LOVE NEVER DIES eyeing Broadway; Completely new ending?- Page 2

[thebeautyis3]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 2:24pm

I'm pretty sure Sierra Boggess and Paul Wontorek are the only ones.

[SidebySidebyLogan]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 3:33pm

If this would open on Broadway and wind up a critical and financial bomb do you think it would have an affect on Phantom's box office/run?

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 4:20pm

Kad, your comment plays into having Christine die. If Erik were to die, there would be no opportunity for a Phantom III. As others have said, the ending isn't the big problem. I like the notion of the kid being left to Erik to raise. There's a good song in there somewhere. But as is, there's not much *there* there overall.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 4:32pm

"If Erik were to die, there would be no opportunity for a Phantom III."

And what a tragedy that would be.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 4:52pm

SidebySidebyLogan: The utter failure of LND in London didn't do long-term damage to Phantom there.

But I think it's moot; I REALLY can't see this happening. Unless ALW himself makes 100% of the investment. Nobody in their right mind is touching this disaster.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 4:58pm

Phantom is a name brand. No matter how good this may have been it would not sell the same way. Add to that, Yeston's phantom never really made it to Broadway and it is probably better musically than the one now at the Majestic.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 5:15pm

Nobody in their right mind is touching this disaster.

Oh, you'd be surprised...

[devonian.t]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 5:26pm

I always thought it would be better if the child was NOT the Phantom's, (making what happened beneath the opera house less implausible), but that to spite Raoul the Phantom tried to steal the child away with charm and tales of the exotic underworld. Christine would then have to save another soul from the Phantom's grip; this time she would not buy freedom with a kiss but seal the Phantom's doom.

[Sally]

Posted: 3/15/14 at 7:00pm

Don't assume nobody likes this show. Besides its fans who have have loved it from the beginning---probably not a large number---there are a lot of people, mostly young and female but not entirely so---who have seen the DVD and are thrilled to pieces that LND is supposed to be coming to Broadway.
Are there enough of them out there to float a show's boat (along with regular theater-goers) to float the show's boat?

We might find out.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 3/16/14 at 7:22am

This has to be ALW's worst. It is just ghastly in all respects.

[PTOPhan]

Posted: 3/16/14 at 10:20pm

Mr. Roxy wrote: Yeston's phantom never really made it to Broadway and it is probably better musically than the one now at the Majestic.

I may have the facts off a bit, but I think I read that Yeston and Kopit wrote their version before ALW wrote his. However, they had to wait to produce it until the Leroux original came off copyright in the U.S. (Perhaps they couldn't afford the royalties.) The copyright period ended earlier in Britain, which gave Ken Hill and, more importantly, ALW, the jump on Yeston and Kopit. I don't know if the story is true, but it's interesting.

BTW, whoever likes Audrey Liebross's plot line for LND, on behalf of Audrey, I say, "Thank you." I post as AHLiebross sometimes when I'm too lazy to switch accounts -- I have two accounts because I use this one to post on the boards and the other to write reviews for Broadway World.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/16/14 at 10:43pm

Phantom III?? Goodness, Wilmingtom, please don't give the man any ideas!

I agree with pretty much all the criticisms so far. Love Never Dies just needs to die.

[justincharacter]

Posted: 3/16/14 at 10:56pm

It's not that I don't want it to live on Broadway, the book just needs work. The music is gorgeous and brilliant, and the staging & direction done by Phillip is perfect. The book is the only problem holding this show back.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/17/14 at 10:12pm

To my mind, that's a little like saying, "The car is beautiful; it just doesn't run." I mean, yes, of course, gorgeous music is important. But unless you're staging a bookless revue, a show can't work without a good book.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/17/14 at 10:53pm

I was not saying that the show does not have any fans. Everything does. Especially something tied to a commodity with a rabid fanbase. But Phantom is just as popular in its original production on the West End as it is here, and there's a reason Love Never Dies was an unmitigated fiasco there even after a massive overhaul and more money being poured in. I saw both versions, and it is an unsalvageably turgid and pointless show. The Australian production that was filmed is obviously much prettier, but it doesn't solve any major problems. It can't. Let's pretend for a moment that the idea of a belated musical stage sequel isn't already, historically speaking, a totally disastrous one. (It doesn't make sense from any hypothetical financial standpoint, or even artistic standpoint, the way franchise films do.) This show would remain the ultimate "why?" musical. Nice melodies can only do so much in this case. Love Never Dies is so essentially idiotic and so cynically conceived that it has become an international joke. The idea that the show's creatives want it to be known that they somehow find the current ending "artistically successful," as if the audience just doesn't get it, but are willing to drop it in the future anyway, speaks volumes. It's a microcosm of the incredible combination of arrogant ego and cynical pandering that is Andrew Lloyd Webber.

This show will never have the very long run it would need to be a success, after the initial curiosity burns off. And any Broadway producer with any critical thinking skills will recognize that.



Updated On: 3/17/14 at 10:53 PM

[philly03]

Posted: 3/17/14 at 11:39pm

"To my mind, that's a little like saying, "The car is beautiful; it just doesn't run." I mean, yes, of course, gorgeous music is important. But unless you're staging a bookless revue, a show can't work without a good book."

The Slater's horrid lyrics don't help either, particularly when a musical is completely sung-through.

[RockStarNYC]

Posted: 3/17/14 at 11:46pm

PTOPhan, this should answer your question as to how it was the Y/K Phantom never reached Broadway.
Phantom

[vassey]

Posted: 3/18/14 at 11:26am

I saw LND Version 1 in London and literately sat with my mouth open for most of the show. Once there was a song about Christine having sex in a dark alley with the Phantom, we thought it could get no worse. Oh wait, theres a four-armed robomonkey.....
Shame is, the music is DELICIOUS at times, and the physical production was sheer genius in Act 1, with 3D projections along with massive set pieces - but Act 2 gave up leading to an empty stage filled with a) wallpaper or b) a frame representing a stage. Wow. The basic plot was of course very silly, but we also had (it seemed) everyone ignoring Gustav's repeated psychic premonitions, and ZERO explanation as to who the three freak henchmen were walking about...... The central location, the theme park, was NEVER seen, only a theatre and a bar- why not just set it elsewhere? It had so many gaping holes in it, it was infuriating, and the ending was INCREDIBLY drawn out.... die you bitch!!
The CD release still shows promise I feel, although ALW released it before the staging was developed, so like many of his shows, it doesn't match up with what was on stage.
A mess, but with very slight hints of brilliance.