Love Never Dies - all views allowed

Current rumor/speculation on the Phantomoftheopera.com forums suggests that the Phantom/Christine hookup which resulted in Gustave takes place after the events of the original. While this probably means the Phantom isn't a rapist, it also probably means Christine is unfaithful and possibly and adulteress, which isn't much of an improvement. (The fact that both characters obviously have no intention of pursuing their relationship further after their final parting is also a minor sticking point...)

~LCD

Scorp wrote:

Madame Giry wrote:
By the way, I remember someone asking earlier about what original Phantom creative team members thought about LND. I won't mention names, but a good Phantom friend of mine who worked for a regional theater production in the US was fortunate enough to have one of the Big Names from the original Phantom on the production team. When he asked this person for their thoughts on LND the person basically said it was a terrible idea and apparently everyone from the original creative team had begged Lloyd Webber not to go through with it, and no one wanted to be involved with it.

Can't blame them for not trying. Oy.

~Madame~

Are we allowed to know which Big Name said that (not the name of your friend)? No worries if not.

I would really rather not say who it was since this was told to me in a private conversation about a year ago and I have not asked whether I could repeat the story. I will say up front though that this Big Name was not Hal Prince. Speculate all you'd like otherwise.

~Madame~

I have some insider information from someone who has seen the first act. Thinking about posting it on here; not much given away, but some interesting explanations.

ML6 wrote:I have some insider information from someone who has seen the first act. Thinking about posting it on here; not much given away, but some interesting explanations.

Going into moderator mode... Not sure if that info should be spilled although I'm sure many would love to hear it. The show being so new, RUG has been keeping things pretty tightly under wraps. They didn't leave those Amazon tracks up and have been going an a Youtube rampage to remove any clips that give info away that Webber hasn't already released.

Might open this group up to problems.

Anea/Operafantomet: if you disagree, please correct me.

MasqPhan wrote:

ML6 wrote:I have some insider information from someone who has seen the first act. Thinking about posting it on here; not much given away, but some interesting explanations.

Going into moderator mode... Not sure if that info should be spilled although I'm we'd love to hear it. The show being so new, RUG has been keeping things pretty tightly under wraps. They didn't leave those Amazon tracks up long and have been going an a Youtube rampage to remove any clips that give info away that Webber hasn't already released.

Might open this group up to problems.

Anea/Operafantomet: if you disagree, please correct me.

It's not much, like nothing really serious given away, but some 'confirming' for a few things. Anyway, I wont share it here. Contact me privately or show me to somewhere that is not open publically and I shall tell.

dolly-ry wrote:I think it shows something when I automatically did sing it to the second refrain without even reading the part where you told us to...

He-he-he, glad I'm not the only one hearing the similarity. I've had "You Must Love Me"i n my head for several days, but suddenly I started applying the LND lyric on it, and it took me some time to understand why... But that stanza really IS similar.

As for keeping "secret" show details on a PM level before the preview starts - yup. As mentioned in another thread, LND is the last thing I want to get into a fight with the RUG for. SO not worth it. But if it's general chat, ponderings and confirmed stuff, chat away.

I was thinking about that silly article where ALW and the director is belittleing the original show. Wouldn't it be better for them to market LND:s strong points (if it has any) than trying to market it by trashing something else? And in this case one of the most successful shows ever. For me it feels as if LND doesn't have enough merit so sell on its own if they have to belittle the original when they are marketing it. And that they might even be aware of this.

And what did the director mean when he said that the original is lovely but that he doesn't know what the *beep* happened in that one? Is the man not intelligent enough to follow a rather straightforward love triangle?

Right, fess up...who added "unnecessary sequel" to the tags for the LND soundtrack on Amazon? You are now my personal hero.

~LCD

I might well be at Phantom on the 20th so perhaps see you there, Dolly-ry and Scorp! But I'm going the night before so would depend on the dress rehearsal for LND not happening and being able to find tickets on the Friday night.

I do still feel strangely compelled to see LND. It's like having a cracked tooth, I can't help poking at it. I must understand everything about how rotten and broken it is and how much it hurts.

Phantomlove wrote:I was thinking about that silly article where ALW and the director is belittleing the original show. Wouldn't it be better for them to market LND:s strong points (if it has any) than trying to market it by trashing something else? And in this case one of the most successful shows ever. For me it feels as if LND doesn't have enough merit so sell on its own if they have to belittle the original when they are marketing it. And that they might even be aware of this.

On top of that point, doesn't it seem counter-productive to try to make the sequel sound worthwhile while basically calling the original, which it's (supposedly) a continuation of, lousy? If the original is such a ridiculous show, why would a sequel be necessary, or even something to consider? Isn't the whole point of a sequel to convey the message that the first one was so good they just had to continue the story? I would imagine, if someone weren't at all familiar with POTO and they read these comments, their thinking would be something along the lines of "Well if the first one is so lame, why should I see the second one?"

