Riedel: 'Love Never Dies' delayed until next Spring?

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 2:45am

Possibly. But one problem: the delay could prevent 'Catch Me If You Can' from opening during the same time.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/love_labors_linger_on_gYqRU6tWCjhnogPG6lamcI
Updated On: 4/2/10 at 02:45 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 2:57am

They really can't work out the kinks in 7 months?

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 3:47am

I'm not sure if waiting till spring is long enough either, do you think this might be a ploy to just can the New York run of the show all together?

Webber really has not had a hit in years, maybe he needs to bring Cam Mac back!

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 8:38am

"Webber really has not had a hit in years, maybe he needs to bring Cam Mac back!"

Boy Webber can write a show, but clueless in pulling a show together.

[Soliantu]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 9:16am

God, I hope that isn't true. I've been dying to see it, I'd hate to have to wait another year. Why can't he just fix the problems now over the enxt few months

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 10:01am

'Cuz he's a damn fool!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 10:10am

Boy Webber can write a show, but clueless in pulling a show together.

Well, technically, that should be a director's job. But I do know what you mean. Many shows are so well-written that the director's job isn't so difficult. Such is not often the case with Sir Webber's concoctions, though.

[algy]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 10:29am

Surely better to have it, but with a throughly thought through re-jigs, than in a rush and still not fixed.

And on a pedants corner point, he's actually a lord. He was a sir, but when he was made a baron it kinda superceded it iirc.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 11:27am

If it were just a matter of fixing problems, that would be one thing. When the problem is at the very core of the show -- namely, that the characters have been altered beyond recognition and the story stretches belief way past the breaking point -- how can you fix it without throwing out everything you've got and starting over?

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 11:40am

It's not exactly easy for a director to get a writer to see why their material isn't always working when the writer is a complete egomaniac. Remember The Pirate Queen? They even brought Maltby in and then ignored most of his suggestions.

[Justin D]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 12:40pm

I think to say the entire plot is unsalvageable is unrealistic and obviously shows a bias to "the original characters" and all that nonsense, people change and 10 years is a long time. Get Over It.

They just have to get through some of the plot holes, fix the beginning and ending, maybe tweak some sets and add a song here or there to fix the pacing.

The core of the piece is fine.

Personally aside from the obvious plot holes, the use of the freaks. My main gripe now is the look of the piece, sets aside, the costumes and look of the Phantom need work, they are just too ordinary looking.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 1:16pm

I think to say the entire plot is unsalvageable is unrealistic and obviously shows a bias to "the original characters" and all that nonsense, people change and 10 years is a long time. Get Over It.

Except they didn't just change "ten years later." LND has the characters changed immediately after the conclusion of the plot of PHANTOM. What Christine does in the days/weeks after the last scene in PHANTOM (according to LND) is completely unbelievable for her character.

If they just got rid of the whole Gustave nonsense, the show would work a whole lot better and be much more believable.

Updated On: 4/2/10 at 01:16 PM

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 2:03pm

What CTOD said. When your plot depends on the heroine yelling "DO OVER!" after the tragic ending of the original, and going back to do something she wouldn't do with someone she wouldn't do it with, then yeah, you've got a major problem.
Updated On: 4/2/10 at 02:03 PM

[Justin D]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 2:30pm

Well I guess I'm in the minority that sees what Christine did as being totally plausible.

But that i guess depends on character assumptions.

Christine to me always seems to be a flaky, naive person, even at the end of the first one. After all she believed the Phantom was her father's ghost, or at least a spirit sent by him.

And on some level she does love the Phantom or at least is infatuated by him.

What happens does not happen the next night, it could even be 6 months later, the time frame isn't stated. Just that it happens the night before the wedding, who knows what happened in that time between herself and Raoul. It is well known in a lot of courtship situations that people put on a 'face' in the start of a relationship and the real person comes out later. Who knows if Raoul started to show his later 'attributes' shortly after the whole Phantom incident.

Anyways, it is not totally far fetched that she went to see him one last time, not for love, not for sex, just for pity even, to be sure that things are over, and things happen. It happens all the time, people get caught up in emotions and things happen, just look at Jerry Springer show, lol.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 3:23pm

If that's your example, then I maintain the plot has insurmountable problems. This is supposed to be a young woman with integrity, courage, and love for her fiance, not a Springer guest.

