Phantom- Love Never Dies

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Twilight1, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. Twilight1

    Twilight1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,591
    I just happened to discover Andrew Lloyd Webber released it well over a year ago :eek: and that Ramin Karimloo is playing him at the Adelphi Theatre in London. I have listened to some of the tracks and have to say I quite enjoy "Till I Hear You Sing", "Beneath A Moonless Sky", "Beauty Underneath" and "Love Never Dies". I liked the songs enought to order the CD online.

    Has anyone seen the show? What did you think of it?

    It also premieres in Melbourne soon (or has already?). DYING for it to come to Toronto so I can see it. I have read that Ramin will portray the Phantom here but I guess that will happen once he is finished at Adelphi.
  2. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,745
    I think I remember people not liking it, at all...
  3. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,142
    It got absolutely atrocious reviews.
  4. Twilight1

    Twilight1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,591
    I never listen to reviews especially when I have already listened to the music and enjoy it so much.

    I was just wondering if anyone actually saw it and what they thought of it.

    It was to only play a year and they extended it for another 6 months to Sept./11 where they are moving it to another theatre in London. I am hoping it is at that point that Ramin comes to Toronto. I would love to see it for my bday. :)
  5. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    The reviews were SO AWFUL it immediately went into MAJOR rewrites and they dumped a lot of the music. It's (very loosely) based on an old treatment by Frederick Forsythe (no seriously) that became "The Phantom of Manhattan", which was a stupid book when it was a book, and doesn't sound like it improved much with rewrites. The Phan reaction from those who've seen it seems to be it's basically a love letter for Christine/Phantom 'shippers, a take that to Christine/Raoul and Phantom/Meg shippers, and it works only if you buy total character derailment for everyone who appears from the original show/book. The big "reveal"/plot point (which anyone can see coming a hundred miles off) only works if you basically accept Christine's an even bigger ditz than the first one implies AND the Phantom's an even bigger jerk than you think (but you also have to be willing to let it slide), plus Raoul's a total jerk, and Meg....

    There are ways all of that could work. From the sound of things, they don't. Painfully.
  6. Twilight1

    Twilight1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,591
    The Phantom of Manhattan started as a collaboration between Forsythe but Webber didn`t agree with many of the concepts and didn`t think it would take to the stage very well. Forsythe published his work regardless and Webber went on to rework many aspects but the basic design of Coney Island remained but Meg and mom were the `villians`.

    I don`t think it is that out of touch with the original in that Christine loved aspects of the Phantom but loved the safety and security of Raoul. Also, I read an interview with Webber who stated he wanted this to be a stand alone work... that connects with the original.

    Still gonna see it and looking forward to it. :)

    Also, Being the huge Phantom fan I am, the original lyrics to `The Phantom of the Opera`were changed drastically as well. The 1st verse in particular had a huge overhaul from the original lyrics written by Steve Hartley by Charles Hart. Andrew Lloyd Webber has notoriously done that with many of his musicals.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2011
  7. MLIS

    MLIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    174
    I saw it in London about a year ago (before the rewrites). The score is lovely, the performances were quite good (I saw an understudy for the Phantom, unfortunately), the set/costumes/effects were suitably spectacular. The book was awful. It felt like fan fiction written by a 13 year old. The characters only loosely resembled the characters from the original story, and I hated, hated, hated the removal of any autonomy for Christine at all (I know she's not a paragon of feminist thinking in the original, but at least she gets to make her own choice at the end of the first one).

    I did enjoy it, and it made me quite sentimental for the original, and it was a fun evening in the theatre. But the book was awful, and frustrating.
  8. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    See, my problem is in the stage version
    for Gustave to exist Christine had to sneak out and cheat on Raoul with the Phantom THE NIGHT BEFORE THEIR WEDDING. And then the Phantom ditches her again for her own good.
    All of which kinda negates the ending of the first play, AND makes Christine look like an indecisive ditz, and makes the Phantom look like a complete jerk again, totally wiping out what character development he had. (Never mind a classic 'you fail biology forever' moment as
    unless the Phantom in his genius has invented paternity testing OR Christine and Raoul waited a month or two to consumate their marriage so she could be sure she was already pregnant there's no real guarantee Gustave is the Phantom's based on a one-night stand anyway. There's certainly no physical resemblance and love of/talent for music could have come from oh, I don't know, his OPERA-SINGER MOTHER AND VIOLINIST MATERNAL GRANDFATHER?
    )

    It's less that it's a stupid plot as it's an UNNECESSARILY stupid plot. The book was bad enough, the musical took the basic premise and went TOTALLY crazy (note, however, while IIRC the trigger 'man' is different the end result is the same.) It only functions if you accept every returning character underwent a radical personality shift, lost any sort development from the previous play, and learned absolutely nothing. Given the Leroux is in the public domain, there are a million sequels out there--they didn't have to go with such a weak idea to start with.
  9. ArtisticFan

    ArtisticFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,411
    I did break down and see it in London after it reopened post-rewrites. It was crap and I'm still mourning the money spent to see that piece of crap. I'm not sure how else to describe something that bordered on bad fan fiction.
  10. Allen

    Allen Glad to be back!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,778
    I'm one of the few people that never liked Phantom of the Opera in the first place, so I never cared about Love Never Dies, but I've heard that it's a disaster, and not of the interesting kind.

