Love Never Dies

[Dane]

Hi all

Just came back from London where I went to see "Love never dies".

I had high hopes for this musical ( because it's Lloyd Webbe), but was very disappointed

The show itself was beautiful but that was about it. In POTO we have songs and melodies that we remember, they get stuck in our head, but there was nothing like that in this show. No good or even beautiful melodies (I heard a lot of people say that) And the story.....I can only express it like this:

"Mr. Andrew Lloyd Webber you should have left THE PHANTOM IN THE OPERA"

I know Gerry went to see it a while back. Did he ever say anything about what he thought of it?

Has anyone from GALS seen it? I'l like hear what others thought of it.

Dane

[may]

I am sad to hear that Dane; Andrew was supposed to have honed it up a lot since the first showing; I guess it missed the mark? My favorite song from the CD is "Beneath a Moonless Sky"...

[GBPhanatic]

Hi all

Just came back from London where I went to see "Love never dies".

I had high hopes for this musical ( because it's Lloyd Webbe), but was very disappointed

The show itself was beautiful but that was about it. In POTO we have songs and melodies that we remember, they get stuck in our head, but there was nothing like that in this show. No good or even beautiful melodies (I heard a lot of people say that) And the story.....I can only express it like this:

"Mr. Andrew Lloyd Webber you should have left THE PHANTOM IN THE OPERA"

I know Gerry went to see it a while back. Did he ever say anything about what he thought of it?

Has anyone from GALS seen it? I'l like hear what others thought of it.

Dane

Hey there, Dane! I saw it last August and like you, I had high hopes and came away disappointed. I did love most of the music, the singing and the set designs but the story was weak, the characters were totally out of sync with their original personas and other then thoroughly just enjoying the experience of being in the famous West End and the Adephi, it fell flat for me. I had hopes that ALW had fixed it but perhaps it wasn't enough. I had even overheard some talking in the lobby before the performance that he had already changed it a couple of times before I saw it.

For me the problem was the characters were not in keeping with who they were, mostly the Phantom's character. He wasn't the dark, forbodding presence that he was before with the aire of mystic and unpredictability. He wasn't the long suffering, emotionally torn, love sick Phantom that we all loved. Instead he was cavalier and arrogant and showed no loyalty to the people who had helped him and loved him. I came away feeling no sympathy or heartbreak for him at all.

The Raoul's character was, in my opinion, all wrong. He was no adversary for the Phantom's character anymore. He came off weak and sniveling and no match for the Phantom.

M. Giry and Meg were a huge disappointment too. Their complete change of character was just plain baffling to me.

I think if they would have left the Phantom's character a mystery to Christine at least halfway through the show, it would have been more intriguing and left more for the audience to anticipate and look forward to. Raoul's character needed to retain some of his strength to fight for the woman he loved and M. Giry and Meg should have shown more loyalty and affection for Christine even if they did feel betrayed. It wasn't Christine's fault. M. Giry raised Christine along side her own daughter and Meg grew up with her like a sister and for both of them to cop such a jealousy towards Christine showed how ALW has the shallow perception that women will turn on each other over the attentions of a man. I just found it hard to swallow.

The development of these characters personalities (not the characters themselves, of course) came from ALW in the first place and it was almost as if he had forgotten his own creations. I suppose that between the time he originally wrote POTO for the stage and wrote LND, his mind had changed as to who he thought they should be. I know he said he had started writing the sequel some time back and I don't remember when that was but this all was such a strange twist of personalities for me and even though ten years had passed, it seemed the core of who they were was totally gone and never re-emerged in these characters. I realize people can change over time but no everyone completely to the point you don't recognize who they are. Actually, Christine's character was the only one that remained the most true to her personality. But that's just my perception and other's might feel differently.

I hope I get to see it again sometime. Maybe the second time around will be different.

Delene

[may]

Hi all

Just came back from London where I went to see "Love never dies".

I had high hopes for this musical ( because it's Lloyd Webbe), but was very disappointed

The show itself was beautiful but that was about it. In POTO we have songs and melodies that we remember, they get stuck in our head, but there was nothing like that in this show. No good or even beautiful melodies (I heard a lot of people say that) And the story.....I can only express it like this:

"Mr. Andrew Lloyd Webber you should have left THE PHANTOM IN THE OPERA"

I know Gerry went to see it a while back. Did he ever say anything about what he thought of it?