Phantomlove wrote:And what did the director mean when he said that the original is lovely but that he doesn't know what the *beep* happened in that one? Is the man not intelligent enough to follow a rather straightforward love triangle?

Seriously. I was 10 years old the first time I saw it and I understood it well enough to go home and reenact it with my Barbies. I know several people who were younger their first time who are still serious phans. (Phantom10906, I believe you were 7, yes?)

Yes PG110, I was 7. But to tell you the truth, I had memorized the whole score by age 5, and even then could recite it by heart. You know something just occurred to me, Anyone else think that maybe ALW is just looking for a sure fire tax right off?

phantomgirl110 wrote:

Phantomlove wrote:I was thinking about that silly article where ALW and the director is belittleing the original show. Wouldn't it be better for them to market LND:s strong points (if it has any) than trying to market it by trashing something else? And in this case one of the most successful shows ever. For me it feels as if LND doesn't have enough merit so sell on its own if they have to belittle the original when they are marketing it. And that they might even be aware of this.

On top of that point, doesn't it seem counter-productive to try to make the sequel sound worthwhile while basically calling the original, which it's (supposedly) a continuation of, lousy? If the original is such a ridiculous show, why would a sequel be necessary, or even something to consider? Isn't the whole point of a sequel to convey the message that the first one was so good they just had to continue the story? I would imagine, if someone weren't at all familiar with POTO and they read these comments, their thinking would be something along the lines of "Well if the first one is so lame, why should I see the second one?"

I've thought the same, and I totally agree with you. If the original is worth throwing out the window, it hardly makes the sequel a good idea, does it?

Anyhow, small samples of the design was apparently printed in a free-with-the-paper magazine called "Seven". It shows stuff from Coney Island; a gigantic peacock cloak used by Fleck, Oh-la-la-Meg, a tattooed Squelch, also "Uncle Sam" and what appears to be a backdrop with a Coney Island rollercoaster (on fire?):



(source: http://www.phantomoftheopera.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=611202#forumpost611202 )

I have absolutely no thoughts whatsoever on the design. Mostly because the scan is too small for me to really see any details, but also because it features (mostly) secondary characters.I'm more interested in seeing how the Phantom and Christine is supposed to be featured, and how much they relate to the original design.

...and I'm starting to think that "Mr. Y" (Mr. WHY?) is a very proper name for Coney Island Phantom...

I swear last night I was just minding my own business on Facebook - bearing in mind I have not ventured to the LND page in a long time- and my Facebook just randomly brought up the group. Very confusing to say the least and also I am sure the ALW minions are getting into the haters computers and trying to brainwash them.... ha ha.

Oh, Meg...

Scorp wrote:

(O/T Earlfan: nice av, do you own the Sunset tour brochure? If so, can you post more pics some day? ).

I posted some in the Sunset Boulevard - topic for you.

Managed to find slightly better photos of that backdrop, not sure I should post them because they come from soneone's personal website portfolio (one if the set painters)

but it only looks like that is fire, it isnt, its a stylised skyline of lights (think of the chimney shyline and smoke from Mary Popppins) its orange because of the colour of all the little lights on all the trims of the coney island buildings. Its quite nice looking, I just dont like that is is so symetrical. There are also lots of little lights in the drop (think of the emerald city in the Wicked curtain)

phantomgirl110 wrote:
Seriously. I was 10 years old the first time I saw it and I understood it well enough to go home and reenact it with my Barbies. I know several people who were younger their first time who are still serious phans. (Phantom10906, I believe you were 7, yes?)

I was just thinking that--"There are eight-year-olds who've seen the original and understand it; would you like me to have them explain it to you?"

Those designs...eh. I suppose at this point they could display the combined brilliance of Maria Bjornson, Colleen Atwood, and Edna Mode and I still wouldn't be enthusiastic about it. The peacock cloak is nice enough; wouldn't mind seeing something like that in a Cirque du Soleil show. I assume they want Meg to look like a cheap burlesque tart, in which case mission accomplished.

~LCD

In all fairness, I didn't understand it when I saw it when I was eight. I couldn't understand anything that was going on, why were they in Rome one moment, a dressing room the next, then a lake, then a fluffy pink bedroom where there was a dude dressed as a girl (and THEN I thought everyone was freaking out because the Phantom had killed the dude-girl and not Buquet), the Masquerade seemed to be more or less a huge acid trip (though in eight year old thoughts), and I thought the Point of No Return was the lair, like a specific literal point in a physical place. And the Phantom looked like the Doctor from Star Trek.

