#26
Posted: 7/4/09 at 6:49pm
So it takes place 10 years after the first one and Christine has actually gotten younger.
Webber Confirms Boggess and Karimloo in LOVE NEVER DIES — Page 2
#27
Posted: 7/4/09 at 9:32pm
Not being a fan of PotO in the slightest (except for the movie...kind of) I am naturally not looking forward to this show. This and the Wizard of Oz thing (more Oz than this) seems like a way for Webber to get even more money to keep water in his moat. I want to see it fail, burn, not litterly, but I don't want it to even happen.
#28
Posted: 7/4/09 at 11:09pm
Christine hasn't gotten younger, she's gotten older, as people do, and it takes place some years later.
However, the Phantom has "frozen" her forever in time as the Christine-bot.
P
P.S. The score is f*cking incredible. Just you wait! The opening alone will cause the crunching sound of hats being eaten.
However, the Phantom has "frozen" her forever in time as the Christine-bot.
P
P.S. The score is f*cking incredible. Just you wait! The opening alone will cause the crunching sound of hats being eaten.
#29
Posted: 7/4/09 at 11:30pm
So Sienna is playing the femoperabot?
#30
Posted: 7/5/09 at 3:29am
Isnt Sierra a little too young to play Christine 10 years later and the mother of a teenage son? She was too young playing regular Christine.
#31
Posted: 7/5/09 at 3:53am
Ladybegood,
I'm sure Baz is not being fed what to say, but would he have become the sole source of the information ALW is letting out in bits and pieces if he hadn't liked what he heard/saw and written VERY favorably in his first interview/article? Of course not. Lloyd Webber knows how to work publicity.
Just curious, you say that outside of the fan boards, there is rising general expectation for the sequel. Where are you finding rising expectation?
I'm sure Baz is not being fed what to say, but would he have become the sole source of the information ALW is letting out in bits and pieces if he hadn't liked what he heard/saw and written VERY favorably in his first interview/article? Of course not. Lloyd Webber knows how to work publicity.
Just curious, you say that outside of the fan boards, there is rising general expectation for the sequel. Where are you finding rising expectation?
Updated On: 7/5/09 at 03:53 AM
#32
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:18am
So the Phantom is 'frozen' - not aging? then how does he get younger? Howard McGillan, who has played the Phantom - like forever - is definitely older than this new 'love never dies' Phantom. I really do not see how both can survive. It just doesn't make sense - and I guess I am too logical
#33
Posted: 7/5/09 at 7:50am
Sally, there is no question that Baz is privilege to the inside track to effect. Of course ALW and the RUG have needed the means to trickle out detail to prompt interest (albeit quite surprising how relatively little there has been), but that Baz himself was chosen was really not so likely to be about him at all. The reason he will have been chosen is because the Mail has the highest circulation (by a long way) in the right demographic. That's how it works!
Apart from the Mail circulation issue, Baz was a surprising choice in some respects, when he had previously shown some inclination to be a little sardonic (shall we say) in respect of most things ALW. And of course, given that they wanted to get him on side, there has been effort to show him the goods etc. It's obviously worked, too, since his original sarcasm has turned to enthusiasm. But that won't have been "bought" as such. And although it is fairly unlikely that, in those circumstances, he would have been overtly negative in advance of actual staging, he didn't NEED to be actively positive either. He could just have reported the facts and/or deliberately limited what he said. But he hasn't!
And in respect of my impression that opinions are coming round, that is largely just from talking to people. Initially perception was certainly that a sequel was a huge mistake and that it was likely going to be a train wreck. But over time, that thinking has come round to being thought to have been a bit hasty. And those who said they wouldn't bother to go to see it at all, are now more than a little curious.
Apart from the Mail circulation issue, Baz was a surprising choice in some respects, when he had previously shown some inclination to be a little sardonic (shall we say) in respect of most things ALW. And of course, given that they wanted to get him on side, there has been effort to show him the goods etc. It's obviously worked, too, since his original sarcasm has turned to enthusiasm. But that won't have been "bought" as such. And although it is fairly unlikely that, in those circumstances, he would have been overtly negative in advance of actual staging, he didn't NEED to be actively positive either. He could just have reported the facts and/or deliberately limited what he said. But he hasn't!
And in respect of my impression that opinions are coming round, that is largely just from talking to people. Initially perception was certainly that a sequel was a huge mistake and that it was likely going to be a train wreck. But over time, that thinking has come round to being thought to have been a bit hasty. And those who said they wouldn't bother to go to see it at all, are now more than a little curious.
Updated On: 7/5/09 at 07:50 AM
#34
Posted: 7/5/09 at 8:03am
But Pgenre, you have heard the score?????
I am not thinking that the Baz reports were anything other than real, so your saying the score is incredible doesn't surprise me! It's still great to hear it from someone else, though. But how do you manage to have heard it?
I am not thinking that the Baz reports were anything other than real, so your saying the score is incredible doesn't surprise me! It's still great to hear it from someone else, though. But how do you manage to have heard it?
#35
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:01am
Even if the score is amazing, which I doubt, it won't make up for a terrible storyline.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#36
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:34am
There's nothing like a bit of narrow minded prejudice for getting in the way of common sense and objectivity! lol!
#37
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:36am
That's what makes the internet go 'round.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#38
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:43am
Baz is an infamous butt-kisser of the rich and famous. He will be revelling in the attention gained by becoming the unofficial mouthpiece of the production, with his series of easily acquired "scoops".
He is the obvious outlet, and I recall him playing a similar role with the steady trickle of news when Woman in White was gearing up for production.
I have yet to hear a single not of the score, but like Peter and the Wolf, ALW has cried too many times to look out for his next great thing. I await convincing.
