I've said this for years, but Carlotta should have been the villain, and Meg and Mme Giry shouldn't be in this show at all. Carlotta has some serious bones to pick with both the Phantom (killed her husband) and Christine (stole her career). That could have been compelling.
There are so many things they could have done. If they wanted another chandelier, they could have used a fake Phantom stalking Christine, which prompts the real Phantom to come out of hiding to protect her. Two Phantom musicals, two Phantoms. There's a hundred other ways they could have gone with this story and artistically it could have been satisfactory, equal with the music. Very frustrating musical.
yesssss! when I first found out about LND I was shocked as I had no clue...but even more shocked when Meg was the bad one....? like what lol. Meg was Christines bestie, and also found the phantoms mask at the end of the show kinda symbolizing that he had gone forever...maybe she was mad he returned lmao
I really liked the book that the show was originally devised from, The Phantom of Manhattan. It was just a new character that was from Coney island and it worked.
Love never dies is a very peculiar show - it's a fever dream fanfic from the original author. Which is weird by itself. And more so when you watch it develops as a full musical. It's so weird that seeing it being played by bears makes it more... right... 😂
IMHO, the material is inherently broken. It will never make sense to frame Phantom as not the villain he is and making Raoul as big of an asshat as he is means there's no one to root for in this. And then Meg is...I don't even know what the eff that was. My jaw dropped when she mentioned her new SW career. (The bear review is A+ I would love more of it)
I agree. The problem is the fact that they want to fix the ending of Phantom because people wanted originally the Phantom and Christine to get together. But the thing is that I feel Phantom never needed fixing because the Phantom was all about the idea of unrequited love (Plus dare I say he was willing to kill another person and force Christine into a marriage that she didn't want) so that is why it wasn't needed. And as well with Meg for me it was never made clear that of what she had done previously - to me personally it felt like she was just simply jealous of Christine and actually worried of being upstaged yet again because of her presence.
@@MickeyJoTheatre and listening to your review makes me realise....im not even hoping for Raoul because its awkward to remember he has been unsupportive and disrespectful since the first dressing room scene in Phantom
@danjon8799 Its implied early on with the Mr. Thomspon admirer line, but made exlicit in the finale when she literally says "...in their arms, in their beds..." its pretty fucked up, honestly.
The whole redemptive arc of the Phantom was negated. He had a moment of hope of changing for better at the end of POTO. Here, he's was still up to his gaslighting, trickery, and cruelty. He threatened to kidnap the kid, for heaven's sake. BTW, am I the only one who thinks part of the "Beneath the Moonless Sky" sounds like "Cell Block Tango" from "Chicago"? Loved your stuffed animal version!!!!
When we were kids, my older sister wrote a sequel to Phantom. Whenever I hear the plot of LND (yours being the best rendition yet), I'm reminded that what my sister wrote at age 14 was much better. She did pull in some reincarnation stuff to avoid the need to retcon so drastically, but even she rolled her eyes at LND.
Funny that you say that because about a decade ago, I started writing my own version of Phantom. It was basically another sequel since one of the songs was called “Why Meg?” lol, but it was definitely better than the story of Love Never Dies. The talking stuffed animals might be the best version tho.😅
Love Never Dies has always been an example of retcon. How did these two people conceive a child when he makes reference to his deformity not allowing him to enjoy the sins of the flesh. There is nowhere in phantom that she demonstrates any love for phantom pity yes but not love Their treatment of the Raoul is almost a sacrilege I mean the poor bloke rescues Christine. Is willing to die for her and we are now supposed to believe he is just a drunk. The reason this show failed was because of the retconning. Those who loved Phantom hated the way the characters had been altered. Frankly this show should have been left in ALWs mind. One final point. Hannah Waddingham singing Our Kind of Love. Is a million miles better than the song Love Never Dies
Also they never showed that Raoul and Christine loved each other. I would argue it was more of reminiscing their childhood and that they had more of a high school fling going on in Phantom. Plus he started off as the wild payboy type so it it more easy to believe he would become a drunk due to gambling away his fortune in Monti Carlo
I’ll stand by liking the real Raoul. He was a good person in the original musical. He and Christine were cute together and he was obviously the option that respected her more. Anyone who acts like Erik was the better choice is kind of in support of his incel-esque lashing out.
@@Nightman221kyeah, the sequel really glosses over the fact that Phantom literally killed people and threatened to murder Raoul similarly if she refused Phantom.
I think Love Never Dies says that right before she married Raoul Christine ran back to The Phantom, who she somehow knew the hiding place of, had sex with him, and wanted to ditch Raoul for him, and that's why she got knocked up with a Phantom baby. It's still absurd, but strictly speaking doesn't contradict The Phantom mentioning being a virgin at the end of the first play. I would agree that Christine doesn't ever show love for The Phantom in the first play and goes from thinking he's a literal angel sent by her father to realizing he's a creepy, menacing stalker. The "Love Triangle" is in the minds of people who think the Phantom is sexy and mysterious, even though that's supposed to be just as much of a mask for something horrible underneath as his literally mask.