Has anyone from GALS seen it? I'd like hear what others thought of it.

Dane

Hey there, Dane! I saw it last August and like you, I had high hopes and came away disappointed. I did love most of the music, the singing and the set designs but the story was weak, the characters were totally out of sync with their original persona's and other then thoroughly just enjoying the experience of being in the famous West End and the Adephi, it fell flat for me. I had hopes that ALW had fixed it but perhaps it wasn't enough. I had even overheard some talking in the lobby before the performance that he had already changed it a couple of times before I saw it.

For me the problem was the characters were not in keeping with who they were, mostly the Phantom's character. He wasn't the dark, foreboding presence that he was before with the aire of mystic and unpredictability. He wasn't the long suffering, emotionally torn, love sick Phantom that we all loved. Instead he was cavalier and arrogant and showed no loyalty to the people who had helped him and loved him. I came away feeling no sympathy or heartbreak for him at all.

The Raoul's character was, in my opinion, all wrong. He was no adversary for the Phantom's character anymore. He came off weak and snivelling and no match for the Phantom.

M. Giry and Meg were a huge disappointment too. Their complete change of character was just plain baffling to me.

I think if they would have left the Phantom's character a mystery to Christine at least halfway through the show, it would have been more intriguing and left more for the audience to anticipate and look forward to. Raoul's character needed to retain some of his strength to fight for the woman he loved and M. Giry and Meg should have shown more loyalty and affection for Christine even if they did feel betrayed. It wasn't Christine's fault. M. Giry raised Christine along side her own daughter and Meg grew up with her like a sister and for both of them to cop such a jealousy toward Christine showed how ALW has the shallow perception that women will turn on each other over the attentions of a man. I just found it hard to swallow.

The development of these characters personalities (not the characters themselves, of course) came from ALW in the first place and it was almost as if he had forgotten his own creations. I suppose that between the time he originally wrote POTO for the stage and wrote LND, his mind had changed as to who he thought they should be. I know he said he had started writing the sequel some time back and I don't remember when that was but this all was such a strange twist of personalities for me and even though ten years had passed, it seemed the core of who they were was totally gone and never re-emerged in these characters. I realize people can change over time but no everyone completely to the point you don't recognize who they are. Actually, Christine's character was the only one that remained the most true to her personality. But that's just my perception and other's might feel differently.

I hope I get to see it again sometime. Maybe the second time around will be different.

Delene

Delene; you are spot on with the character misrepresentations here. I too found that Madame Giry would never have become so spiteful and greedy and Meg sounds like one of the spoilt ballet brats not to mention (a dumb blond) Don't get me wrong; I am also blond but this character sings and talks dumb.

The Phantom;Ramin is way too average to play such a threateningly possessive character. I did love the music but the characters were for me unbelievably unsuited for the roles. The Phantom's voice should have been more menacing and secretive until the end; Madame Giry was so out of touch with her real character I didn't even recognize her. Oh well I hope that "if" it ever goes to the big screen; the script will be completely revised?

[sofietje]

I saw it in December and I also saw it last night. It was the last show with the original cast and it was a magical evening.

The crowd was excited and right after the first song the roof went off the Adelphi theater and it did again after other songs. When Christine finshed the song 'Love Never Dies' she received a standing ovation

When I got to the stage door there were around 300 people waiting in the cold to get an autograph or a picture. Eventually I left at 23u15 and there were stil 30 people waiting and Ramin was still signing autoghs and taking pictures.

I have seen already 2 times POTO and now 2 times LND and I haven't been dissapointed by it. For me there are still loads of wonderfull melodies and songs that stick in your hea like Til I hear you sing - Coney Island Waltz - LND and others. Last night £I have sung the songs a couple of times in my head while I was sleeping.

I can understand that some characters have some strange twists but I can understand it to: Mme Giry risked everything to get Phantom on the boat and to start te business on Coney Island. For her it is a betrayal that she doesn't receive anything from the Phantom. All of her life she has done everything for him and when she thinks that she will getting back then she hears there is nothing for her.

Regarding the Phantom character: don't forget that it is 10 years after the 1st part so in those 10 years he has changed to. He knows now that with his torment and brooding nothing will happen and he won't get anything. He is trrying another way to achieve his ultimate goal which is Christine. Because it was his anger that drove her away to Raoul in the 1st place.