However, that in no way justifies ALW's comments.

well, the first time I heard the show I only had the highlights CD to go by and no synopsis or libretto, I thought Christine was singing Wishing about the Phantom because he had kicked her out of his lair (I was going by the storyline of the TV version with Charles Dance)

Then Point of no return was a glorious reunion number because they'd just reconciled and got back together

operafantomet wrote:
Anyhow, small samples of the design was apparently printed in a free-with-the-paper magazine called "Seven". It shows stuff from Coney Island; a gigantic peacock cloak used by Fleck, Oh-la-la-Meg, a tattooed Squelch, also "Uncle Sam" and what appears to be a backdrop with a Coney Island rollercoaster (on fire?):



(source: http://www.phantomoftheopera.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=611202#forumpost611202 )

I have absolutely no thoughts whatsoever on the design. Mostly because the scan is too small for me to really see any details, but also because it features (mostly) secondary characters.I'm more interested in seeing how the Phantom and Christine is supposed to be featured, and how much they relate to the original design.

I wonder if the peacock outfit used by Fleck is the costume that was recently referred to in the LND blog. http://www.loveneverdies.com/blog/2010/02/05/in-costume/ - "including a gorgeously extravagant – and very long – garment that one of the characters will wear in one of the show’s key scenes." and "Because this particular garment is so large, it is being created in several panels. Each panel is prepared separately, with the fabric being digitally printed (by an amazing piece of equipment which is a huge specialist version of your every day colour printer ) before it’s steamed dry and further decoration is added."

Very Erte in spirit, at least for the peacock costume. Not sure how I feel about the rest yet.

~Madame~

Madame Giry wrote:
I wonder if the peacock outfit used by Fleck is the costume that was recently referred to in the LND blog. http://www.loveneverdies.com/blog/2010/02/05/in-costume/ - "including a gorgeously extravagant – and very long – garment that one of the characters will wear in one of the show’s key scenes." and "Because this particular garment is so large, it is being created in several panels. Each panel is prepared separately, with the fabric being digitally printed (by an amazing piece of equipment which is a huge specialist version of your every day colour printer ) before it’s steamed dry and further decoration is added."

Very Erte in spirit, at least for the peacock costume. Not sure how I feel about the rest yet.

~Madame~

Here's a bigger version of the picture, also from POTO.com

https://2img.net/h/oi47.tinypic.com/hriqti.jpg

The info confirms that the peacock costume is Fleck's.

I'm kind of liking that they are using a mirrored stage, too often the treatment of the stage floor goes forgotten in set designs.

I am also liking the curving of the set, just once they don't go too overboard and end up with another Woman in White fiasco.

https://facebook.com/luvshoulddie

http://twitter.com/loveshoulddie

The Phantom is back!

When the Phantom comes back, and he's writing letters with red ink... sh!t is going down... :O

Oh God, please strike again. I feel like taking a trip to London, running into the Adelphi and yelling the dreaded "M" word about a hundred times. That should do it.

I hadn’t weighed in on this for awhile – not because I have no opinion, but because I simply cannot find the words to express just how deeply disturbing I find every aspect of this abomination of a theatrical production. I feel as if my heart and soul reject this piece of rubbish at a level so deep they’re attempting to block it from my consciousness to protect me. Rather like an ostrich with its head in the sand, I suppose. It makes me feel as if, somehow, the travesty that is this ‘sequel’ reaches back across time to destroy a little part of my phanhood from its very origin. I love this story, and the original show – it’s been a huge part of my life for nearly 20 years! – but it becomes harder to ignore the nonsense (that word doesn’t seem strong enough) that’s been oozing into the Phantom universe since the movie (of which, I think you’re aware, I am not a fan….).

Jeff and I listened to the preview clips when they were available on Amazon a few nights ago... I don't know why.... It's like someone else said - like poking at a rotting tooth to see just how much it hurts? Perfect analogy...

I think I ought to wear black in mourning on the day LND opens. I wish we could gather as a phandom on the Strand and burn copies of PoM in protest. Could we all just declare our independence from the insanity that seems to be swirling around us? Like ‘screw you, we won’t take it anymore!’ and revolt! Could we, like, hole up in Her Majesty’s, or build a barricade in front of the Adelphi and throw shoes at anyone who tries to go in?!? I have some shoes here I could donate…..

*sigh* Sorry to vent and be such a downer, but I've kinda been saving it up and had to let it out before I explode....

~Rebecca

*hugs Rebecca* Let it all out, love, let it all out.

I find myself approaching this project with the morbid fascination other people reserve for large accidents and celebrities in rehab.

~LCD

Rebecca wrote:
I think I ought to wear black in mourning on the day LND opens.

~Rebecca

*hugs* Don't feel bad at all about venting your frustrations here. You, and any other fan, have every right to make your views about this ... thing ... known; and the devil take anyone who thinks otherwise!

I've talked to a few people at school, including casual musical/theatre fans, a couple Phantom fans, and even people who aren't really fans but saw the original show and liked it. Universally they have 1) disliked the 2004 film, and 2) can't understand why on earth there'd even be a sequel, much less one that's set in Coney Island. I actually mentioned the idea of dressing in black on LND's opening day and a couple have said that they'd be willing to do the same as a sign of, as you said, mourning.

~Madame~