@@OrangeStrayCat yes I forgot that. Just makes the whole idea of LND even more thoroughly absurd. It’s just complete retcon. Most Phantom fans I know just work in a universe where LND does not exist. A bit like Independence Day 2. Having watched it we then ignore it’s very existence. That Raoul and Christine lived happily ever after until she died from some unspecified illness leaving a heartbroken Raoul and an army of their children. You are right about the love triangle sexy phantom angle. That’s only recent. Phantom was always about unrequited love. And I certainly know many women who hate LND because at it’s core is a woman seemingly under the coercive control of her abuser. There is zero romance in that. It’s considered sexy mainly because Ramin was a “sexy” phantom but what if Michael Crawford had played him. Given Crawford was more the right age than Ramin.
I honestly think I would enjoy LND so much more if it was featuring entirely different characters. Could have been great with originals characters, (I shamefully enjoy the Coney Island aesthetic and score)
This!! Even if people might complain about Webber just retreading the same ground like the mysterious figure being in love with the singer and wanting to pull her away from her current lover, fans of the show would probably be enjoying and analyzing the comparisons because of how the plots are handled differently. Sure in Phantom we root for Raoul to save Christine as Erik becomes more unhinged as the show goes on, but Mr. Y could be argued as eccentric and has his underhanded way of dealing with the love triangle and Christine leaving her family for him would be understandable since she's in a loveless, potentially abusive relationship with her husband. They already had songs to explain what happened between the opera house and the circus, there's no reason why an original production couldn't have something to explain maybe Christine's counterpart was once a member of the circus who ran off with some rich suitor and Meg is jealous because she was a rival act who thought she'd be the star once Christine left but it's been years and she's STILL being overlooked. In fact, if doing a different show, Christine could have a different talent than singer to make her stand out more from the original. And it would make the history between Mr. Y and Christine more believable because they don't have to spell out how Gustave was possible, we just know these two used to be lovers and Mr. Y starts off bitter because she left him for money and now has come crawling back to him now that she's broke. Raoul and Madame Giry wouldn't have to change at all in their plots because they got done so dirty in this that the original characters could stand on their own. (I too am in love with the set. That opening number in the version I saw on tour really drew you into the carnival atmosphere)
@@Kahtisemo YES! It would do so much to prevent the plot holes LDN has *as a sequel*. I love your idea of the Christine counterpart having a different talent - maybe it can be something related to the circus universe (aerial silk???) where she can also sing the LND song, except this time she sings it to express how she feels about Mr. Y not as a mere performance song. And her making the choice to go ahead with the aerial silk number Mr. Y conceived for her would have much higher stakes (re: trusting him) than singing.
@@therustysea Oh I like the idea of the title song being her idea because then it makes the love feel more genuine. I was trying to think of what acts could be easily shown on stage and hadn't thought of aerial silk. My first thought was a tightrope walker (made safe by stage magic) but I could see that too. Either pausing mid performance or seeming to freeze before or after when she sees her husband off stage one direction and Mr. Y the other and then starts singing. The audience thinks it's part of the show but the men know she's making a decision and Raoul walks off. On that note, I wonder if that could also come up when Raoul yells at the paparazzi earlier. They ask Christine if she's going to be doing any tricks in her new show and Raoul snaps that the Viscountess doesn't do that anymore, she's here to be a serious singer. But Mr. Y is convinced she can still do it and Christine has a very real fear at first about his proposal because she hasn't done it in years. But after the performance just solidifies for her that she can and she misses it badly. Would also make the Devil Takes the Highmost scene more interesting because WE know that Christine was threatened earlier but doesn't know about the bet. Raoul made the bet, but doesn't know about the threat, but is more than sure even if Christine goes on stage, she'll back out. This is crazy and dangerous and she'll come back to him when she realizes it. Then she ends up doing amazing and he realizes she's not coming back. Also Mr. Y realizing Gustave is similar to him because of his creative musical / mechanical talents could still be there because that's more distinctly Mr. Y's thing if his mother wasn't also a musical superstar.