This is just my opinion.

[may]

I agree with you about the music Sofieje; I own the two CD's from the play and listen to it often. I even liked "Devil Takes the Hind part" and can imagine the Phantom entering and coming face to face with his old rival. I hope and pray that Andrew keeps honing it and eventually turn this one into a movie as well. Ramin is very handsome and does cut a fit looking Phantom; but his voice lacks that "raspy threat" that is required though. Andrew said it him self; that the Phantom was just this side of "danger" and that is what made him sexy and alluring for Christine. Madame Giry was for me; a real modern woman all be it for that era; because she not only was a young widow but held a full time job and took it upon her self to bring up Erik too. It was just the way the Phantom is portrayed in this one;his actions toward her and she to her little Opera Ghost that didn't seem right somehow. But I do love the sequel idea and hope that by the time it is honed by Andrew that we all can enjoy seeing it (on the big screen) and not have to wait outside an English theatre! Thank you for sharing your experience with us...Hugs May

[GBPhanatic]

I can understand that some characters have some strange twists but I can understand it to: Mme Giry risked everything to get Phantom on the boat and to start te business on Coney Island. For her it is a betrayal that she doesn't receive anything from the Phantom. All of her life she has done everything for him and when she thinks that she will getting back then she hears there is nothing for her.

I always believed you did things for people you loved without expecting anything in return. I don't M. Giry saw him as an investment in her future and if so, when they got set up in the new world, she should have gotten something down in writing. She was a savvy business woman and if that was the case, I think she would have.

Instead, I think M. Giry was always in love with him. She didn't seem much older then him when she rescued him from the carnival. It was obvious both Meg and Christine were much younger then he was. I think I heard that Christine was suppose to be about twenty and the Phantom around thirty five. I pictured M. Giry around forty or so then so ten years later, especially with people who have already matured, should not change in personality that drastically. I could see where they would be hurt more then angry. I can also see M. Giry as the kind of woman who loved him enough that she wanted him to be happy. His drastic change in loyalty to her took him from just a dark, mysterious tortured soul to a low down dirty dog and that just killed it for me.

I'd rather see a man kill for the woman he loves then screw over someone who cares about him. Just didn't set with me. He then had a son and a business and a life, all thanks to the love a few good women. What a jerk!

Delene

[may]

Instead, I think M. Giry was always in love with him. She didn't seem much older then him when she rescued him from the carnival. It was obvious both Meg and Christine were much younger then he was.

Wow Delene; I always had that very same thought! She did look at him with such pride back in the Opera House; and a slight twinkle in her eye? I know she didn't aways approve of his "choices" but she did protect him risking even prison to do so. I understand her loyalty but the way they had her turn on him...or was it because of an underlying jealousy? Especially when she discovered about his son with Christine. She might have been angry with him; but betray him for money? And as for this (more mature) Phantom; well he used Meg to justify his means. Meg was just a tool all be it a willing one. But then again; who could say no to that man? Oh it gets too complicated with "should haves and could haves". TWEAK IT ANDREW..BEFORE YOU LOSE THE BEST OF THE STORY!

[shirsan]

Did this stick to the book, "Phantom of Manhattan" at all? If so, I must go back and read it again.

I didn't get this from the book from which this musical was "supposed" to be based on, or have

I just forgotten the plot?

Sandy

[GBPhanatic]

Did this stick to the book, "Phantom of Manhattan" at all? If so, I must go back and read it again.

I didn't get this from the book from which this musical was "supposed" to be based on, or have

I just forgotten the plot?

Sandy

Sandy, I did not read the book "Phantom of Manhattan". I had heard that ALW had originally based this sequel closely on it but changed his mind. Even though I've not read it, I've heard many didn't like it. Might have been the reason he decided to defer, I don't know. I've been meaning to read it sometime, so many books so little time you know. Anyway, I think ALW would have been better off to take his sequel off of his own story and character build.

ALW will always be one of the most prolific writers and composers of musicals, song and melody. The music was wonderful, the story plot was disappointing.

Delene

[may]

Yes; ALW did try and adapt his play to POM but then altered it a lot in the end and is still making tweaks to his play. He is a genius when it comes to writing music but with this particular play; it is hard to please the masses after they have either read the original story by Leroux or seen the movie version. It is a bit like comparing apples to oranges when it comes to these two story lines. I love them all but must agree with Delene here; that it needs much work (as he did for the first one) to make it completely believable for the masses...

