Love Never Dies (Phantom 2) - Broadway

Please no no no no. Can this idea just die.

Some people will also argue can't I stop posting

Updated On: 3/9/15 at 07:46 PM

Happy birthday, robot dude.

---

no thanks

---

It has some good songs, but is altogether just a bad show. It never should have made it past the workshop phase, but ALW has the money to produce his own work and his hubris is obviously too big for him to accept the fact that the show is unfixable since IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The entire book is crap. They would have to change more than the ending in order for it to work even a little.

The Phantom is a murderous sociopath. Christine specifically says that he kills without a though and murders all that's good. She is afraid of him even though she pities him. This is not a man that she would have a secret rendezvous with, the night before her wedding. She would not sleep with a person that she recognizes as a violent sociopath.

The ongoing problem is that Webber confuses pity with love. He also regards himself as The Phantom, and he still has a weird thing for his lost Christine. Webber views himself as a good guy; therefore, he views the Phantom as a good guy. He knows that he will never have Sarah the way he once did, which is why Christine gets to die in the end. He gets to keep the music they made together, and that is represented in the show by Gustaave. Freud would have a field day with this show if he were alive today.

I get why he wrote the show. I understand why he feels about it the way he does. In the end the story just doesn't match up with the preceding story line. Audiences don't buy it, and that is why it won't work. If it were its own show and wasn't piggy backing as a sequel, maybe something could have become of it, but as a sequel it just doesn't work.

Woman in White as a chamber musical? I think I would like that, especially if they cut out the annoying chorus numbers and just have the main characters in an intimate setting.

But back to Love Never Dies

I have had mixed views on this for ever, but finally I think I have settled my mind on it just not working because the story is simply not plausible. If it were a modern day situation it might be, but back then, for a woman to have sex out of wedlock especially someone from Christine's background would be totally unheard of, particularly the night before her wedding (although I think in the last version the time of this incident was left vague and is no longer the night before her wedding) Even if she had second thoughts and went to meet the phantom for a 'chat' is in it self totally far fetched for someone in that time period.

Therefore ALL the story line about Gustave belonging to the phantom if flawed. I can deal with Meg being jealous and flying into a rage when on the eve of her supposedly stardom she gets put over again for Christine. I can also even deal with Raoul being a giant dick now that he is married and gambling and drinking all the time. I just cant get past Gustave being the Phantom's.

Again for that to have happened in that time period, he would have had to have raped her or she would have to have the morals of a prostitute.

But I did think the Aussie set was lovely, and could be even better if they took it even darker (think of the opening credits of American Horror Story Freak Show)

---

Ultimately the book is always going to play like bad fan-fiction, because that's basically what it is. Every character is a complete 180 from what they were in the original story in order to ignore the fact that there really wasn't much of a story to tell after the first one ended.

also, people do tend to forget that he has a christine-bot in the first one too, well sort of, and no that is not a dig at Sarah Brightman's acting skills but reference to the mirror bride.

But I just don;t get alot of the decisions in the London version, it really is like fan fiction (robot included) and the London set design was so one dimensional and don;t get me started on that bubble gum lighting that plaques so many shows today. I recently did a show using LED and I was easily able to mix the colours so they dont look so saturated and unnaturally 'poppy'

---

The creative team was all wrong for London, Australia got the physical aspects of the production right. It also improved on the two dimensional Sierra Boggess as Christine.

However the story will always be a massive problem. The stupid thing is if you listen to the recording at the beginning it mentions a big fire that destroys everything. That would actually have been a much more dramatic and believable ending

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ9NTgP0ilA
Love Never Dies Australia-Melbourne

---

OT - (but since two others mentioned it) - The Woman in White with some book work and editing could be quite beautiful. The score is definitely under appreciated... would love to see that in a new version (please find someone other than Trevor Nunn to direct!)

Back to LND - I'm an ALW fan, not a Phantom -fanatic. I've seen phantom maybe three times, love the music and would happily see it again. So the analysis some offer over the characters is a little over my head. I simply go for entertainment and try not to get overly tied up in character loopholes (if thats the case, then the entire Phantom story doesn't make much sense)

All that aside, when I first got the album for Love Never Dies, I was intrigued. It sounded darker than I had imagined. Some of the score was quite beautiful. Some of it really seemed to drag. Reading comments on the boards from the previews I was surprised at how bad it was being received right out of the first preview (and thats not the Phan-atics... but regular ALW fans who said it felt long, drawn out, etc) What surprised me was the initial launch the creative team was WAY confident that it was set to be the next mega-success ala Phantom (I guess, when you think about it, should it have garnered 10% of the interest of the original that would have been a substantial run in its own right)

Seeing the Australian production on screen - it felt vastly improved. The score flowed much more seemlessly and didn't feel like it dragged. The staging was really well done...(apart from the original London prologue with the screen trick where Coney Island comes to life the rest of the staging seemed dull) but I agree there seems to be some work still left to be done:
1 - The one annoying thing is how two powerful ballads are back to back "Beneath a Moonless sky" and "Once upon another time". Musically it seems awkward to have two duets like that back to back.
2 - Story wise, when I first listened to the CD's where they mentioned the fire and then it never happens I thought "Oh that was a missed opportunity". I think that an accidental death at the end due to a fire (perhaps Gustave sets it instead of poor meg with a stupid gun shot) would be more dramatic to people
3 - Overall the story was fine to me - I just felt the ending was off. It was improved in Australia - but killing Christine and having Gustave learn Phantom is the father and oh now go with him, wayyy too much at the end to deal with. Perhaps if Christine and Gustave died - and Phantom's selfishness once again at fault for death and destruction would've made more sense? (I can hear the song from the movie version of Phantom "Learn to Be Lonely" as the finale)

I'm sure I'm stirring a hornets nest of hate now, but to me, this seems more intriguing than "School of Rock"

I agree that the basic problem was that the story ended when the first show was over and the only way to create a plot in the new one was to change the characters so they'd behave the way he needed them to. He shouldn't have tried to keep telling the story when there was nothing left to tell. Christine marries Raoul, the Phantom disappears forever, that's it.