I think Hadley Fraser would be an amazing LND Raoul. He received a lot of criticism for playing a more serious and frustrated Raoul in the 25th anniversary (which I don’t agree with) and he has had quite a lot of experience playing drunk people like Grantaire in Les Mis. Hearing Hadley and Ramin Karimloo sing Devil Take The Hindmost would just be so beautiful
@@hannahbrennan2131 I just checked, and actually I was wrong about that, I just got confused cause Ramin and Sierra Boggess were on it and I hadn’t listened to it in a while. So sorry for misleading you
I saw the show at the Adelphi. I thought that, overall, what it needed to make sense was a framing device - the real Phantom, broken, decrepit, feverishly scribbling down a vengeful fantasy on the woman who(very gently, all things considered) rejected him(her marriage is miserable AND she dies AND he doesn't even want her any more), the man he lost her to(he's bankrupt AND a violent drunk AND he can't get it up) and everyone else who just happened to be there, including completely impossible details like a half hour medley of songs all about that one time they totally did it, guys, while you weren't looking, and that's why her son is actually his, and an absurd depiction of himself as a young, dashing, handsome genius who all the girls are falling over themselves for. If it was all from his warped and disintegrating perspective, it would make sense. Except Meg shooting Christine by accident. That was such an anticlimax. There was no foreshadowing, no sense of her being doomed by narrative forces beyond her control, just whoops - should have stood six inches to the left. It does have some good numbers, out of context, though. I even enjoyed "Bathing Beauty", though it was in completely the wrong part of the show and slammed the brakes on the momentum that was trying to get going.
If anyone is interested in a more in-depth history and analysis of this show, I highly recommend Lindsay Ellis' video on it! Her recap of the plot, even though it lacks plush bears like this one, is equally as hilarious.
I went to see the third and final performance of this on the Tuesday. Norm Lewis blew me away with Til I Hear You Sing, and Celinde Schoenmaker's performance of Love Never Dies was the best I've ever heard - a literal showstopper, resulting in a 3-minute standing ovation which I've never seen midway through a show. There wasn't really a weak link in the cast vocally - the lad who played Gustave actually made the role likeable, whereas every other portrayal I've just found saccharine / wet. (I did think Sally Dexter fluffed a few of Madame Giry's lines, but she got all the key bits - Dear Old Friends and the act one finale - right, which is the main thing.) The orchestra was INCREDIBLE - LND is easily one of ALW's most lush scores, and I don't think it's ever sounded better. Clearly, everyone there in the audience knew the show, knew its faults and foibles, knew what they were getting and had come anyway - there was a lot of love in the room for LND, which definitely helped. Now, plot. This has always been LND's problem, and what I can't fathom is how it's been tweaked so many times and yet it STILL doesn't work - probably because the fundamentals of the narrative are broken already. • Christine never displays physical attraction or lust for the Phantom in POTO. In one of the very last lines she speaks in the show, she calls him 'pitiful creature'. She pities him. She sees him as a creature. So I can't buy them having a night of passion - even with the justification that "well, she was able to get it on with him because he kept the lights off". It says a lot that when they reprise 'Twisted Every Way', they have to leave out the lyrics 'He kills without a thought, he murders all that's good'. Because that's true of the Phantom in POTO, but they don't want us to remember that now because now we're meant to think of him as a love interest and gloss over his past murders, lies, and gaslighting. • Although characters can and should change, and narratively and creatively it may seem a bold twist to take a formerly heroic character and turn them into a drunken, self-pitying arse, the show really does Raoul dirty. The problem is, if you're going to have a sequel, you have to change something in the dynamics - you can't have a sequel where Christine and Raoul are happy, have no secrets, and at the end everything is the same as it was at the end of POTO. So you have to break the fairytale, poignant, romantic ending of POTO to create the conditions for a follow-up. I just think the change is too jarring - the fact they turned Raoul in the 25th anniversary recording of POTO into an arrogant, cold, dismissive arse felt to me like trying to foreshadow / justify the Raoul they created in LND and I did not like that. • I personally never had a big problem with what LND did to Meg. She wasn't so well-developed in POTO that I felt her character was fixed or defined. Easy to explain that she had some resentment for being in Christine's shadow, and her mother being so focussed on Christine rather than her. The big problem in LND now is, they've removed ALL that explanation. The scene from the original version after 'Only For You' where she tries to flirt with the Phantom, telling us she's romantically interested in him - gone. The suggestion that she has 'admirers' ("Is he important?") who she's bedding to get investment and permissions for the Phantom to build his empire - gone. Her hope that the Phantom is writing a beautiful aria for her, allowing her to be more than merely 'cheap Vaudeville trash', only to have those hopes dashed when she discovers he's written it for Christine - gone. Her frustration / upset / annoyance to find she's sharing the bill with Christine - gone. Now, she goes from being excited that Christine is coming, to looking briefly upset then cheerful about sharing the billing with Christine, to - now out of nowhere - having an anguished meltdown that the Phantom didn't watch her performance of Bathing Beauty. Removing ALL that background, explanation, motivation for her character means the last 30 minutes make no sense at all. Whether or not you liked the change in Meg in the original, at least narratively it was justified, it made sense. Now it's happy little Meg to mentally broken psycho Meg in one step. Given her bitterness and rage at the end of act 1, it would have made more sense for it to be Madame Giry I think. (I think, anyway. I haven't played that through in my mind to be sure it would work narratively, but instinctively I feel like it would be less out of left field.) • The Phantom's scheming makes no sense! By the end of act one, he's broken by Christine's revelation and tells her to just go. She says she'll stay to sing for him once more, perform this new song of his, then go. Then at the start of act two, he's apparently changed his mind and is making a deal / bet with Raoul whereby, if he wins, Christine stays there forever. Make up your mind, man. "I just want to hear you sing again!" to "I'll kidnap your son if you don't" to "Just go" to "If she sings, she stays here forever". It's helplessly inconsistent. Musically, I love LND. It shows what a great composer ALW is. But it's such a shame this gorgeous score is stuck with this irredeemable mess of a plot. It will never happen, but it needs a completely new book writing from scratch to make sense, and to give ALW's score a show it is fit to be attached to.