[pothos]

Can I ask if Richard Stilgoe's absence as co lyricist from Love Never Dies could be one reason for the problems. I personal feel he ver received enough credit for the original production of POTO success.

J

[may]

Can I ask if Richard Stilgoe's absence as co lyricist from Love Never Dies could be one reason for the problems. I personal feel he never received enough credit for the original production of POTO success.

J

You might be right there; I remember hearing about him on the second CD of the movie POTO titled "The making of". I must admit that it would be extremely difficult to "top" the songs from the original POTO ; songs like "All I ask of you" and "Masquerade" and of course "Point of No Return". Barbara Streisand even sang the first song on one of her albums. They show us "in the making of"; the different lyrics for some of the songs and at first they were awful..even with Sarah singing them. But then they changed lyricists and BINGO success...

[shirsan]

I so loved POTO original music. I sang it once and adored every note. I think any so loved musical

is hard to "up" on, so much is expected, but if anyone can do it ALW can. He can make the birds in the

trees want to sing his tunes, I'm sure they try. I love his music and I love the Phantom story. The music

is going to be hard to top or even compare, but a sequel should not have been so hard. If he stayed true

to the characters it should have been a breeze. I would think that the music would be the hard part.

I hope that he eases back to the original characters and make this sequel the sequel of all time.

I hope that he perfects the plot and gets Gerry to revise his role in a movie. I would pay to see that

beyond all else offered on the screen.

Love him absolutely,

Sandy

[may]

Sandy; I like you am a huge ALW fan and also know of his Genius for writing music. Having said that; he needs to get another writer for the storyline to reunite the old cast and crew then a great Director to make the sequel in an epic fashion. It would make people want to revisit the first story just to see where it got it's roots from. Many people either never heard of POTO or never seen it. I saw a site for petitions to urge movie makers to remake certain movies. This one was for "Tomb Raider" but even though they said it would be done; it has yet to be contracted. I think Angelina is refusing to reprise the role? Anyway; someone should start up a petition for LND's; but then again; it brings out as many people against than for the idea sooo. Time will see and Andrew took 15 years before finally choosing to make the movie.

[GBPhanatic]

This sequel is not in continuity with the movie version. Christine died, per the tomb stone, at the age of 63, if my math serves me. I think ALW has completely eliminated the movie version from his consciousness.

Delene

[Dane]

If he stayed true to the characters it should have been a breeze.

Love him absolutely,

Sandy

This is why I didn't like it. He did NOT stay true to the characters at all.....sorry GALS but it is the worst show/musical I have ever seen in London.

I don't understand why ALW had to put a son in the show...when did the relationship ever get to that point??? I don't remember that.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dane

[GBPhanatic]

If he stayed true to the characters it should have been a breeze.

Love him absolutely,

Sandy

This is why I didn't like it. He did NOT stay true to the characters at all.....sorry GALS but it is the worst show/musical I have ever seen in London.

I don't understand why ALW had to put a son in the show...when did the relationship ever get to that point??? I don't remember that.

I think ALW intended for the appearance of a son to be the twist, of course. But there was always speculation about them having "done it" when he took her down to the lair the first time or perhaps even when she emerged in the wedding dress later on. But that blows the whole "first kiss" thing out of the water at the end. That was suppose to be the first intimacy they had between each other.

Maybe ALW was from the same old school of thought my Mother used to believe in and that is if you kiss a boy, you'll get pregnant!

Delene

[Donnie]

I must confess that I did not like the story that much either (as I wrote before, I really liked the music, bought the DVD and listen to it often, but the story....). To me, they were different characters than those from POTO.

As to the night of their encounter, they sing about it in "Beneath the Moonless Sky" - Christine somehow knew where the Phantom was hiding after the fire and visited him the night before her wedding, if I understood it right.

[GBPhanatic]

I must confess that I did not like the story that much either (as I wrote before, I really liked the music, bought the DVD and listen to it often, but the story....). To me, they were different characters than those from POTO.

As to the night of their encounter, they sing about it in "Beneath the Moonless Sky" - Christine somehow knew where the Phantom was hiding after the fire and visited him the night before her wedding, if I understood it right.

The night before her wedding day? What a harlot!

