Love Never Dies Does. At Last! — Page 2

I believe Trevor Nunn promised to revive it at the O2 for the Chocolate Menier Factory in 2040 for his 100th birthday.

Updated On: 6/18/11 at 08:01 AM

Chocolate Menier Factory
Factory Chocolate Menier
Menier Chocolate Factory

You know what I mean my little berserker

Lighten up ... it's not the end of the world

ps." the chocolate menier factory at the O2" was done on purpose, a joke fails when one has to explain it

Updated On: 6/18/11 at 08:28 AM

I know I'm in the vast minority, but I actually love this show. I hope it transfers. I love the story and music. The Australia production looks breathtaking and I would LOVE to see it come to Broadway.

---

The last word was (and its hard to really say if it was the 'last word' because of all the rumours going around) that the Melbourne production is going to tour Australasia, a new production based on Melbourne's will open on Broadway and once that's up and running, re-open in London (whether as a tour or a new sit-down, I'm not sure). But first, now that they have the LOOK they want, they'll be doing some work to the script. Again, that's just from an article from a few weeks ago so not sure if that's still the plan. ALW and RUG have really gone above and beyond to try to make this show work, I don't see them throwing in the towel and was surprised with the early closing notice in London - although I was expecting it to close either at the cast change or end of the Jan booking period after the success in Melbourne so that London's can be reworked to match.

I enjoyed this show, despite its flaws. You don't often see the grand dramatic musicals anymore and its closing worries me. Are large-scale dramatic musicals falling to the wayside in favour of fluffy juke box musicals and campy movie adaptations?

Also, I agree with a previous poster... rejoicing the closing of any show, whether you like it or not, is petty.

I also saw it during GILT, and the place was packed - and that was midweek!

I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Leonard2:

I agree with you - with the news that LND has now extended in Melbourne (actually to an "Open Ended run" - with Sydney in the future, but unsure if it will be postponed or a second production) LND has not seen it's last day (unlike Woman in White)

Once ALW fell in love with this new production, it was only a matter of time before London ended. He basically killed it himself with his negative feedback on London in light of Melbourne and saying how he hoped to see that production in the very theatre where it was currently playing (not a great commercial there) So it wasn't shocking that it's closing at all

I think with a few more alterations, and one reviewer made a good point that the show could use a duet between Christine and Raoul - I think that this could finally be settled into a decent, successful run/production.

For me, I enjoyed the music on the concept album a great deal, but it did seem "long" to listen to. The Australian recording I heard online was much more thrilling. I enjoyed it thoroughly and felt it was close to being in league with ALW's other works. So I for one am hoping things continue to improve for LND

I saw the revised production in London and it wasn't good and it wasn't bad. It just...was. When the one major element of suspense in the story is "will she sing or won't she?", all is lost when the audience knows the answer considering the title of the song, the title of the show, and the song list in the program. The back-story to fill in the 10-year gap simply didn't make any sense, not to mention Meg's motives at the end regarding this extreme jealousy over a one-time special engagement. One of the most laughable moments for me was during the Christine/Phantom reunion and she asks him something about why he left her so suddenly all those years ago, to which his reply was simply "You know why I left!" Uh...but we don't. So...I guess it's not important? Why do you want the audience to hear it if it's relevant enough to include in the plot, but not relevant enough for any explanation? After that, I decided if the authors don't want to invest in the story, neither do I.

Not to mention The Beauty Underneath is the worst production number I've seen on stage since the gang rape ballet in Thou Shalt Not.

---

The Beauty Underneath was exciting in the Melbourne production - but more for the WTF aspect for me.
The music, whilst completely ill fitting for the era was most welcomed by me as I was almost asleep til the rock guitars started and woke me up. So for that I was extremely grateful. It is my favourite number in the show.

---

I somewhat agree with Mr. Matt and also disagree to some extent.

I totally agree that the whole point about the "will she sing or not" should not be the sole purpose of the second act as we all know what she does.

However I totally disagree with the comments about Meg.