I don't believe that Christine loved the Phantom. He practically drove her crazy, and she loved Raoul. The plot of LND is poor fan fiction. I prefer the original and i don't believe Christine could have given concent to her abductor so he raped her. Argh
I don’t think that Christine could ever had true feelings for Erik because of how manipulated their relationship was from the start. He gaslit and abused her and took advantage of her trust. For all the faults people say Raoul has he had a normal past with her, they enjoyed each other’s company, they kept each other safe. It’s not the most interesting option cause they’re just a happy and healthy relationship. It’s why her leaving with him and living a happy life with him before she passed away was her happy ending. LND turned her into a skanky adulterer (sleeping with a murderer the night before your wedding? Classy.) and Raoul an alcoholic both just done to make Erik look better.
You probably don't know what rape looks like..... He took her with him because he was desperate for love, but he didn't even raise a hand against her or assaulted her. Did he beat and brutalize her, did he slap and smack her!? No, he did none of those things. In other words, you are wrong. But yes, she didn't love him.... So it makes sense that she chose the perfect guy with the perfect life. She just didn't want to live in a cave for the rest of her life. In that song( All I ask of you) Christine is basically just saying she wants the opposite of what the phantom wants to give her and she wants Raoul to give her what she think she needs.
@@ingridmay66Well, no, but Erik does tend to treat Christine more as his property than as a person. Heck, in the book, he thinks having a wife is the same as owning a pet and threatens to blow up the opera house with Raoul inside if Christine refuses to marry him after she tried to self harm herself to escape.
@@annieandelsieofarendelle3294 In the book he's a total creep....But Andrew Webber took that story and made his own version. Yes, compare it to the novel of course, but the story is a bit different and so are the characters. In Webber's version he's really not that way!( in the movie version he was a kind, sensitive and sad person, sometimes he was angry - it's understandable given what he's been through). The phantom is a good example of just what a good person can do when too many bad things happen to them. Although he made some mistakes, and at first he just couldn’t understand love and how to care for someone... However, he learned what love was in the end(when he kissed Christine)... He really proved how much he loved her and how much he had improved... Also, I think the sequel should have been without Christine. I mean Christine didn't love the Phantom, and I don't think she was a good match for the phantom. She is too weak.... I like the idea of this dude moving on and finding someone else. He needs someone with fire and passion....
@@ingridmay66Calling Christine weak is wrong. She wasn't. She was terrified that the angel she had trusted and thought of as a father was actually the insane creeper who lived under the Opera Hous and would kill anyone, included her lover, in order to keep her to himself
“I try not to think about it too often, because the nightmares persist.” Is EXACTLY how I feel about this show. Like if I think about it too much, it’ll give me a headache so I’m happier pretending it doesn’t exist
Just one friendly aside: Coney Island isn't an island per se. It is a neighborhood sort of on a peninsula in southern Brooklyn. So here in New York, we just refer to it like any other neighborhood (in Coney Island rather than on Coney Island). Hope this is helpful and not offensive. Love your channel.
I saw it in Baltimore during the tour and have 3 distinct memories. 1. Phantom wasn’t hitting his notes and they switched to the understudy DURING INTERMISSION. 2. In the first scene of Act Two when the bar is being brought on I spotted the phantom hiding under it, hilarious. 3. THEY STILL CHANGED THINGS FROM THE AUSTRALIAN RECORDING!! The beauty underneath was a totally different song! Anyways I love Love Never Dies and I can’t decide if it’s ironically or unironically.
Til I Hear You Sing is quite beautiful, I listen to Ramin's version repeatedly and it brings tears to my eyes. It's the only thing about this show I acknowledge. The song exists for me completely separately of the show. I do love Norm and Celinde as performers, I wouldn't have thought of them performing Phantom and Christine together. I'm sure they were great.
I bought the cast recording several months before seeing the original in London. I loved the music and was really optimistic about seeing it live. Upon arrival, we were upgraded to a better part of the auditorium. Not a good sign as this means the show was far from ‘house full’. By the interval, I wanted out. But I stayed. By the time we get to the final scene, I was completely done. I almost wanted Christine to hurry up and…. I won’t say why, for spoilers. One critic dubbed it ‘paint never dries’. This was very apt. But, I still love the music and listen to it, often.
