@ Schmerg: LOL, I know you're not mocking her. I tease her about it myself. (In all seriousness, she doesn't like Phantom because she thinks it's too overblown and takes itself too seriously. But me, I like spectacle.)
@ Justin: "Looove neeeeeever diesssss" fits rhythmically into the first line of the chorus for Heart is Slow to Learn. I think you'd win that bet.
And LOL, 'Til I Hear You Sing has reminded me of so many different songs. Can't Smile Without You, Why God Why, and a song from Jimmy Neutron called Folding and Hanging.
I don't know, everyone is dreading the sequel but I think no matter what, the music and the actors will be phenomenal, and even if the story line is a little whack, I think that is the point. It is for the die hard Phantom lovers, and there are plenty. It will be beautiful, it will sound beautiful... From what I have heard so far I love it. And SIerra will be stunning.
^I am a die-hard Phantom phan, and I am not into this. But I might be in the minority amonh phans... I don't know. I may be a phan for a different reason than for getting all giddy over a masked man.
How to properly use its/it's:
Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...
You're not in the minority. Nearly every (real) phan I've seen, including myself, has been against the sequel.
There are some who are such die-hard fans that they will eat up anything Phantom-related, whether it's awful or not, and enjoy it, but not many.
EDIT:
"MTV news is revealing today that Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger will be involved in the staging of "LOVE NEVER DIES", Andrew Lloyd Webber's sequel to "The Phantom of the Opera." "
Good god. I physically winced when I read that. It's like Andy is TRYING to upset the fans.
EDIT EDIT:
The article I got that from has become harder to find. Let's hope it was false information. Updated On: 10/9/09 at 11:29 AM
Yeah, honestly. In all the articles about the sequel, there is always some comment about how fans have been hoping for a sequel for years. Uh, no. A large majority of "phans" on other message boards devoted to Phantom of the Opera are dreading this thing. Sure, many of them will probably still see it, just to satisfy their curiosity, but they are certainly not looking forward to it, and I'd estimate 90% think it's a very bad idea. It'll probably open big, but then quickly peter out. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but that's my prediction as of now.
I WAS one of the phans dreading the sequel - but now that I've heard the music I'm doing a big about face. If that story line actually works (I'm hoping and giving it the benefit of the doubt right now) and the rest of the music is as good as these two pieces, then I think it could be a big hit. I'm definitely hoping so!
www.thebreastcancersite.com
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
I think the sequel sounds like a wish fulfillment fantasy played out for everyone who is in love with Erik and thinks Christine is dumb for choosing Raoul over him. Susan Kay's Phantom did the same thing and I found it dumb even then.
And, yeah, most Phans hate this idea, especially because it sounds so much like The Phantom of Manhattan, which is universally despised by Phans everywhere.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
I was really quite surprised that I liked the new piece of music. BUT even more so at the video that went with it - the new grinning 'mask' just looks plain creepy, as does the colorised? footage of the ferris wheel with the spiral type effect in the middle. Chosen deliberately I'd have thought.
so is the Phantom in this sequel still going to wear the mask or he's just going to appear as his handsome self since you know, he could've gotten plastic surgery with all that free time and traveling to the states and all.
If I remember correctly, in the movie version with Robert Englund the Phantom managed to fashion some sort of flesh colored leather into a kind of mask that melded with his actual skin to make him look less ugly.
I was a big phan back in the early years of Phantom but really burned out on it years ago. I didn't want to like this at all, but that is a beautifully macabre waltz.
(I, like others have already noted, picked up some similarities to some of ALW's other music)
I don't think a sequel is a good idea, but I'm intrigued. I don't know that I'll rush out for tix, but I will look forward to hearing more of the music. And who knows, maybe I will rush out for tix.
"Like the good Lord says . . . Ya gotta take the rough with the smooth, Baby!" Madame Rose
"Oh look at the time, three more intelligent plays just closed and THE ADDAMS FAMILY made another million dollars" -Jackie Hoffman, Broadway.com Audience Awards
Not that it hasn't been stated but yes, I found similarities in the music, especially Sunsetish...
I wonder if he wrote in the traditional Dminor 5 note deal. Pretty stupid not to so I guess it's safe to say he didnt...
I once heard someone describe her (Ruthie Henshall) singing as sounding as though she's trying to swallow a whole meatball slightly larger than her windpipe. (The same person compared Michael Ball's singing to sounding as though he's sitting on a washing machine on spin cycle and Colm Wilkinson's to a man with a paralyzed lip trying to eat cottage cheese.) --- Schmerg_The_Impaler
Can I just say, how friggin' cliche is it now to bring back a thing from the 1980s and have the plot revolve around whether or not the kid of the love interest is the protagonist's? Haven't we seen this same crap used in Superman and Indiana Jones? And I KNOW there's one other major one I can't think of right now. And it's always a son. And what else could the answer be, if they explain it? How unsatisfying and uninteresting would it be if it were Raoul's child? No, it's gotta be Phantom's even if we have no reason whatsoever to believe that they ever had sex.
Unless that seen where he lays down unconscious Christine goes on a little longer.
Updated On: 10/10/09 at 12:08 PM
Well said, Scarywarhol. But in all fairness, The Phantom of Manhattan is fairly old and the musical is basically unofficially copying it. Susan Kay also did the same in her novel.
Like I said, I think it's just wish fulfillment for people who think Christine is dumb for choosing Raoul.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
In Kay's novel, it works though. Firstly because she actually implied that Erik and Christine had sex. The kid didn't just come outta nowhere. And In Raoul's portion of the book, he only thinks Charles is Erik's son, and he's driven half mad by it. It's likely that he is, but Kay never comes right out and admits that it's true. She sort of leaves it up for the reader to decide, though Raoul's narration makes most believe that Charles is Erik's. But who knows if his assumptions and the similarities he saw were distorted or not? Updated On: 10/10/09 at 01:25 PM