Love Never Dies heading to North America!- Page 2

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 3:19pm

I never quite understood the whole "it ruins the character" or "No one asked for this sequel" - no one asked for the original either if we want to get technical about it... some of the "Phan" people's reactions to all of this seemed odd to me.  I loved the music and stories etc - but never lose sight that these are fictitious stories/characters.  

[Alessio2]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 4:47pm

I have only seen the DVD of this, but absolutely hated how Raoul was portrayed. You root for him in POTO and in LND he just seems like a miserable drunken ***hole.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 5:19pm

SPOILERS

 

From what I understand the end is being re-written again.  I think Christine survives.

No doubt the loony Lord will claim it's now perfect, the best there's ever been and now it's really how he wanted it all along.

 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 5:24pm

"I never quite understood the whole "it ruins the character" or "No one asked for this sequel" - no one asked for the original either if we want to get technical about it... some of the "Phan" people's reactions to all of this seemed odd to me.  I loved the music and stories etc - but never lose sight that these are fictitious stories/characters.  "

 The problem is that characters were created, a story was told in a specific manner, with specific characters who had specific character traits. If a writer is going to continue the story, the writer should not disregard what was created for the first half of that story.

In this case, the original story gave us a character who fears for her life from one "who kills without a thought and murders all that's good." She admires his genius, but is afraid and threatened by him. He is a villain and a murderer who stalks her. All of this was but aside for the sequel. By doing this, they took away the sense of continuity. This lack of continuity makes the book suffer. This lack of continuity also extends to the supporting characters as well.

No one is losing sight that these are fictitious characters; however, they do expect to see the same characterizations in a sequel. Entire relationships, histories, and motivations cannot be rewritten without a story coming off as bad fan-fiction. That is the case here. The story simply does not work as a sequel to its predecessor. 

Unfortunately, this is often the case with stage-musical sequels. There is enough of a precedent set that Lloyd Webber and his production company should have known better to begin with.

I maintain that the score is beautiful (for the most part) and that the touring production will likely be very attractive as well. That may make it worth paying $25-$50 to see it, as long as I have nothing better to do at the time; however, others may disagree.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 5:28pm

Doubt any touring show would charge prices in the $ 25 to $ 50 range.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 5:31pm

I live in Chicago and see damn near everything for $25 to $50. Broadway in Chicago has great deals and amazing offers. On the 25th of every month they offer $25 on the 25th. Most of their current and upcoming shows are on the list for the cheap price, and the seats are great.

[BrerBear]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 6:53pm

I agree with jimmycurry's take on the show and its issues. I have not seen it, but the plot seems to work against the potential appeal of the show. On the one hand, as a sequel it wants to capitalize on the positive feelings people had for the original. But on the other hand, it takes the characters from the original and turns them upside down.

*** Here be spoilers ***

As a fan of the original, I always felt sympathy for the Phantom. Although he does awful things, he was dealt a terrible hand and mistreated by society. He's a tragic figure, and his love for Christine is unrequited. Although he has the chance to kill Christine and Raoul, her act of semi-kindness for the Phantom changes his mind and he frees them both. He dies having experienced compassion and given it in return.

Jump forward to the sequel:

The Phantom lived. The first show is no longer a tragedy.

Raoul's a twat.

Christine not only showed compassion to the Phantom, she slept with him.

And he's her Baby Daddy.

Love Never Dies essentially undoes all the feelings the audience has for the characters while still trying to bank on them.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 6:58pm

Hey if it makes Andy richer go for it

 

Touring shows will have to charge more to cover the costs of moving from city to city & setting up & pulling down the sets at each stop along the way. In NY, you cannot get Diddley Squat (regular prices ) in the range you suggest.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 8:06pm

Hey, this show makes for good comedy! I'd go see it if it came to my town.

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:36pm

jimmycurry01 - appreciate your thoughts, and I see what you're saying... I guess for me, the idea that it's 10 years forward and (like Into the Woods) there are no "storybook happy endings" I didn't have a problem that Raoul became an alcoholic and an a--hole... (kind of thought he was in the original to be honest)  I kind of hope that in the revision they do end up killing the Phantom (which, I know, I know, messes up the Phantom movie prologue in the cemetery... sigh) but definitely continues the tragedy motif 

To me, the music is really beautiful - I found listening to the score in the Australian production far more satisfying than the World Premiere Version (although I'm still divided on having Till I hear you sing open the show)

 

I'm excited for this - hoping it lands on Broadway, but will travel if necessary to see this

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:51pm

hmmm - interesting the Youtube video promoting the North American tour that was sent from the @loveneverdies twitter is now set to private (and the tweet seems to be gone) -perhaps someone jumped the gun in sending this?  Thought it was kind of weird that this was how it would be launched (And ALW seemed non-commital in his statement today too)

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 9:22am

It sounds like someone involved with this production jumped the gun:

Andrew Lloyd Webber's spokesperson Rick Miramontez commented: "There is no official announcement at this time, but after the success of the show in Sydney and Melbourne and subsequent DVD, Andrew Lloyd Webber is delighted by the interest and looks forward to American audiences seeing this Australian production."