I love your story! Haha yeah I engaged with the music a lot more than the recording. That being said if I ever need to be cheered up I watch Beneath a Moonless Sky and cackle hysterically.
Who in their right mind told Andrew Lloyd Webber that adapting “The Phantom of Manhattan” into a musical was a good idea? That novel was a bizarre and trashy fan-fiction sequel. “Love Never Dies” is such a silly title, when the lead female character dies. Honestly, it is a shame, because a Coney Island carnival freak show could be a great setting for a musical, if it were based on stronger source material. Even though, I am someone who hates Raul and thinks he is possessive. I still do not understand people who wanted Christine to end up with the Phantom. The Phantom, while sympathetic, is a violent serial killer. PS: Norm Lewis is a great actor and baritone. Not only was he King Triton, but Sierra Boggess was Christine when he was the Phantom.
@@madhatterster - Ummmm, no…. sequels to musicals are never a good idea, especially to a composer’s magnum opus. There is a reason the story ends the way it does. The entire issue with “Love Never Dies”, is the plot relies on the audience believing Christine and the Phantom had a one night stand. Meaning, the very existence of a child is what creates the problem. Raul being an alcoholic and gambler makes sense, because he was abusive in “Phantom of the Opera”. The Phantom ending up running a Coney Island carnival freak show makes sense, because he is deformed and in need of a family. Women being jealous of a Christine, to the point of killing her, also makes sense. As her career was handed to her on a silver platter. That said, no one actually wanted a sequel to the story. The majority of the audience enjoyed the ambiguous ending to “Phantom of the Opera”.
"and if you don't know what Phantom of the Opera is, I don't know what you are doing here" LMAO! Loved your stuffed animal recreation. You are so much fun! About the story - I understand Raoul's downfall. After all he was married to a woman who passionately loved someone else and he knew it. How do you live with that? I agree Til I Hear You Sing should have been put back til later in the show. I would love to hear a cast recording of this performance. Any chance that happened?
but she didn't. There was no indication of it in Phantom. The story just feels so cheaply fabricated and toxic....it's just not a "love"story I want to see in 2023 and the characters themselves are not compelling and authentically ambiguous enough to make it an awful yet interesting tale to tell.
I saw it on tour a few years ago in California. I understand why people either love or hate it. I thought it was an interesting take on the next chapter of that story. The prince (Raoul) turned into a toad, Christine chooses her past abductor/stalker (phantom) as her true love and then she gets shot to death. Wow. Lastly, what the hell happened to Meg?!?! I did not see that coming!
@@Chibbykins and that, in my opinion, is how it needs to be presented - as the rantings of a vengeful reject, fantasising about what he wishes would happen to everyone who he perceives as having slighted him.
@@Seal0626 - You are confusing this train wreck with “Sweeney Todd”, the later of which is a masterpiece. Andrew Lloyd Webber, for all his issues, was still a well-regarded composer prior to “Love Never Dies”. This is the musical that killed his legacy. He just refused to believe Christine deserved better than both Raul and the Phantom. Honestly, both men are creeps.
24:06 "sing for me just like your mother used to" had my dying, that was EXACTLY what was going through my mind when I watched the matinee performance. Sadly in that one Norm forgot some of TIHYS, though the rest of his performance was stellar.
RE the pre-recorded part - not only did the Gustave part look pre-recorded but the WHOLE of the beauty underneath was pre-recorded and lipsynced. I was front row and the phantom lipsyncing incorrect lyrics gave it away very clearly. Felt incredibly awkward. I imagine it was harder to tell further back.
I can understand the choice to have Madame change the backstory - as people do re write their own history if it will serve them now. In phantom I see her wanting to cling onto Christine’s success and therefore helping Raoul save her in the hope she can continue riding the coattails of success. When that fails she moves to stay with the Phantom and pushes Meg into anything for her own gain/survival. Overall between the two musicals I see her as a complete manipulator and gaslighter!
To me, she pitied the Phantom, because the way he was being treated at the circus. When she rescued him, she didn't realize what would end up happening at the Opera House. She'd gotten in too deep. That's why she helps Raoul to save Christine, because the Phantom is just going too far, first the murders and now this. I think she would have been relieved to be shot of him.
I like a lot of the songs in Love Never Dies. The problem has always been it's plot. And... honestly having "Love Never Dies" as the premiere song. It's always been a triple B song for me: bland, boring, blah.
This has got to be the best synopsis of the show I’ve heard. It’s such a weird show that I don’t hate but I always wanted to like more. And you should always use plushies when explaining the plot.
I actually saw the Broadway touring company of a Love Never Died.😬 It was embarrassingly bad. The material is just so cringey and at one point, the music was so loud and the singing/lyrics SOOOO incredibly awful that I literally...LITERALLY started laughing out loud! No one could even hear me. It was awful...simply awful. Who ever thought the music was good. Just bizarrely awful!
