Love Never Dies - all views allowed

I may be an E/C fan, but I am not in favor of this sequel. So happy I am no where near where it will be playing, and other than sharing thoughts with the rest of you, I can be blissfully ignorant of it should I wish to be.

There are some E/C fans (who have always been zealous to the point of extreme open hostility towards anyone who showed a differing opinion, no matter how nicely stated) who are acting as if the pre-wedding one night stand completely vindicates them.

As far as I'm concerned, the pre-wedding night "quickie" does nothing but cheapen Christine's character. I've always admired Christine, whether we're talking Leroux or ALW. As far as I'm concerned, it validates all those people who've accused her of being vacillating and manipulative, and does nothing but cheapen her character. Grr...

Sorry I should clarify E/C fans on the other end of the scale... You can be an E/C fan but like you still feel it cheapens her character. To be honest, all the characters appear to have been cheapened, especially Christine. Is cheapened a word?

dolly-ry wrote:Sorry I should clarify E/C fans on the other end of the scale... You can be an E/C fan but like you still feel it cheapens her character. To be honest, all the characters appear to have been cheapened, especially Christine. Is cheapened a word?

It is after seeing "love Never Dies"!

*lol* It is in my book! And yes, I agree that this story cheapens and distorts all the characters. If this were somebody's fan fic, I probably wouldn't mind because this is the kind of story you find in many of them. And if it were anybody but Andrew Lloyd Webber putting this on, tying it to the coat tails of his Phantom of the Opera, it would be roundly jeered for the silly story that it is. I don't pretend to be able to know what goes on in someone else's mind...but from where I'm sitting, this whole sequel business stinks of exploiting the cash cow.

HDKingsbury wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the pre-wedding night "quickie" does nothing but cheapen Christine's character. I've always admired Christine, whether we're talking Leroux or ALW. As far as I'm concerned, it validates all those people who've accused her of being vacillating and manipulative, and does nothing but cheapen her character. Grr...

Exactly. The whole concept of the tryst doesn't ring true for either character, but it's especially out of place for Christine, who has always been depicted as sexually pure and virtuous--this reads more like something Kate on Lost would do, banging Sawyer and then running back to Jack the minute that didn't pan out.

I haven't been able to bring myself to listen to the new clips yet (having better things to do, like wash the bad taste from this whole business out via methods not permitted for discussion on this board), but I've been following the breakdowns on Phantomoftheopera.com and the whole thing is so contrived and ridiculous that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And the lyrics! Dear God, the lyrics are hardly a strong point in the original but this crap makes them look like the collaboration between Sondheim and Porter by comparison.

~LCD

What really bugs me about the explanation of Christine running to the Phantom the night before her wedding, is that they have sex because she "sees his pure heart":

And blind in the dark, as soul gazed into soul
I looked into your heart and saw you pure and whole

Really, darling? Really? His heart was pure and whole - the man who's murdered your colleague and a stage worker to get his will, the man who's build torture chambers, the man who threatens to kill your fiancée, the man who wants to blow up the opera house, the guy who sends a chandelier towards you? Suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, much?

Also, the Phantom is the one leaving her. She is, according to the lyrics, ready to follow him anywhere, but he leaves. So she crawls back to Raoul. Does she call of the wedding, knowing she loves another man? No. I won't condemn her for having sex with another, shit happens, but the whole affaire seems so horrible out of character, and her betrayal is also totally not OK. I'm annoyed they present it as such and makes Raoul the bad guy.

Um, yeah...that would be the same soul "where the true distortion lies," would it then?

I also have a real problem with the Phantom's behavior--"Whoo-hoo, I'm getting laid!" "Oh no, what have I done? I'll just sneak off without a word of explanation as to why I'm leaving after taking her virginity; I'm sure she'll understand..." (ten years later) "I want my Christine back, dammit!" Dear God, when has the character ever been this wishy-washy?

Okay, one more thing: why is everyone so certain Gustave's musical inclinations indicate he's the Phantom's kid? Mom and Grandpa Daae weren't exactly lacking in that particular category, after all...

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:Okay, one more thing: why is everyone so certain Gustave's musical inclinations indicate he's the Phantom's kid? Mom and Grandpa Daae weren't exactly lacking in that particular category, after all...

~LCD

I know! Oh yeah, so he's written a beautiful tune at age 10. With two direct ancestors (I'm also referring to "Mom and Grandpa Daaé" here) with grand musical talents, would it be THAT surprising that a child of that family had a musical ear?

How can everyone just take for granted that he IS the Phantom's son? People keep saying that "It's the sort of thing a mother would know". Really? Also, since she and Raoul only got one son, it's a sign of Raoul being impotent. Again, REALLY?

That has bothered me, too -- about Gustave's paternity. I'm assuming that Christine, like any other bride, consummated her marriage to Raoul on her wedding night. So tell me, in the days before blood tests, DNA tests, and just about any other kind of paternity tests, without a blatant physical resemblance (such as the kid being born with half his face disfigured), how would anyone know that the Phantom is his father? Did she hear bells ringing, angels singing at the moment of conception? Yeah. Right. Because as operafantomet points out, the fact that he is musically inclined doesn't mean squat.

