Love Never Dies -Adelphi Theatre, London 2010 — Page 5

Holbee makes a lot of sense! ALW will of course try to counter with the oh-so-acute comment that the first show was a load of "hoakum", but actually it does have dramatic coherence and integrity.

Who knows where this myth has sprung from that Christine and Erik were star-crossed lovers. Clearly he adored her musical talent and to her he was a father-fugure and musical mentor. That this turned into a mutual love would be a trite simplification of the character dynamics.

I truly believe ALW has been struggling to find a story- he has his set of characters but now what?

Personally this is what I'd like to see:

1. Gustave is really Raoul's son, but he is fearful that it could be the Phantom's. Doubts plague him as a result and this might cause the rift between him and Christine.
2. Erik knows the boy is not his son, (he would remember certain pre-requisites that didn't happen). However, by drawing in Gustave, he can keep a little bit of Christine- plus there is the repetition of behaviour of his mentoring Christine, (which adds a pschological credibility). He can re-enact the past by raising a new musical genius and spite his rival Raoul.
3. Christine now also fears "losing" her son to the mephistofeles-type figure of the musical mentor. The boy, unaware of past events, naturally sides with the exotic, exciting phantom over his stifling parents
4. Raoul faces the nightmare of having to fight for a loved one all over again- this time is own son
5. Once more Christine must win over the phantom- get him to be reasonable- and see that music is not more important than love. The old love vs music battle is re-drawn.
6. The phantom, realizing once again that he cannot manipulate people into love, disappears forever, (swearing never ever to appear in another sequel as he goes)
7. Christine, Raoul and Gustave re-find their love for each other

To me, this sequence of events is psychologically grounded, emotional, dramatic, and would not require characters to become the complete opposite of everything the original built.

So there. If you need a decent book writer, you know where to find me! :)

I have to say that all the ones complaining that people are speaking badly about it are making themselves look silly.

Holbee has seen the show (im gonna guess the rest of you have not who are compaining) and is giving a great report as to what the show is like. Many people are saying the same thing all over the web, it's dull, its absurd, some nice visuals, not many meorible songs etc etc.

Now you can class all them people as ALW haters if that makes you feel better but i would more think it has to do with the show having problems.

Im not a fan of ALW yet im not against him at all (i was in 2 of his shows on tour and did a workshop of another one) yet i aint sat here hoping it fails. A lot of people will have put a lot of hard work in to it.

The reason i think people are slightly against this show is that it's a lazy project, its a cash making project rather than anything new and original.

---

I'm seeing the show on Wednesday so will reserve judgement until then. But devonian.t seems to have nailed 'the book that never was' for me!

It seems quite strange that when I have read interviews with ALW and watched the press launch for LND that he approaches the whole project as a 'bit of a laugh'. If I had come up with the music for something that has been attributed with being the single most successful piece of entertainment of all time; I'd want to protect its legacy.

ALW needed to find a writer that wanted to protect the legacy of the original piece - not his old mate Ben Elton who 'tinkered about' with ALW's ideas until they came up with something they felt was 'workable'. The theatre-going public might put up with LND for a while - but they'll never embrace it - because LND isn't true to the amazing success of POTO.

I will reserve judgement until I've seen LND this week - but no-one has yet described it as an unqualified success, so we know it won't be a spectacular show. What a shame that the potential hasn't been realised.

I'm getting ready to go to the adelphi tonight, I'm going with an open mind neither pro or con love never dies,
Think its the best way :)
Will be honest and will post as the evening unfurls :S
For anybody interested michael ball is on the god awful alan titchmarsh show
Disecting the "first night review" (his words not mine)
Will post later

---

or
'Must Close Saturday'

devonian.t, as much as your plot makes much more sense than Raouloholic and secret sexytimes with Ramin, it's probably a bit too close to retreading the ground from the first show which is why ALW has jettisoned it for melodramatic sleeping around. I can't quite get over how ridiculous having Christine sleep with the Phantom is; part of the "power" of the ending of POTO is that Christine finally shows the Phantom a tiny bit of physical affection out of pity, and now suddenly she's supposed to decide that was the best pull she'll ever have and she needs to shag him now? Ugh.

It sounds to me like Love Never Dies isn't very creepy. I can't say that POTO is particularly creepy now after all these years, but the Phantom is a menacing murderer terrorising the Opera House and the people in it, as well as being obsessed with Christine. Now of course I haven't seen the show yet so I can't comment on what it's actually like, but the preliminary reports suggest that any sense of evil about the Phantom has been removed in favour of making him something of a damaged woobie still in love with Christine.

I'll see the show myself obviously. I swing wildly between being really excited and dreading it. Only time will tell!

The difference is supposed to 10 years after the original. If she was newly pregnant at the end of the original that would make the son going on for 11 years old.

Why would you think that Sierra didn't go on last night? Just curious.

Raoul is drunken and abusive? AWESOME. This is better than I had hoped for.

---

The description of the book to his show sounds more like a sequel to the Dario Argento film rather than Lloyd Webber's show.

---

I don't have his address!

"Also, I've never been to the Adelphi, obviously. I was on a budget, so the tickets we bought are in the Upper Circle, Row H, seats 34-35. Will we be able to see everything alright?"

Someone I know went last night and was in Row N and could see fine although obviously distant. Im in Row K on Saturday night so will let you know how it is up there!

I mean come on, who has time to create a group called LOVE SHOULD DIE to try to kill a show before it even opens and then write with a bizarre dose of schadenfreude whenever there's even a slight mishap??

What, are you new? For many, that sort of thing is a priority in their lives. They think it's quite clever and somehow demands respect or attention or whatnot. If I don't like a show, I don't like it, but I certainly don't launch a campaign or anything. The funniest to me is the attitude that the Lloyd Webber name is instantly synonymous with bad shows. That is so 80s.

---