@@ChienaAvtzon Heck if I know! But it was clear why it didn't, in my opinion! I can still laugh out loud just thinking about how cringe worthy it was! Don't get me wrong...the singing was phenomenal! It was the lame story line and boring score that was awful!
Lets not forget Raoul by now, is a noone - he is a Viscount whos wife is the breadwinner, he is demasculated and now told that the only thing he had (being his son) is taken AND finding out his fiancee cheated! Like DEFEATED!!!
I was at the Monday evening performance, and it was a bit messy, to be honest. Most of the cast were amazing, but Norm Lewis was not suited to LND Phantom. He couldn't hit some of the high notes and fluffed his lines multiple times, including the emotional ending with Christine dying in his arms in which he completely blanked. I know he's only human, but it's not really what you expect from a Broadway and West End professional. There were also issues with the actors' microphones not being turned up in time and a wardrobe malfunction. Speaking of wardrobe, the gold mask appeared to come from eBay, and most of the costumes looked like they came from an am dram hire studio. Christine's dress for the title song was nice, but given that her necklace was blue/purple, I don't know why it was white. I would have preferred to all be in evening dress or properly costumed. All that said, it was otherwise amazing, I had a great time and would totally go see LND if it returns to London or my local theatre. The material is what it is.
Saw it in Melbourne 5 times - including the filmed performance- whilst the staging of the Australian production is incredible and I think it is one of ALW's best scores - it's almost impossible to get over the weak story and how it basically ignores a lot of the story and ending of the original
"You know what that'll actually do me, you can go" is killing me! LND is my guilty pleasure. I loved the OLC, the filmed Australian one is pretty but I didn't love all the changes, and I've seen the US tour twice. The changes to Beauty Underneath from the tour was surprising but it flows so much better with the rest of the show. I found a lot of the characterization lost from the OLC, but a lot of the lyrics got better. I miss the creepy opening that sets the stage similar to the original production and all of the backstage moments we get from Meg that really help solidify her character arc. That said, I think the tour is the best version, giving nods to both and still outstanding.
This musical was actually based off of a book called "The Phantom of Manhattan." (It basically was fan fiction before that was a thing.) The villian in that is different from "Love Never Dies" however. I don't think either of them work because the characters are changed so much. A prequel probably made more sense to see how Erik became so twisted. But a sequel where a murderer is turned into the hero, that doesn't jive with the original book or the 1st musical.
There's a book written by Susan Kay titled 'Phantom' that gives the Phantom an in-depth and compelling backstory. I would have loved to see it adapted into a stage musical or even a play.
I agree that a few of the revisions are baffling and I don’t understand why the creative team thought this version is better. Till I Hear You Sing was better in its original placement. If they wanted to cut the original prologue they could have just opened the show with the revised company version of the Coney Island Waltz. I think The Beauty Underneath is supposed to be a nod to the title song in Phantom of the Opera but the music isn’t integrated as well into the score as in Phantom so the shift in style feels more jarring. I also prefer the original version of the song vs the revised version that was used in the US tour and re-recorded for the Australian cast album.
You could open it, deliberately jarringly, with "Bathing Beauty" and then just have a partial reprise of the song where it went before, so it doesn't slow down the action at the end.
Confusing story aside, I love (most of) the musical numbers in this show. It was on my bucket list to see, if it ever did show again, so I jumped at the chance to see it in concert! I'm so glad I did - the simplicity of the scaled down performance, whilst still engaging, really created an amazing atmosphere to appreciate the gorgeousness of the cast and orchestra. I'd definitely go again!
There was basically ONE reason LND came into existence: £££. ALW hadn't had a decent show since Sunset Boulevard and this must have seemed like a surefire way to get his Phantom fans on board and make a ton of cash. Sadly, like most sequels, it doesn't work on any level. The plot is utterly ludicrous and the entire enterprise is a betrayal of everything wonderful in the original show. It's best left buried in the vaults with his other flops.
@@ChienaAvtzon The book it was based on wasn't a satire, it was an actual, serious sequel ALW had Fredrick Forsyth write for him. It definitely reads like a satire though. It's even worse than the musical.
Would be nice to have more modern MT repertoire for Bass Baritones for performers like Norm Lewis, he performed the role beautifully and did incredibly well to hit the high notes however I feel it’s shame that there’s not more out there for his natural voice. I guess now a days you can’t be a Bass or Baritone, you have to be Baritenor!
I saw Norm as the Phantom 10 years ago and he immediately became one of my favorite performers. Love Never Dies sounds ridiculous but I’d see it to see him.