Reminds me of Sophie in "Mamma Mia!". She thinks she'll know who her father is when she meets the three potential blokes. Yeah, right...

Worrying as it sounds, I think Andrew Lloyd Webber actually borrowed some lyrics from Legally Blonde, yes, really.

HDKingsbury wrote:That has bothered me, too -- about Gustave's paternity. I'm assuming that Christine, like any other bride, consummated her marriage to Raoul on her wedding night. So tell me, in the days before blood tests, DNA tests, and just about any other kind of paternity tests, without a blatant physical resemblance (such as the kid being born with half his face disfigured), how would anyone know that the Phantom is his father? Did she hear bells ringing, angels singing at the moment of conception? Yeah. Right. Because as operafantomet points out, the fact that he is musically inclined doesn't mean squat.

I have a pretty good idea of when exactly my son was conceived (at least I think I do), but that's because my husband and I were actively trying for a child and I was keeping pretty close tabs on my cycle at the time. I don't think Christine would have been watching things so carefully at that point--especially as there was probably a day or two at most between BDs.

~LCD

I have also wondered how on earth you could be certain that Gustave is the Phantom's son. Surely Christine and Raoul did it on their wedding night? The conception actually takes a few days. Who in the world can know which little swimmer actually won? And no, I don't think it is "a thing a mother would know". I don't think she can recognise which swimmer belongs to which man out of the millions of swimmers that poured into her during those two nights. And as many have already pointed out. Gustave's musical talents mean nothing as a means to determine he is the Phantom's son. There is plenty of musicality in mummy's family.

And please someone; what does "Devil take the hindmost" actually mean? I just don't get the title. I tried to look up "hindmost" in my dictionary and became even more confused.

Edited to add: I also have a pretty good idea about when my (future) son was concieved, but that is also because we were actively trying and I was keeping a very good eye on everything. I couldn't say exactly which day it was though and that is my whole point. If Christine has sex with the Phantom one day and with Raoul the next, I really don't think she could tell. Unless she didn't have sex with Raoul of course, but then Raoul would have understood something was indeed very strange.

I think people mean that Christine would know when she saw the son and stuff, she would recognize the Phantom in him. I just wish they'd tell us HOW she "just knows"...

As for "Devil takes the hindmost", it's an old saying meaning something like the Norwegian "Man er seg selv nærmest", if that helps. Sometimes a longer version is used: "Every man for himself and the devil takes the hindmost". Hind is related to "behind", and I think it's meant to incline that those who lingers behind will be snatched by the devil. Better stay on top...

Thanks, now I get it. I'm a bit surprised my dictionary didn't have that saying.

Further on "Devil takes the hindmost"...

I did some looking up on that phrase back when the track names first came out. I should have posted this back then. I thought it humorous to find out that the line's first appearance in print was from a 1611 play called "Love Lies a-Bleeding"

Found this on English-For-Students.com
Meaning:
A proverbial phrase indicating that those who lag behind will receive no aid.

Origin:
The line was first recorded in print in Beaumont and Fletcher's tragic/comic play Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding, 1611:
"They run all away, and cry, 'the devil take the hindmost'."

The expression was known colloquially prior to that though. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations lists "Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost" as an 'early 16th century' proverb.

So, after listening to the whole entire track of "The Beauty Underneath" I have decided that this needs to be done.

Andrew Lloyd Webber and Glenn Slater should team up, again. BUT WAIT. They shouldn't write any more musicals. EVER. AGAIN. But focus their time and their new love for "rock songs" that scream out perverse lyrics and create a alternative rock emo boy band. Yeah, I said it. It's so bad. But help me lord, if there is one song I'll be walking away from this mess and jamming out to, it's that.

It's the most god-awful guilty pleasure and it makes my enjoyment for High School Musical look ... well, pretty damn amazing compared to this. :[

Oh, btw, I still don't like any of the other bits. Now that I have heard the whole soundtrack. :\

MasqPhan wrote:I thought it humorous to find out that the line's first appearance in print was from a 1611 play called "Love Lies a-Bleeding"

I love irony.

ML6 do Gustave's shouts of "Yes.... yes.... YESSSSS!" throughout that song creep you out as much as they creep me out? I had to ask a few people who have saw the show how the song fitted in, was it as random as it appears to be?

One of them said "it was a bit weird but you got into it" and others said the "effects were great" during the song...

Hi! I'm new here. Always been a big POTO fan in any form - both the stage and the movie, however for me they are different interpretations of the story and in particular the characterisation of the Phantom.

For me he humanised the Phantom in the movie and appears to have continued in this vein with the sequel, yet the ending of the movie where Christine dies at a much older age doesn't fit with the death of Christine in the sequel. However, I know the sequel is to the stage version.

