Phantom news... Jerry Mitchell willl choreograph — Page 2

Any big effects, like the chandelier?

I would not like sarcasm, I'm just curious.

---

This board upsets me... Look, I think it is stupid to be making a sequel to one of the greatest musicals of all time. However, how dare all of you ride this show off before you see it. How do you feel when someone criticizes a show they haven't seen? Especially when you like it? It makes you mad... Everyone is saying this is going to suck, but how do you know that? Can you judge something you haven't seen?
I think that everyone here is going to ruin its chances of becoming a successful show, even if it is a good show. This is just silly... How about you wait till it comes out, then go see it, then tell me what you think? You know what?
I hope this show is amazing and it proves everyone wrong...

Any big effects?

In an interview, Lloyd Webber said," "Bob [designer Bob Crowley] and I have more or less constructed the first five minutes ... I've written a prologue to the piece in which Bob is going to create Coney Island in front of everyone's eyes."


That sounds like it will beat chandeliers and helicopters. I think a lot of people will come, at least for a while, just to see the spectacle.



By the way, minicko88, SDav 10495 explained very well why people who LIKE the original show don't care if the show is good or if it sucks. It should never be made at all:

"Alas, even if the director, set designer, and choreographer all kick it into high gear for this production, even if Lloyd Webber turns in a decent score and the book isn't overly simplified and riddled with plot holes, I just can't see any sequel to "Phantom"--which I admit is one of my all-time favorite shows--having that intangible sense of enchantment (for lack of a better word) that keeps people going back to the original. THE ENDING OF THE ORIGINAL PRODUCTION IS WHERE THE BULK OF ITS EMOTIONAL WEIGHT LIES...TO ADD TO THAT ENDING WILL BE CHEAP AND UNNECESSARY "

[Caps mine]

I think other people just like to take pot shots at what sounds like a stupid idea for a show.

I know you're not going to agree with me but look at it from this perspective. Andrew Lloyd Webber's last musical phenomenon was "The Phantom of the Opera" in 1986.

I probably shouldn't compare this to other mediums, but the career of the rock singer Meat Loaf, for example...

"Bat Out Of Hell", Songs by Jim Steinman, was his most successful album until the sequel "Back Into Hell". He'd recorded a lot of albums in the meanwhile, most of which vanished into oblivion, but "Back Into Hell" must have been one of the greatest comebacks since Elvis.

That said, I think the idea of The Phantom fleeing to Coney Island and starting "the greatest amusement park in the world", or whatever the story's supposed to be about, is too far-fetched. Although it's interesting to imagine a dark musical set in a gothic theme park...

EDIT: And another thing, in general, the title is actually "Love Never Dies". I don't know where people got "Phantom:" from (which is an interesting thing in itself. All the other sequels had titles that specifically referred to their predecessors, i.e. "Bring Back Birdie", "Annie 2, Miss Hannigan's Revenge", "Annie Warbucks", "The Best Little Whorehouse Goes Public", "Fame Forever"...)

---

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 06:16 AM

I'm condemning it sight unseen, because you don't need to see this to know that it will be awful. It's not that I think it will fail, but because any sequel at all to PHANTOM is a terrible idea, no matter what the plot, who stars/directors/composes, etc.
The ending to the first show completely precludes any idea of a sequel, the entire point is for the Phantom to see what he has become and let Christine & Raoul leave to be happy together. It's no different than a sequel to TITANIC. The plots to some shows don't just not call for a sequel but actively discourage them. This is one of those shows.

---

Andrew Lloyd Webber, the official Andrew Lloyd Webber sites, Playbill etc. refer to it as "Love Never Dies". A lot of the media refer to it as "Phantom: Love Never Dies", probably because of the connection, but that's actually not what it is. Andrew Lloyd Webber and all of the other people involved specifically announced it as "Love Never Dies".

I believe this was done for a reason that we are going to find out.

---

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 10:59 AM

I also have a problem with whether or not they consulted Gaston Leroux's family about doing it? I know the book's public domain, but couldn't they have gotten them involved somehow? Got their blessing? Studied the book again and at least make it feasible with its ideas?

Unless they've done this, of course?

---

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 11:21 AM

At one point it was announced that the the show would actually be called "The Phantom of Manhattan" but Forsyth and Webber broke apart and Webber changed the name. It's been stated that the show is no longer based on the book. But every plot detail I've heard has been from the book. I've actually read the book and can honestly say that it just not equate to musical theatre.

Without giving anything away if the ending isn't changed I think people are going to be MIGHTY upset. Especially the tourists who only see shows like Phantom.

---