I saw an interview with Norm once and he was talking to casting directors about how he figured he could never be up for the role in phantom because he’s not a tenor. And they said “yes, but do you think you can sing the notes beautifully eight times a week?” And he said, yes, he could do it, so they cast him. And then he went and played the extreme bass of Caiaphas in Jesus Christ Superstar live, so 🤷🏼♀️
but he clearly isn't a bass - he has the range but not the timbre. He did a fine job with Caiaphas but the bottom notes lacked the power a true bass would have brought (just as John Legend obiously is not a tenor and Jesus really IS a tenor role). There are barely any basses in mt though since there is almost no material for them. In modern mt there is also barely any material for baritones left - you have to at least be able to "baritenor" a lot if you want to work.
I think the reason being is three-fold to be honest. Firstly the fact that it hasn't been in London for years and obviously they are trying to revive ALW reputation after the debacle with Cinderella (both on the West End and also on Broadway), secondly that its a sequel to Phantom which is his most beloved musical of them all (Sorry Mickey-Jo but I'm unsure if Cats is more beloved than Phantom) and finally I think of the production in which the performances have always been received very well regardless of the content that is onstage. In my opinion its odd because it isn't bad but its no where near perfect. The music is good and at times up there as some of his best but because of the flimsy story and really poor character development it makes it more a guilty pleasure for me than an actual musical that is amazing.
@@danjon8799 - Andrew Lloyd Webber would not have needed to rehabilitate his career, had he just retired after “Sunset Boulevard”. He peaked with “Phantom of the Opera” and there is a reason it is his masterpiece. He should have taken a page from Stephen Schwartz’s book. Even Stephen Sondheim, who many feel never composed a bad score, could not replicate the acclaim “Sweeney Todd” received. Once the masterpiece is created, everything that comes afterwards is compared to it.
My love for the Phantom has helped me avoid this awful sounding sequel until now. Weirdly it seems less crap when performed by softies. Ty for your appraisal 😊
Fun fact - "The Beauty Underneath" started life in the Denise van Outen production of _Tell Me On A Sunday,_ as "Haven in the Sky", before jumping across to the 2003 US tour of _Starlight Express_ as "A Whole Lotta Locomotion", then being written into its current form, at which point the _Starlight Express_ copy had to invert the melody a little bit to try to make it sound like they weren't the exact same song.
I do not totally agree with you. I think that the Australian version made a great add on to the original version (I have seen both). I think the arc of Meg and Giry are more structured and so connect with the original. In the book (and a bit in the horrible film adaptation) there is the understanding that Giry sees phantom kind of as her child. The one that is bullied and traumatized and therefore have an ‘excuse’ to do the things he does and he is ‘brilliant’, ‘cause he makes music. I don’t think that Giry wasn’t trying to help Raoul, but I think she was trying to make her fake ‘son’ less a killer than he is. So The phantom and Love never dies are more about trauma and how we kind of abuse our kids and Stockholm syndrome. And what I missed in your bear/donkey/cat performance was the important part that Giry hears that Phantom tells Christine that the kid will have everything of his legacy instead of Meg and Giry. And this is why she screams at the end of the first act. She feels betrayed.
Saw this production twice : Monday evening and just HAD to come back for the Tuesday evening performance .Norm Lewis reduced me to jelly after " Til I hear you sing ". I've never felt that way after just one song . The end of Les Misérables does that to me, as does the end of Blood Brothers , but the story has had time to build up to these moments . Having Norm Lewis walk in stage, sing and have that effect is why I went back on the Tuesday Norm Lewis was so magnificent and his pain and despair felt totally believable . I wonder if the gold/bronze mask was to suit his skin tone . During "Love never dies" he was stood v still in the box on the left hand side of the audience . I saw him creep in and also disappear . I like the series of concerts that have been staged at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane , it enables us to see shows at a lower price (no expensive props/staging ) and to experience the shows in a different way
I tried to watch Love Never Dies when it came through 3 years ago and I wound up leaving at intermission. I just couldn't take the madness and the plot. I will admit as a teenager I had the idea in my head of Christine winding up with the phantom but I hate how dirty they did Raoul in this.
The only way to love this musical, and it deserves to be loved, is to completely separate it from POTO. The music is just as good as the Phantom. The Australian production used for the movie was a good decision. ....really enjoyed your performance here too...cute!
Unpopular opinion: the original cast concept album is perfect in my eyes. It's also the version I saw at the Adelphi years ago before they completely changed it. I don't know why they have completely Frankensteined it over the years, probably because of the criticism. I listen to that album almost once a year, it's very enjoyable and the backyround atmosphere is so good that you can imagine a lot in your head. Personally I don't think this show needed all the drastic changes.
It's my guiltiest pleasure; it's ultra fanservicey service. I saw the US tour (teeny orchestra mostly synths) and just love the original recorded score (Karimloo/Burgess are vocally wonderful together). Almost as much as I love this video, which is the best thing you have done. More stuffed animal versions of shows please.
I saw the U.S. tour in Seattle at the Paramount , which seats 3,000. I have never seen a bigger garbage musical than this. At intermission, half of the audience (literally) walked out. I have a friend who works as an usher there and he said the mass exoduses happened every performance. The plot is totally ludicrous and the music 90% forgettable. Wasted 100 bucks, wasted 3 hours.