Heck, while we're at it, why don't we have Lucie Manette cheat with Sydney Carton? Or Marius with Eponine? There's a reason things are bittersweet (though that's not my favorite word) in these stories -- because sometimes a person in love just doesn't get what he or she wants. ALW is trying to have his cake and eat it too, and as usual in such cases, it's not working too well.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 4:08pm

Even better, what if Javert survived his suicide attempt!

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 4:18pm

. . . and ran off with Cosette!

[newintown]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 4:20pm

I foresee a slew of unbelievable sequels:

"Okla Oh No!" Laury bears Jud's child, revealing that she was riding him while Curly was out on the range.

"South Pathetic" Emile reveals to Nellie on their wedding night that, not only is he French, he already has six wives! "One of those Mormons, y'know?"

"Goodbye, Dolly" no surprise here, it turns out Dolly Gallagher Levi was a man in drag all along.

"Fiddler on the Couch" After Tzeitel, Hodel, Chava, Sprintze, and Bielke visit analysts, they realize they have all been interfered with by papa Tevye. VERY unattractive and disturbing show. Alice Ripley plays all the daughters.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 4:22pm

The most disappointing element to me is how the "mystery" of the Phantom has completely dissolved from the 1st show. In the 1st show he's hiding in mirrors, drop set pieces, killing, sending threatening notes, throwing his voice around the theatre and shooting fireballs.

The next time we see him in LND he's not controlling or manipulating anything. He's playing out a fantasy with a doll, and then saying (not singing) things like, "You’re forgetting yourself”. There is no threat to the Phantom at all. He is a complete bore. Listen to the way Giry disrespects him.

Raoul shouldn't have been written so obviously abusive in the show. They should have written him as someone who is "trying" to be more sensitive but is defeated by alcohol and haunted by debt. The way it is currently written there was no doubt in my mind she was going to pick the Phantom when I was listening to the CD. He was too much of a jerk.

What happens to Meg at the end of the show? Does anyone know? It does not say in the CD liner notes.

My last thought: They need to bring in Charles Hart to help get the language right. Charles may not have been the greatest lyricist but he’s got a better handle on these characters than Slater.

[Sally]

Posted: 4/2/10 at 6:18pm

I read an interview with the director, O'Brien, in which he explained that the Phantom wasn't mysterious any more because we were seeing things from *his* point of view instead of from the point of view of various others who find him spooky (sorry). *He* isn't a mysterious figure to himself, supposedly.

I think that this and other explanations of why the characters have changed in the ways they changed for LND make some sense in the context of the show, but especially with the Phantom, why bother?

Without the mystery and magic, he's just another romantic hero who is yearning and lusting after his girl-who-got-away.

As far as I can tell without having seen the show, Christine is more the same as in the original show than the other characters----barring that little slip-up when she "strode" to his side as he was in hiding to tell him she "must go" (hadn't she already done that in spades in the last scene of the original show?) .

The others have been changed to make possible the story that Ben Elton "unlocked" for ALW. I'd just as soon someone takes Elton's keys away before he drives under the influence of the idea that he will write a good show book.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 4/3/10 at 2:31am

Actually, Hal Prince's interpretation of the original show is totally dishonored by this sequel. Christine, no matter how a specific actress plays her journey, grows up by the end of that final scene, and makes a choice for herself. Sometimes, in order to grow up, we move on from the things that drag us down. The Phantom did not want to let her grow as a person, and he was a pitiful, obsessive man whom she pitied in the end.

(Jennifer Hope Wills, currently on Broadway as Christine, gives one of the most mature and moving performances as Christine)

Hal Prince has been quoted as saying that it's very nice that people want her to be with the Phantom, but...

Updated On: 4/3/10 at 02:31 AM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/3/10 at 4:57am

Wait, I'm confused, what does Christine say she did right after the original musical's plot?

[vassey]

Posted: 4/3/10 at 7:50am

Adam Chris - What happens to Meg at the end of the show? Does anyone know? It does not say in the CD liner notes.

She is executed for murder I expect. In the prologue, Giry says everything is 'gone, all gone'.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/3/10 at 8:19am

Boy Webber can write a show, but clueless in pulling a show together.

I would argue that he is just as clueless at writing shows. He can write wonderful music, but hasn't any idea how to structure a musical, where to use music to heighten the emotions of the story. He also, as producer, refuses to surrender control to others. That is why his last few shows have been such unmitigated artistic disasters. the last really good show he had was EVITA - and that show was produced by Robert Stigwood, not lord Lloyd Webber. The more successful he has become the less successful he becomes. He has hit the proverbial glass ceiling!

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 4/3/10 at 9:05am

Aww come on, surely you can give him "Cats"?