Having listened to the Aussie bootleg. When Meg finds out Christine is coming to town to sing for Hammerstein she is thrilled at a possible reunion and cant wait to see her again, But Mme Giry is reluctant about it. Thenwhen Christine shows up and it becomes clear she is singing at Coney Island Meg is still happy to see her but only slightly put off that she is not sharing the bill. It is shown also that she is despirate for the phantom's attention (shown in the combination of Only for Him and Heaven bu the Sea). The main thing I think for Meg going off is when Giry tells her that Gustave is the phantom's and he is planning to leave everything he has worked for to him. This in itself says that the Girys thinnk that they are entitled to the fortunes made at Coney ISland and therefore will loose out financially, and Meg will loose out on her mentor since he will not focus on Gustave, so once again in her life CHristine overshadows her.
I also dont see that she goes psycho, she just gets slightly unhinged and kidnaps the boy, and the shooting is still accidental. So to me I can see her actions being plausable (not to forget all the things she has done for the Phantom, prostituting herself and all that)

Mind you I have also gotten past the whole one night stand because I know these things do happen.

As for why the Phantom left, doesnt he explain that in the second half of Beneath a Moonless Sky? although I do agree that it seems a bit odd that he would feel ashamed by what happened. Maybe it was a whole self pity thing and he felt that inspite of what happaned, her life would be better with Raoul. If that is the case then i think with a few lyric changes something like that can be put accross.

---

@castlestreet - I agree with a lot of what you said there. It seemed LND was written with NY heavily in mind (the setting, having American creatives on team from director, lyricist, female lead...etc)

That it had as many difficulties as it had - and depending on which ego you wish to believe - O'Brien or Lloyd Webber - it was that ALW was too controlling/wouldn't listen to them or ALW was still recuperating from Cancer and wasn't as involved as he needed to be - it seems that they were far from ready to open when they did.

In fact I remember reading posts after the first preview, and while we can argue how unfair it is that previews are dissected to the extreme they are - what surprised me was that at that point they had only 2 weeks till Opening Night. How would they work out that the show "felt long" or that some scenes didnt seem to work in time?

It's sad for those involved in London that they're efforts have been reduced to an 18 month out-of-city tryout that brought about a much better received Australian production (which has now changed from a limited season in Melbourne followed by an Australian/Japan tour to an open-ended run). I had said the day after Australia opened (and was jumped on by people for saying such without "proof") that the London production would definitely close very quickly considering ALW had totally dissed it in his very public comments at the Australian production's Opening Night.

Love him or hate him - the thing about ALW is that you always get a show within a show - there's the off-stage drama that always accompanies the onstage production. That was part of what made me so fascinated by Sunset Blvd. Rarely do I recall the anticipation of any show as there was for the World Premiere, the LA Premiere and the Broadway Premiere of it.

Gosh - there are more elitists, down-the-nose-lookers, snobs, admirers, defenders, and fans of this show more than any other that comes to mind. I am a "fan". I see it this way, you would be EVER so hard pressed to find even ONE show that has NO flaws. Any production can be picked apart if one delves deeply enough into it. And, opinions are, as they say, like that certain part of the body we all have. I've just returned from London and saw the show twice - on back to back nights! The music is stunningly glorious. PERIOD! Rich, lush, sentimental, dramatic, melancholy and, ultimately, inspired! Lloyd Weber has given the world some unquestionably beautiful music. It continues with "Love Never Dies". For me, if the story is good and, if it isn't perfect - so what?! It is true that the production value of the London show is/was not as spectacular as what I've seen from the Australian version. With enough time to finesse any problem areas, I think by the time it reaches Broadway, it will have been honed to a level that will make even the most critical take a new note. All the elements are there to make it a sensation. Lloyd Weber surely knows this or he wouldn't be reworking it the way he has. I can't wait to see it again!!!

allant,
You had best hurry if you want to see LND again unless you are going to Australia. The show closes in London on August 27, but you probably know that.

As for all the criticism, the show had a BIG target on it from the day it opened, because it was a sequel and because it was a sequel to ALW's most successful and best loved show. We'll never know, but maybe a show with the flaws it has and the beautiful music is has might have done better if it had been about any other story in the world.

As for Broadway, in his most recent interview, it sounds like Lloyd Webber has given up on NYC. Maybe he hopes that the DVD of the Melbourne production will stir up enough interest to try it someday---or maybe the main purpose of the DVD is to recoup some of the money RUG has lost on Love Never Dies.
---------------------------------------------------
NYTimes article
Lloyd Webber’s Latest Creation: Breathing Space
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: July 14, 2011

"While a Broadway production of “Love Never Dies” was postponed after the London problems, Mr. Lloyd Webber revealed that, even with the positive reviews in Melbourne, he was not sure that version would come to New York.
'I think there are a lot of people who would love to see it go there, but I think that we’re all realistic, and I think with the baggage that it’s got, it might be better to just let it be discovered,” he said of the musical, which will be filmed and sold on DVD.' "