I saw the original on the West End right after they revised it and put 'Til I Hear You Sing as the opener. I absolutely love the music, the melodies, and the lush orchestrations. I think it's a standout among Lloyd Webber's later works (I mean, Bad Cinderella, really?). That said, the story has so many problems -- as the plush animals demonstrated. This is one where I wish they would take the same music and rewrite the entire show. 'Til I Hear You Sing and Love Never Dies can stay as is. But let's start with getting rid of this ridiculous Coney Island premise. And no secret love child. All way too soap opera, unbelievable and silly. That said, Mickey Jo nailed it again (I do love the Act I closer).
Thanks for the review. I always knew Christine loved the Phantom. i'm shocked he had a speech after Bad Cinderella & was there. I always sing the title number of the musical "Phantom of the Opera". Ramin and Sierra will always be the best casting of phantom and christine.
I admit to loving this show, especailly the original album and I did see it in the West End. For me the Australian production is too grounded and normal - this show really needs the full-on surreal Tim Burton treatment like the live-action Dumbo!
I saw it in Sydney twice in January 2012. Honestly, I loved and still love this show. For me, the score has two of my favourite songs “Love Never Dies,” and “Once Upon Another Time.” I would honestly be thrilled to see this revived in a bigger production!
I think the best way to describe LND is that it has a great score, but so many consistency issues that it can't even be considered canon. As a standalone musical, completely unrelated to POTO, it would have been great
Very much enjoyed the recap with the 🐻🐻🐻 😍😅 - how informative in an engaging way! Brava! 👏👏👏 🌹 🌹🌹I have no desire to see this show but really enjoyed this review, thank you. 🎉
I saw the original production at the Adelphi Theatre. I’ll never forget it, it was wonderful, darkly fascinating and of course Sierra and Ramin were outstanding. In my humble opinion, that was the best version of the show.
I saw this version too. I absolutely loved it. I cried for a solid 10 minutes after it had finished - I was so moved by it all. I always felt that Christine loved the Phantom and should have been with him. (I missed all the evil, killing parts of him because he could sing beautifully!!) ❤
Saw the show in Germany in German :D it will return next year :) I love the show for its trashiness and the absurd story - it's an absolute shit fest and I'm all here for it. I also saw the concert in London and realised for me a big part of the enjoyment are the sets as well. It wasn't it and it felt horribly long. Plus I don't like the new version of beauty underneath. They basically erased the catchiness of the song. Meh... Plus the phantom without smoke and mirrors is just an old pathetic man in a mask, not scary at all. Sorry.
I remember really loving the book this was based on… then again I was 15 and obsessed with anything phantom of the opera related. I was very excited when it was turned into an actual musical. I never got the chance to see it. But I got the soundtrack right away and loved a good chunk of it. I’m pretty sure I was between 17 and 20. It’s not great, but I have to love it for the sheer amount of teenage cringe it supplied to my hyper-fixated teenage brain way back when.
I think I was there on the same night as you! The storyline is bizarre, but I think the music is stunning, and honestly I was just ecstatic to get to hear it live as I never saw the original. Also to hear it with a full orchestra was just an incredible experience!
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I really like Love Never Dies. Watched to the DVD (Australian recording) and listened to two of the albums countless times. I love it…
So i am a crazy person who saw LND twice on west end. Once during its first month when it was still had the opening set in the future and then again a few months later after alot of the changes. Look neither version was great but the original version had alot more grit to it. They took out alot of the hints at Megs downfall and stuff she had had to do to keep the Phantom's show going. Like in original it was clear he was writing good stuff but just putting so little effort in that Meg and Madam were having to do all this stuff to keep the lights on. Also bathing beauty suffered the MOST. That song on the album sounds shitty and like wtf is this but live it starts as this fun number but as it goes on and Meg strips down and down she becomes more Manic overly happy and like she is forcing this excitable persona to the audience. It makes for a uncomfortable viewing (but in that way that is intentional) and the staging all these years later still stuck with me at how smooth and riskie it was. When i saw the later version it had already been turn down into a purely YAY Meg go get it girl number where she is just enjoying herself or if she isn't it was so subtle as to not register and they had toned down the nudity to only suggest she was topless and not had to actress walk away from audience without a top on. The shows edge and just fuck you this is what i am was actual something as the teenager i was when i first saw it I actually liked. The first attempted needed changes (like removing all the future stuff that just made NO sense even if it was a reference to the first show doing the same), However the show was clearly just doing its thing and in-spite of it all i respected that.
I never liked this show. The music just didn't live up to the original. The only song I really liked was "Look With Your Heart". The Meg and Mme Giry arc just was awful. It made no sense at all.
I saw the german production in Hamburg and i really liked it. The plot is not the best and has some holes, but the cast was fantasic. I also gave the australian version on dvd...
