Love Never Dies — Page 2

I like 'Phantom' for the shear stunning production values it achieved nearly 25 years ago and today, for the wonder it still brings to millions.
I haven't seen it for about 10 years or more now but I'm sure it still thrills.

'Phantom 2' will be just like all those Hollywood movies that climb into the numbers for each sequel.
Nobody will even call it by its given name 'The Phantom Of The Opera-Love Never Dies'- it will be '2 seats for 'Phantom 2' please'- how naff does that sound!

Im so excited and worried at the same time regarding the design. (generally my fav. part of any show) Phantom was my first show and has alot of meaning for me. I would hope this sequel would be as spectacular as possible (eventhough ALW has been criticized for valuing spectacle over substance).

I have faith in Mr. Crowley's designs, but AIDA is the only thing he has done that I;ve seen and loved, and that was hardly spectacular. Poppins is Ok but nothing in that moved me as much as say the creation of the Phantom's Lair.

What concerns me is the Toronto aspect of the show. The Royal Alex is hardly a theatre that one would choose if you were planning something elaborate set wise. It's a protected building so they have so much restrictions there. I;ve always thought Phantom would look beautiful in there but it has small wings, no sub stage space for many traps, and a beautiful proscenium mural that would need 2 holes punches into it for the chandelier. It is a pretty small house. I think the most complicated show to play there was Les Mis. Maybe the announcement was too early and by the time the end of the year rolls around, the Princess of Wales or the Canon would be open.

---

Is that right The Alex is lined up for Toronto, the Aldephi for London and Neil Lennon for New York?

I totally agree (set design issues asside) I am totally looking forward to this. I think it is hard for some fans to remember that this and Phantom are "products" at the end of the day. It will either be successful or not. At this stage I can only hope for a great double cast recording (or concept recorting as it were) since if the show does flop, I probably will never get the chance to see it.

---

But with regard to those many who just want to be negative about the prospects and even existence of the new show, for the sake of it, I did have a small amount of empathy long ago when it was still only effectively a twinkle in ALW's eye. But the nonsense of so many staying so stuck in a groove deserves no respect at all. In truth it is more that a little pathetic! Whatever the new show turns out to be, the issues now should only be about what it will deliver. And whatever it is should be judged on it's merits, not by prejudice!

Although I agree that prejudice should not come into play when judging the show, a lot of the opposition to the sequel has been generated by what we *do* know and what *has* been confirmed.

For instance, according to the casting notice, we know for a fact that The Phantom is aged between 35 and 40 years old. This is in spite of the fact that the majority of Phantoms in the original show have been at least 40 years old (Michael Crawford was in his mid-40s when he did the role). Although The Phantom's age isn't fixed per se in the original show, he is 50 in the original novel and ALW has gone on record when casting the film in saying that The Phantom of the original show should be roughly in his forties. If this sequel is supposed to happen ten years later, The Phantom has got to be at least fifty years old. Yet Ramin Karimloo is barely in his 30s. Jack O'Brien described the Phantom of the original show as suffering from "youthful insecurities". Say what you will, but that completely contradicts Hal Prince's vision.

The sequel should at least make sense in terms of continuation, and the above shows it doesn't. Moreover, the casting notice says that the characters in the sequel will be affected by "the cataclysmic events of 10 years earlier". Yet it's set in 1907. 1907 minus a decade makes 1897. The Phantom of the Opera is set in 1881. Someone can't do simple arithmetic here. And I DO think people care about this. I'm even surprised at ALW since even he usually cares about the narrative aspect of his shows.

And before people argue that the sequel is conceived entirely independently of the original show, it certainly isn't being marketed that way. Take a look at the official website -- the Twitter feeds it links to do not talk about Love Never Dies, but talk about The Phantom of the Opera. And, let's face it, people are always going to refer to this as "Phantom 2" or "the sequel". If it's going to be connected with the original show, it should at least respect it in terms of plausibility.

All this is not judging the show by prejudice, but on actual fact of what's going to happen. I am excited by the idea of Bob Crowley's designs, and I am excited by the prospect of ALW's new score. But a score does not a total show make. The Phantom was a success because of how well all the different elements synchronised. Bjornson and Prince DID THEIR RESEARCH, whereas here Jack O'Brien and Ben Elton obviously haven't. And even in terms of the score, we already know that the song formerly known as 'The Heart is Slow To Learn', which became 'Our Kind of Love' in The Beautiful Game, is going into this. Can we seriously consider this shameless recycling of a tune that has already found its place in a previous Lloyd Webber musical and was even recorded on the cast recording for that show a demonstration of artistic integrity? Considering how much ALW craves respect from the critics, I am actually astounded at how he can do such a vulgar thing.

I don't think any of the above constitutes being "more than just a little pathetic". These issues are all based on fact and aren't just a case of moaning for the sake of it. I honestly hope the sequel will turn out to be highly enjoyable, but none of the above entices me whatsoever.

