...on BLU-RAY and DVD in several countries! http://www.reallyuseful.com/news/love-never-dies-worldwide-dvd-release -dates/
and it's coming to U.S. theaters February 28 and March 7 2012!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2243393/
http://www.facebook.com/LoveNeverDies2012
UGH No thank you! No sequel needed. But thanks anyway. :)
High summer holds the earth
On this shining night
It's not the weak London production. It's the excellent, reworked, critically-acclaimed Australian production ;)
shareI think it's the story that people find objectionable, not the production. Personally, I don't like the sequel at all because it makes the characters inconsistent. And I don't much care for a very romanticized phantom. I love the musical because of the music, but I don't like the way the phantom is much more sympathetic and romantic. I mean he's a murderer, and all he does at the end is decide not to kill someone else, that hardly seems selfless and romantic.
shareOn one hand, I'm curious. On the other, I'm afraid I'll never be able to unsee it if it's as bad as I've heard it is.
Michael Collins: Next time, Harry, we won't play by their rules. We'll play by our own.
The London production is the one you've heard about. The Australian production (the one coming to US theaters and DVD) is very different, and much better.
share[deleted]
The set, but the acting is horrible.
shareThe book it was based off of, The Phantom of Manhattan, was the worst piece of trash I've ever read. When I saw the musical, I was not as disappointed as I thought. The music was struggling to be good, but the story just wouldn't allow it to be. I will admit the sets and costumes were breathtaking, but to watch it as a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera? It was horrible, so bad. None of the characters acted in character, I can almost guarantee you will not recognize anybody by their actions. The ending is absolutely ridiculous, and the whole plot just made me want to cringe. So, in conclusion, it might be worth seeing if you're really into sets, otherwise I would just recommend trying some of the songs, seeing if you can handle the music, and then maybe braving a viewing of it.
shareI'd hate to see what the London production was like, then. The local movie theater offered a screening last night, and I left feeling like the whole was a lot less than the sum of its parts. Some of the individual songs are very good, and the set was impressive and evocative. I thought the actors playing Raoul and the Phantom were excellent, but didn't care for Christine's voice. The pacing and general plot, though, were AWFUL. The show as a whole lacks flow, and the plot developments are so clearly telegraphed as to be humorous rather than dramatic.
Michael Collins: Next time, Harry, we won't play by their rules. We'll play by our own.
Epic LND review. :)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTtmmgRGy0Q
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyz4hsA02XA
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye8T5OfTnVk
LND is friggen amazing. Part 2 and 3 have clips of the Aussie show in the background. Highly recommended!
I just don't think the show should have been made. The material for Phantom is from Leroux's book, and LND essentially guts the characters that Leroux conceived and the ending he wrote for them.
Phantom diverges from the book in the treatment of the phantom and Raoul (Raoul is a much better and more important character in the book and the phantom is much darker and not especially sympathetic), but the play still follows much of the book's basic plot and is still very much based on the book. I just don't think that's right.
I hated Leroux's book. It had a great premise and that became the musical. I don't mind a sequel being made because it is a sequel to the musical- not the book. The book exists, and always will- but it is vastly different then the musical. Its like comparing apples and oranges. I think the sequel is pretty damn good.
If you are all about respect to the original book I am shocked you bother with the musical.
I LOVE the book. I like the musical though. My issue with LND is not so much about respect to the original book, it's that the characters aren't ALW's to do with as he pleases. I DO mind the sequel because it's still a sequel to LEROUX's story. ALW didn't come up with the story. And aside from adding a love triangle and making the Phantom much more prominent, the musical is very similar to the book - the basic plot is basically the same, aside from minor changes (like Raol's brother dying later and the Phantom being the one to suggest the "secret" engagement between Christine and Raoul and Christine being the one to insist on staying and singing the night the Phantom kidnapped her).
Also, as far as LND goes, it's just inconsistent with the Phantom musical to the point of being stupid: (1) Raol (even the watered down version in the musical) risked his life to save Christine - he wasn't the type to become a drunken gambler; (2) if Christine slept with the Phantom while engaged to Raoul then she's a $lut and she wasn't in Phantom; (3) if Christine slept with the Phantom she wouldn't have run off and married Raoul simply because the Phantom wasn't there the next day - she had to know he'd come back; (4) if Christine slept with the Phantom and had his child and then pawned it off as someone else's she's a pretty horrible person, and she wasn't in Phantom; and (5) if she really loved the Phantom and she married Raoul simply because he had a face that could be shown in public then she's horribly shallow and she wasn't in Phantom.
As far as the book v. the musical, I enjoy the musical, but the one thing that bothers me a lot is that the Phantom is portrayed in a romantic way, even though he's a murdering psycho and the one nice thing he does is decide to refrain from killing two additional people (which is hardly an act deserving of lots of praise as normal people refrain from killing everyday). This just never made sense to me. IMO, the book treats the Phantom much much better because it doesn't gloss over his dark side. I think the Phantom is also much more complicated in the book, because the book goes into more depth about the fact that if he were handsome he'd be famous and revered.
I recall reading, at one point, that ALW's cat had someone managed to erase/delete his work to date, on LND.
Clever kitty.
Too bad it didn't stay deleted/erased.
~*~ Melba ~*~
The cat did its best!! If even his cat thought LND shouldn't see the light of day, ALW should have taken that as a sign.
shareThat cat was so revered by fans at the time, it was hysterical... and then he was sadly killed while playing in traffic not long after. I smell a conspiracy...
It's funnier in Enochian.
[deleted]
Too bad it's not with Ramin and Sierra, but yes. Great show!
share