND) ALW was in charge of the book though and the overall storyline, with a little help respectively from Richard Stilgoe and Ben Elton, whom I really, really, really can't stand. I never have found him at all funny and his biggest contribution to the West End to date has been We Will Rock You...thanks very much, Mr Elton.

LCD, you've hit the nail on the head and this is what I have been saying since Sunset. Cameron Mackintosh and Tim Rice are both on record as stating that ALW has become a conglomerate and has surrounded him with people who cannot challenge him creatively. That's one of the reasons -- in fact the main reason, according to Mackintosh himself -- why Cammie doesn't want to co-produce with RUG again.

As for Tim Rice, aside from the fact that he and ALW each have a vastly different working ethos, he doesn't want to work with ALW where ALW becomes Mr Control Freak and dictates everything. If you look at any production of Joseph, Superstar or Evita, it's pretty much guaranteed that Tim Rice takes first credit...and rightly so because all of them were his ideas, he worked out the storylines and ALW was merely the composer. Tim Rice's ex even wrote to a national newspaper to complain about their reference to Evita as an "ALW musical", but that's what's happened since Cats due to ALW having two mega-successes in Cats and Phantom and Tim Rice entering a bit of a less fortunate time prior to his work with Disney. But ever since parting ways with Rice, everything ALW's done has been called "Andrew Lloyd Webber's [title of show here]", with Joe Public usually not being able to name the lyricist (to this day even journalists mistakenly attribute the lyrics for Phantom to Rice). I remember once seeing a parody of ALW and Brightman on that old satire programme Spitting Image: ALW had crossed out the name of the composer of the work he was playing on the sheet music and had replaced it with "ALW", likewise with the name of piano manufacturer! So true.

And ruthy, of course none of it makes sense, you've forgotten LND takes place in a separate universe with a completely different logic concerning time and space.

auctioneer wrote:I have to agree with operafantomnet that I haven't been overly impressed with what I've seen/heard yet, either. What I remind myself of is that countless creators of masterpieces have gone back to the well to try and re-capture the glory, the result of which is they produce something mediocre at best (I'm thinking Star Wars, for example). Sadly, this can affect the attitude toward the original, but what normally happens is that people forget about the sequels, largely, and it is the original that remains. What will probably happen is that this will open, run for maybe a couple of years based on the success of the brand, and then close. In five years, chances are HerMaj will still be raking in the audiences, and this production will just be another added to the list of more obscure works that ALW has written in the past fifteen years that didn't do so well. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that the original can come out of this unscathed -- but let's just hope that ALW leaves the original alone. And who knows - maybe the new one won't be too painful?

How can you be such an optimist? But I hope you're right.

LadyCDaae wrote:I think ALW has what the good people at TVTropes call "Protection from Editors" (no I'm not linking, google TVTropes yourself if you want to waste your afternoon). Basically this is when an artist amasses so much wealth/fame/street cred that they get away with putting out low-quality products, because nobody has the authority and/or guts to tell them "you know, this could stand some improvement." So if he gives his blessing on poor lyrics and story, who's going to contradict him? Besides us, obviously.

There sadly isn't anyone to perform that role for him now, since he produces his own works. In the past, CamMac and others, like Robert Stigwood, acted as good brokers for creativity.

I think Scorp makes some excellent points above. Truly excellent creative minds aren't afraid to surround themselves with people who will challenge them and encourage them to become more creative. It would appear that ALW has surrounded himself instead with 'yes-people.' Over the past ten years, what he has produced hasn't been total dreck (I saw The Beautiful Game and Woman in White -- neither was all that great, but neither was awful), but you can just sense that ALW is trying to stick to a formula and wants desperately to have a hit 'single.' While all the talk and buzz of the technology in the show and of the now abandoned idea of the 'logistics' of rehearsing three companies at once for openings to coincide in the UK and America, etc, are exciting, it just reminds me that ALW should be spending that time thinking about his creative role in the production rather than the 'business' of it. Sadly, I think his years of creative genuis are behind us, but as long as his own brand (as Scorp says, "an ALW musical") attracts people, he'll keep producing new work.

I was relieved to see that New York Phantom had its highest grossing week in some time over the holidays. I think that this bodes well for ALW leaving the original productions well enough alone. If nothing else, he understands the language of money -- and it's clear that the original is still making quite a lot of it.

Sorry Scorp I sometimes forget that LND universe knows no boundaries of space and time. Either that or everyone has been having a few drinks of the elixir of life (of course Raoul in his inebriated state won't have thought to do so therefore he is the only one to age!)

Another inconsistency (sort of) with the original I know it has been stated somewhere the exact dates that are on Daddy Daae's tomb but I was thinking if we take 10 years off sequel Christine's age and with the original we guess now meant to take place in 1897 is there not a possibility that Daddy Daae actually would have died before Christine were born therefore making Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again sort of redundant. Of course we'll just ignore that, we will not change the original to fit the sequel in our minds.

ruthy wrote:
Another inconsistency (sort of) with the original I know it has been stated somewhere the exact dates that are on Daddy Daae's tomb but I was thinking if we take 10 years off sequel Christine's age and with the original we guess now meant to take place in 1897 is there not a possibility that Daddy Daae actually would have died before Christine were born therefore making Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again sort of redundant. Of course we'll just ignore that, we will not change the original to fit the sequel in our minds.

I hadn't thought of that, but it's true! How old is Christine supposed to be anyway? I've always thought that she was about 19 or 20. I can't help wondering if anything in the original show will be altered to fit the sequel. I don't think ALW would be daft enough to do that, but stranger things have happened.

And as I'm big on continuity even the ages of the actors are annoying me. Emma Harris as Meg will be older than Summer Strallen as Meg; David Shannon as The Phantom will be older than Ramin Karimloo as The Phantom and I am not entirely sure I think Gina Beck as Christine and Sierra Boggess are around the same age. The only progression will be Joseph Millson (who does in fact have exactly 10 years on Simon if I have Joseph's age correct.) Minor point really but having actors around the corner so to speak in the original being older than those in the sequel... why?

I'm trying to get my head around this, it doesn't make any sense to me. They're probably going for a "young and sexy" cast like in that movie. So if you see the original show at Her Majesty's, Raoul and Christine will be roughly the same age, yet in Love Never Dies there is at least a 10 year age gap between the same characters.

I think she is meant to be around 19/20 (well I had perhaps put her around early 20's but the sequel has her being late 20's...) and I think she was 16 in the book? Or am I getting that completely wrong...

I think my point is it is all one big inconsistency and ALW is making things worse every time he tries to fix an inconsistency.

ruthy wrote:I think she is meant to be around 19/20 (well I had perhaps put her around early 20's but the sequel has her being late 20's...) and I think she was 16 in the book? Or am I getting that completely wrong...

Nooooooo, don't believe Joel Schlockmeister. Loads of people seem to think she was 16 in the book because Schumacher says she was to justify his "young and sexy" fetish. She wasn't. Her age is never precisely stated but Leroux says she attended a conservatoire, so 19/20 would be about right.