ALW has surrounded himself with people too weak to challenge him and his decisions, and tell him when a bad idea is a bad idea. I only wish he would start working with Cameron Mackintosh (and Tim Rice) again, unlikely though that is.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 03:24 PM

Anyone know what the "big" thing is to rival the chandeleer/boat. Will have to be somin big.

Chill. It's a discussion.

It is just ridiculous to start claiming that Ben Elton and Jack O'Brien haven't done any research. You don't know what the story is yet!

Raoul has become an alcoholic, while The Phantom has become in charge of a freak show on Coney Island. Are you seriously telling me that you can take that 100% seriously with a straight face? It also reeks of Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan, but ALW says a lot has been changed from that book. I certainly hope so, because that book was absolutely terrible, and Forsyth himself has admitted that.

You would just rather be negatively presumptive for the sake of it, because you are really still ridiculously stuck in not wanting it to exist at all.

You don't seem to get that a sequel of any kind inevitably tarnishes the ending of the original show. Saying that it's a bad idea doesn't mean I am negatively presumptuous for the sake of it.

And the nonsense about the "shameless" return of a song written specifically for the sequel! What on earth have you got going on in your head that you are condemning that as evidence of lack of artistic integrity. All that tells me is that you haven't got the first idea of what actually constitutes artistic integrity. "Vulgar", as well? Are you kidding? You are just trotting out words that mean nothing. Believe me, critics are not that stupid, and moving the song back won't be a contentious issue.

Funny you should mention that the critics "are not that stupid". No, they're not stupid and they will recognise the song when they hear it and mention it in their reviews. Obviously you haven't read many reviews of ALW's work, but time after time (even when IMHO it is unfounded) they love to accuse him of self-plagiarism. Several critics argue that his shows and songs are interchangeable, demonstrating their artistic inferiority. I disagree with that personally, but recycling a song from The Beautiful Game may well end up proving them right. I try and defend ALW as much as possible when militant anti-ALW musical theatre enthusiasts attack him but he sure doesn't make it easy for me.

Talk about mountains out of molehills! And it is that innate prejudice is what is so wrong and is truly a lot more than a little pathetic, as I have already said.

It's a sequel. I really don't think its timeline and nonsensical ages of the characters are minor molehills. They're pretty important parts of the plot. The ages are not exactly going to be any different whether I see it onstage or not, unless you're suggesting by "you know what the actual facts are in practice" that the sequel may involve the introduction of a time machine and a black hole to a parallel universe that resolves all these blatant inconsistencies.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 05:31 PM

Oh so many years ago I attended the opening night of Phantom, (sitting behind the annoyingly broad Terry Wogan, I seem to recall); it was a tremendously exciting night as all elements fused together to create a breath-taking, ground-breaking production.

Oh wow, could you possibly share any interesting memories you have at that night? I was only a wee little one when opening night happened so unfortunately I couldn't attend! How remarkable it must have been to see the show right at its very beginning, I'd love to hear more.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 05:38 PM

Bloody hell - where've you been? The last time I saw you post it was snowing.

Been a busy boy for the last couple of months so been happy to just lurk upon the fun and games for a while.

---

Ladybegood, chill please!

Mamma, I am not even close to unchilled!

I said what I wanted way back with "Whatever the new show turns out to be, the issues now should only be about what it will deliver. And whatever it is should be judged on it's merits, not by prejudice!"

But that couldn't be left, and it is irritating to see the same old rigmarole trotted out adinfinitum, by those who are only interested in interpreting detail to suit preference. That there are other people here who like to think the same way, and who are happy to see that and will support it because that is their preference too, still doesn't make it either reasonable or right. And it is just so boring now! The new show is a fact of life, whether people want it to be or not. And just endlessly effectively repeating how it shouldn't really exist is so pointless, it is sad!

And for the record, insisting that moving what was "The Heart Is Slow To Learn" back from "The Beautiful Game", as presumed, is evidence of lack of artistic integrity is so much nonsense! Commending oneself for apparently defending ALW from the ludicrous militant detractors on other occasions, doesn't magically justify so twisting facts to suit the preference either. Of course the critics should recognise the song, but they should also know (and not ignore to convenience) that it was written for the sequel and has (presumably) been moved back to be what it was intended to be with it's original words. What terrible lack of integrity there is in that! I suppose I should have added "sic!", or that will be misinterpreted too. But, honestly, it is so disheartening to see this sort of nonsense thinking, and even if the song had been actively removed from somewhere else, there is no argument that he has the right to do that if he wants to. There is no such thing as self-plagiarism. And the only issues should be around whether or not something works.


But the more relevant and current issue today should surely be whether or not the rumoured announcement(s) materialise!

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 06:46 AM