Either way for me ALW had put out two POTO versions into the public mindset and doesn't seem to be true to either - what do you think? What the sequel has done to the characters of Raoul and Meg (no matter in the movie or stage version) is just a total 360 degree shift to me. Also for me, the whole Erik and Christine slept together and conceived a child thing doesn't fit in at all with the stage version. Why does Raoul have to be a drunkard? To suddenly cast the Phantom in a better light? The Phantom after all is hardly a model citizen But why can't Raoul still be a romantic figure - to me Christine's attraction to the Phantom was much more about the connection with music and understanding of souls. So why couldn't she still be torn at seeing the Phantom again without over-humanising The Phantom and dehumanising Raoul - just my thoughts

Will try to keep an open mind about the sequel especially since I haven't heard the music yet and try to see it as another interpretation of the story - still 360 degree turns in characterisation is hard to understand for me!

Welcome to the board, Silverfern!

You'll find that while there's a range of fans on this board, the prevailing view seems to be one of intense skepticism and disappointment with the sequel musical. You've hit many of the key problem points right on the mark. There really is no reason why the sequel characters had to be transformed beyond all recognition. To put it bluntly, there is no reason for the sequel to exist at all. Phantom as a stand-alone original tale is a self-contained, compelling love triangle and almost any attempt to make a continuation of it, particularly the twisted permutation playing at the Adelphi in London right now, would seem to undermine the strength of Leroux's story.

Anyhow, I do hope you enjoy your stay on this forum. By and large we're pretty friendly, if not a little crazy.

Regards,
~Madame~

dolly-ry wrote:ML6 do Gustave's shouts of "Yes.... yes.... YESSSSS!" throughout that song creep you out as much as they creep me out? I had to ask a few people who have saw the show how the song fitted in, was it as random as it appears to be?

The lyrics to that song creep me out period. Did nobody during the entire creative process (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense here) ever stop and think "You know, this sounds disturbingly similar to the Phantom's attempted seduction tactics in 'Music of the Night'"?

~LCD

LadyCDaae wrote:

dolly-ry wrote:ML6 do Gustave's shouts of "Yes.... yes.... YESSSSS!" throughout that song creep you out as much as they creep me out? I had to ask a few people who have saw the show how the song fitted in, was it as random as it appears to be?

The lyrics to that song creep me out period. Did nobody during the entire creative process (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense here) ever stop and think "You know, this sounds disturbingly similar to the Phantom's attempted seduction tactics in 'Music of the Night'"?

~LCD

The whole song reeks of pedophilia. I'm quite disturbed by it, and the scream is not what I'm thinking of when it comes to the 'mask' removal.

Phantomlove wrote:I don't think she can recognise which swimmer belongs to which man out of the millions of swimmers that poured into her during those two nights.

Arghhhhh, that's an image I didn't need to picture!

The Beauty Underneath reminds me of some sort of weird mix of The Phantom of the Opera/Music of the Night. Mostly the seduction techniques from Music of the Night which is just far too wrong for words.

ML6 wrote:

LadyCDaae wrote:

dolly-ry wrote:ML6 do Gustave's shouts of "Yes.... yes.... YESSSSS!" throughout that song creep you out as much as they creep me out? I had to ask a few people who have saw the show how the song fitted in, was it as random as it appears to be?

The lyrics to that song creep me out period. Did nobody during the entire creative process (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense here) ever stop and think "You know, this sounds disturbingly similar to the Phantom's attempted seduction tactics in 'Music of the Night'"?

~LCD

The whole song reeks of pedophilia. I'm quite disturbed by it, and the scream is not what I'm thinking of when it comes to the 'mask' removal.

Yeah. Same here. I just listened to that song and got a really weird pedo vibe from it. Gustave: "Yess! yes yes YEEESSSS! AHHHHH!" um, how about no. Please, no.


ETA: Does anyone else think the prologue and end of the first act sounds exactly like "Sally's Song" from The Nightmare Before Christmas?
Seriously. Sally's Song
Beneath a Moonless Sky: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2392950137&gid=320560193764#!/video/video.php?v=550010688987&oid=320560193764

operafantomet wrote:As for "Devil takes the hindmost", it's an old saying meaning something like the Norwegian "Man er seg selv nærmest", if that helps. Sometimes a longer version is used: "Every man for himself and the devil takes the hindmost". Hind is related to "behind", and I think it's meant to incline that those who lingers behind will be snatched by the devil. Better stay on top...

And I expect "Devil Take the Heiney" to be the title of the porno adaptation of LND. Or at least the title of a Erik/Raoul slashfic.

R.

Raphael wrote:

operafantomet wrote:As for "Devil takes the hindmost", it's an old saying meaning something like the Norwegian "Man er seg selv nærmest", if that helps. Sometimes a longer version is used: "Every man for himself and the devil takes the hindmost". Hind is related to "behind", and I think it's meant to incline that those who lingers behind will be snatched by the devil. Better stay on top...

And I expect "Devil Take the Heiney" to be the title of the porno adaptation of LND. Or at least the title of a Erik/Raoul slashfic.

R.

RAPHAEL. OMG. If we really, REALLY wanted to go there, ...