    In fact, I can't think of a Lloyd Weber musical I liked. Joseph is pretty good, but I'm just not a fan of his work in general.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2011
  11. ArtisticFan

    ArtisticFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,411
    To be honest I'm not that much of a fan of his work. It is just isn't my cup of tea. Phantom is better than say Cats, but that doesn't say much. I did appreciate some of the music from Phantom. I can't say as much for Love Never Dies.

    I'm a fan of musical theater, but that piece of garbage makes me have second thoughts about that statement.
  12. Wyliefan

    Wyliefan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    17,647
    That's what drives me bonkers about the whole trainwreck. The guy wrote a sequel that basically undoes everything he did in the first one, wrecks the characters, and negates the original's ending. Who does that to his own work??
  13. jenny12

    jenny12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,550
    I agree. I think most of ALW's music is too bombastic and he always pairs himself with some of the worst lyricists around. I enjoy plenty of other music theater composers, but I think Andrew Lloyd Webber's one of the worst.
  14. Andora

    Andora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Messages:
    10,632
    Isn't there an urban legend that ALW's cat deleted his work halfway through? Insinuating SOME form of fate was trying to save us from it...

    I have no doubt the music is lovely, performances strong, etc. etc. etc. I admit I haven't seen it, but I've read what happens. The comparison to fan fiction seems bang on, and that's sad. I was a huge fan of everything Phantom-- even the hit and miss 2004 movie.

    I have to laugh because I would have LOVED a sequel back when I first saw it... at age 12/13.
  15. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    Well, the first one took some liberties, but more or less stuck halfway close to the original novel ('sexing up' the Phantom's makeup, mostly because they discovered Michael Crawford couldn't sing through a full-face prosthetic.) This one--the book Forsyth ended up writing wasn't that great, and it's like ALW took the worst aspects from it and used those. There are LOTS of sequels, and as the original's in the public domain no one's stopping ALW from writing something totally new, and THIS is what he thought was the best option?

    It's have sooner seen them adapt one of the crossovers involving that OTHER public-domain character, Sherlock Holmes ("The Canary Trainer" and "The Angel of the Opera". I can't remember which was readable and which was just bad, but either one was better than "The Phantom of Manhattan.")
  16. CarolineL

    CarolineL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    139
    I saw it, I liked it (mostly because Ramin was so very good) but the ending is awful, and drags on forever. After Christine sings her big number there must be twenty minutes until the curtain falls and there is not another song in that time. Very odd.
  17. Veronika

    Veronika gold dust woman

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    4,076
    Not an urban legend!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Never_Dies_(musical)#Background
    Andora and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Holley Calmes

    Holley Calmes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,857
    I always hated the book because Christine is just a dumb little twit. I liked many of the songs in the first musical, and I enjoyed the movie until I fell asleep.

    Put me down as one who thinks Le Miz is infinitely better as art. Phantom has its moments. But it's a surface/glossy/shallow bauble.

    I love ALW's Requiem though.
  19. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,745
    I can't get over the fact that his cat deleted everything. I don't think I would have it in me to start over. Is his cat still alive? lol
  20. ArtisticFan

    ArtisticFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,411
    The cat deserves an award.
  21. Wyliefan

    Wyliefan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    17,647
    The cat is my hero. He should have listened to it!

    I know. I meant that, in creating the sequel, ALW took his own work -- the story he and his team created based on the novel -- and then undid everything he himself had done with it.

    I would like to read one of those Sherlock Holmes crossovers sometime.

    Funny you should say that about the book -- she was way stronger in the book than in the show. (Although even in the show I think she's stronger than people give her credit for.) In the book, it seemed like Raoul was this noble but naive mama's boy type, and Christine was practically leading him around by the hand to keep him out of trouble. :lol:
  22. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,461
    In comparing it to Les Miz, it's only fair to remember that the source material is light-years apart. Le Fantome.. is a dime novel basically written for a quick buck. OTOH, while it might SEEM like Hugo was getting paid by the word, Les Miserables is...well, based on a magnum opus by Victor Hugo. They had a lot more to work with. (And I have to confess, I enjoy Phantom more, simply because except for Valjean, Javert, and the Thenadiers I hate EVERYONE in Les Mis and want them all to die, the sooner, the better.* Music's good, though. Phantom is cheesy gothic lit with extra cheese and I'm not EXPECTED to take anyone seriously, so I can just enjoy the bombast.)

    In the book, Raoul is just kind of...a nonentity. And Christine is definitely less of a moron than she comes across in many adaptations. (In fact one might argue a good part of their problems in the book is Raoul cannot pick up on her subtle hints. She apparently needed to spell everything out in small words.) Structurally you have to lose a lot of that in ALW's version just because it's a lot of talking (and I'm kind of sad he ditched the Persian and gave much of his function to Madame Giry, but again, I get why.)

    And I want to send that cat some fresh nip. He was trying to tell us something.

    *Well, not the Bishop. He's not around long enough one way or the other.