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 9:30am

There's a website. How is that not official?

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 1:11pm

CATSNYrevival - that's kind of what I wondered too... It just seemed bizarre that they would tweet out yesterday AM from the @loveneverdies twitter announcing "Coming to North America in 2017" (I mean, 2 years in advance seems kind of a long ways off, doesn't it) - and then by mid day, ALW was saying yes - but not yet kind of a statement.  Doubt he'd want any attention diverted from School of Rock 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 2:37pm

You root for him in POTO and in LND he just seems like a miserable drunken ***hole.

I didn't find that much of a stretch.  You know nothing about him in POTO other than he knew Christine as a child and they fall in love.  LND takes place ten years later.  Although the character becomes unlikable, it's sort of a blessing that he actually has more than one dimension.

By doing this, they took away the sense of continuity. This lack of continuity makes the book suffer.

Not really.  When Christine returns to the lair to leave the ring, she has a very tender moment with the Phantom, she shows compassion, not fear.

He dies having experienced compassion and given it in return.

The Phantom doesn't die at the end of POTO.  He escapes.

To me, the book has two fatal flaws: 1) Christine returns to the Phantom on her wedding night, they sleep together, she gets pregnant.  Nobody is buying that.  I don't know how they could make the child aspect of the show work, but that ain't it.  2) Meg goes of the motherf*ckin' rails to such a degree.  Nobody knew she was this unstable, jealous and self-absorbed?  

The reason most don't scrutinize POTO to such a close degree is because it is sheer melodrama with the simplest of stories.  LND needs to simplify and lighten up.  It gets so bogged down in motivations and backstory, it's like wading through quicksand trying to watch it and make sense out of it.  Every ingredient they toss into that story has to be digested by an audience that, I'm assuming, were okay with the story on offer in POTO.

[Jallenc32]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 4:09pm

One thing that was lost from Australia was the fact that Meg literally prostituted herself out on the Phantom's behalf so it's not just jealousy.   

 

And let me say this, I prefer Love Never Dies to Phantom which I always thought was a pretty two-dimensional love triangle.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 4:51pm

Can't wait to skip this one.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 5:20pm

I think the score better than POTO - but the story's laughable.

 

When does the Phantom die in POTO? He just disappears mysteriously. You must be thinking of the far superior musical Phantom, by Maury Yeston.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 8:43pm

The one character change that drives me the most insane in this show isn't the "anger-managed" Phantom, nor is it the head-over-heels in lust Christine, nor is it even alcoholic Raoul or prostitute Meg. The real character change that I can't stand is in Madame Giry. In the first one, she acts as a messenger for the Phantom and all, but she does ultimately lead Raoul down to the Phantom's lair in order to save Christine. Cut to ten years later, and suddenly she's complaining that Christine is a bitch for running off with Raoul and choosing "beauty and youth over genius and art?" Uh, lady, you helped Raoul save Christine from the very man you and your daughter all of a sudden have this insane fetish for. I also can't see the caring yet strict mother/ballet mistress from Phantom pimping out her daughter in order to help some deranged murderer make it big in America, but that part isn't exactly something that can be changed with the way this story is told, unless they decided to make the prostitution thing entirely Meg's decision and have Madame Giry completely ignorant of how Meg is able to magically get all this money from "investors."


Either way, if they don't change much, I hope they at least tone down on Madame Giry's newfound bitter bitchiness over Christine and Raoul. It makes no sense and contradicts her actions in the first musical.

[RW3]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 10:11pm

They have 2 years to make changes so I hope they do.

[chernjam]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 10:55pm

hadnt thought about the change to Madame Giry's character... interesting.  I'd have to see Phantom again to think about it some more.  I guess because she was always somewhat bitchy, it didnt strike me that much.

 

 

[Odie2]

Posted: 5/21/15 at 8:25am

I think purely from a music perspective the score is beautiful, but the lyrics and book are pretty bad. The two big numbers are beautiful. I think if ALW had a better producer who can keep him in line the production could have turned out differently. ALW is a great composer but it seems that the more he meddles in his productions the worse they are. Phantom is a good as it is because of Hal Prince, Marie Bjornson and Cameron Mackingtosh. 

[Phantour]

Posted: 5/21/15 at 8:00pm

Did anyone see the Australian version DVD and have Madame Giry remind them of Patti LuPone?