Delene

[may]

I must confess that I did not like the story that much either (as I wrote before, I really liked the music, bought the DVD and listen to it often, but the story....). To me, they were different characters than those from POTO.

As to the night of their encounter, they sing about it in "Beneath the Moonless Sky" - Christine somehow knew where the Phantom was hiding after the fire and visited him the night before her wedding, if I understood it right.

The night before her wedding day? What a harlot!

Delene

Now now gals; remember she was all of what...17? If you had to choose from Raoul or the Phantom it would be a tough choice to make. Apples and oranges; Raoul (blond and rich and from a socially upper class family) or The Phantom (an introvert living in the underground of the Opera House;a Genius but slightly dangerous and sexy a hell)...I choose the later please! Yes Beneath a Moonless sky does tell the story and after watching her and Raoul float away in that last scene in POTO; I had to think; damn girl; turn back and finish what you started with those kisses! I love the idea of him having a son and that their love was deeper than either of them realized. The only bone I have to pick is about the way he portrayed Meg and Madam Giry. By the way; yes it did say that Christine died at 63 so there is some confusion there...Maybe it was her mother's name? Andrew......you have some splainin to do!!!!

Edited March 15, 2011 by may

[GBPhanatic]

Now now gals; remember she was all of what...17?

I think it depends which version we're talking about. In the movie, Emmy Rossum was actually 17 playing twenty. I remember this because Gerry remarks about kissing her and feeling a bit nervous about it. He was around 35 at the time. In ALW's story I believe he intended Christine to be around twenty, Raoul a little older maybe mid twenties and the Phantom mid thirties. In the original story the Phantom's character was actually up in his fifties!

I could see where Christine might give in to her darker side with the Phantom. But I believe she loved Raoul too and was more comfortable with him since they had been children together. When you're a young woman, you have many decisions about things, don't you? How we take those things for granted when we are young and when we're older, our decisions are not so much about which one of two good things do I choose but which thing do I choose that will be the lesser of two evils!

Delene

[may]

Delene; perhaps I was placing my own story along with Christine's (which I named my daughter by the way long before I even knew the Phantom). I was married at 17 and had dated (briefly) my husband's brother; only to find that he was not for me...Ended up marrying my older sister (another story Lol)... He; the first brother; was like the Phantom; just this side of dangerous....so I passed for what I thought was the more "secure" one. Looking back; I was oh so naive; because although my husband was the more "level headed"; his brother found a good job and kept it for 30 years; while we bounced from pillar to post never knowing where the next income was coming from. Like Christine; I was young and vulnerable and it was hard to finally make a choice. JS;did say that they wanted someone very young and innocent; they found that with Emmy for sure; but if she was playing a girl of 20; she seemed much younger than that to the audience. Back in that era; women were married at very tender ages; like Patrick said; "They lived short but intense lives back then." For me; when the Phantom stood there watching his love leave him behind; I thought to my self "NO!"; "This can't end like this?" I felt just as betrayed as he did. The scene where he sits with his music box and she hands him the ring; was truly the saddest part of the movie for me...

[AngelofMusic]

I always assumed that Christine was 16 years old when you meet the character in ALW's musical, about to turn 17 and I'm pretty sure they didn't change her age for the film. You have to remember that back then, being 16 was a perfectly normal age for a girl to be married off, if not younger, to be an unmarried woman then at age 20...well, you may as well have called yourself a spinster. And in Leroux's novel, Christine is even younger, only 15 years old.

[may]

I always assumed that Christine was 16 years old when you meet the character in ALW's musical, about to turn 17 and I'm pretty sure they didn't change her age for the film. You have to remember that back then, being 16 was a perfectly normal age for a girl to be married off, if not younger, to be an unmarried woman then at age 20...well, you may as well have called yourself a spinster. And in Leroux's novel, Christine is even younger, only 15 years old.

Like you; I am also confused about the actual age of Christine; I might have to watch the "making of POTO" and the movie and take notes lol...In that era; you are right; they were married off at very young ages because women did not have careers like today in fact they were not allowed to work at all! They were to marry and supply the families with heirs. If they tried to find a young "innocent" girl by today's standards; it would be almost impossible since sex is as common as bottled water for young teenagers. It's not a chastity belt the parents seek but birth control instead! I love the sequel idea but hope that little details do get eventually straightened out. Andrew must make it believable before he gets the audience to enjoy the idea too...Go Andrew Go!