He is the obvious outlet, and I recall him playing a similar role with the steady trickle of news when Woman in White was gearing up for production.
I have yet to hear a single not of the score, but like Peter and the Wolf, ALW has cried too many times to look out for his next great thing. I await convincing.
#39
Posted: 7/5/09 at 1:50pm
It's not really prejudice--the story is (pretty much) based on the Phantom of Manhatten and that's a terrible book. I'm not sure that even Adam Guettel could save it.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#40
Posted: 7/5/09 at 2:34pm
Isn't Sierra a little too young to play Christine 10 years later and the mother of a teenage son? She was too young playing regular Christine.
She's really not. Sierra was 24 when she played Christine, a character who is supposed to be, what, 18-21? That makes her a 28-31 year old mother of a 10-year old son (not a teenager). And Sierra is now 27. It's not that far off.
She's really not. Sierra was 24 when she played Christine, a character who is supposed to be, what, 18-21? That makes her a 28-31 year old mother of a 10-year old son (not a teenager). And Sierra is now 27. It's not that far off.
#41
Posted: 7/5/09 at 3:00pm
This sequel is a shame, and its storyline is compeltely detrimental to the motivations and effect of the original story. This plot belongs on fanfiction.net, not a professional stage.
How to properly use its/it's:
Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...
#42
Posted: 7/5/09 at 4:27pm
Devonian-t, above, makes a point of the fact that he hasn't heard a note of the score yet. But he is hardly the only one. Who has? Pgenre, purportedly, may be an exception, which would be nice to know about, but in the end, the proof of the pudding can only be in the eating! All any of us can really do is wait to see how it shapes up in practice.
In the meantime what Baz has had to say is (whether liked or not) encouraging, and it can't/shouldn't be entirely discounted just because it doesn't tally with the preferred negativity of those who actively want it to be bad for the sake of it. I actually fail to understand the level of mentality that does that myself, or that thinks it is ever acceptable to be judgemental from a perspective of ignorance. But while I would like (hope) the new show to be good, sure, I won't presume to presume ANYTHING in actual practice until I have experienced it for myself. That's the normal, intelligent, way to do it. And whatever my preference, I certainly wouldn't ever presume to set myself up in advance as a greater authority in respect of what the show should, or should not be, than it's creator! I have therefore long lost patience with the likes of the last comment. No one will be obliged to like the result, but whatever the new show turns out to be, it should be given a fair and objective hearing. The silly prejudice (and it is prejudice) has been done to death. Apart from anything else, it's just so irrelevant now in the face of the reality of whatever it does turn out to be. Time to move on!
In the meantime what Baz has had to say is (whether liked or not) encouraging, and it can't/shouldn't be entirely discounted just because it doesn't tally with the preferred negativity of those who actively want it to be bad for the sake of it. I actually fail to understand the level of mentality that does that myself, or that thinks it is ever acceptable to be judgemental from a perspective of ignorance. But while I would like (hope) the new show to be good, sure, I won't presume to presume ANYTHING in actual practice until I have experienced it for myself. That's the normal, intelligent, way to do it. And whatever my preference, I certainly wouldn't ever presume to set myself up in advance as a greater authority in respect of what the show should, or should not be, than it's creator! I have therefore long lost patience with the likes of the last comment. No one will be obliged to like the result, but whatever the new show turns out to be, it should be given a fair and objective hearing. The silly prejudice (and it is prejudice) has been done to death. Apart from anything else, it's just so irrelevant now in the face of the reality of whatever it does turn out to be. Time to move on!
#43
Posted: 7/5/09 at 4:31pm
That's the most convoluted post I've ever read!
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#44
Posted: 7/5/09 at 4:40pm
I'll reply more succinctly. It's called taking a sceptical position, based on this composer/producer's track record.
#45
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:03pm
You say it like he has a good record.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#46
Posted: 7/5/09 at 10:11pm
Ladbegood... I have every right to citicize a detailed plot. I have not heard the music nor seen a production, and thus will not criticize that aspect of the show. But there is something called prinicipal. My care and admoration for The Phantom of the Opera has led me to be frustrated with this convoluted, and altogether inappropriate addition to the story. Continuing this journey is detrimental to the artistic integrity of the original production, and its plot line is inconsistent with the intentions of the original story.
How to properly use its/it's:
Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...
#47
Posted: 7/5/09 at 10:25pm
Continuing this journey is detrimental to the artistic integrity of the original production, and its plot line is inconsistent with the intentions of the original story.
Are you talking about Phantom 2 or Wicked?
Are you talking about Phantom 2 or Wicked?
#48
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:42pm
So, who plays Old Christine?
JLY plays the son?
JLY plays the son?
#49
Posted: 7/6/09 at 2:46am
That's the most convoluted post I've ever read!
------------------------------------------------------
Go on over to the IMDB Phantom Movie 2004 board and read more of the same. She posts there with another nickname but has the same "thang" about people who post negatively about the sequel. She feels freer there to be less than polite, possibly because there are more POTO fans (and the hated phans) there than the (assumedly) sophisticated theater fans who post on this site.
I'm pleased to see posters here like devonian.t and blax coming back at the one-note "tune."
------------------------------------------------------
Go on over to the IMDB Phantom Movie 2004 board and read more of the same. She posts there with another nickname but has the same "thang" about people who post negatively about the sequel. She feels freer there to be less than polite, possibly because there are more POTO fans (and the hated phans) there than the (assumedly) sophisticated theater fans who post on this site.
I'm pleased to see posters here like devonian.t and blax coming back at the one-note "tune."
#50
Posted: 7/6/09 at 3:08am
I think that Ramin has a very unappealing face.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95