Jump to content

Talk:Love Never Dies (musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sequel name

[edit]

Andrew Lloyd Webber said at his birthday party in Hyde Park this evening that this sequel will be called Love Never Dies. Just FYI. >I can confirm that was said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.9.23 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

The plot for the updated show in Melbourne is significantly different. Lord Lloyd Webber has stated that the Melbourne show is the one he would like to tour the world. Perhaps here needs to be another section for the updated version, and the current 'plot' section be renamed "London plot." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.42.138 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The plot of this show has 2 major events which could be considered as spoilers (ends of act 1 and 2). They are however, substantial plot points. Since this is a new work when should they be added to the plot synopsis? After it has officially opened or is it alright to add them now?Mark E (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiedpia is not spoiler free so that's not a problem. However it's probably best to wait as the show is only in previews at the moment, they might change one or both of the points you're thinking of. Unlikely I know but just in case we may as well err on the side of caution.89.240.49.135 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll wait until the press opening on tuesday then (try) and post a more thorough plot. The two things definitely won't change!Mark E (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put it in yet but I'm writing the plot as I saw the show on Friday night (was going on 20th Feb but they had to cancel because of technical difficulties). But here is all of it from the Prologue to just the beginning of The Hotel that we could use after the opening night. Someone or I could add it in later:

In the Prologue sometime after the musical Madame Giry walks along a pier in Coney Island inspecting old newspapers that are attached to a wall. She notices Fleck sleeping on the ground and then they start discussing about the past and how everyone loved Coney Island in The Coney Island Waltz. The stage transforms into Coney Island and then outside of gates people sing Heaven by the Sea. Meg Giry is now singing on the stage and every day awaits for The Phantom to see her performance. Madame Giry and Meg sing Only for Him/Only for You. Up in The Aerie The Phantom looks at his dummy of Christine and then sings Till I Hear You Sing. Madame Giry and Meg come up and say that he should forget Christine and then tells him who was there to save him from the mobs. On Pier 69 people walk out of the docked ship and reporters and photographers and showgirls talk about how Christine Daae and her husband Raoul and song Gustave are on it and how they think she can't sing as good as she used to. When the family walk out Flech, Gangle and Squelch come to pick them up on a mechanical carriage and sing Are You Ready to Begin?. They take the family to the Hotel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright, but needs to be changed so it doesn't say "they sing this", "and then sings".Mark E (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just a rough draft. Just wrote down what I can remember in quick detail. And you can edit, it probably will be edited as this is Wikipedia

Got bored and did a full plot summary, could probably do with some padding. Have listed the musical numbers as they are in the programme. Alot of the CD tracks are book scenes so don't need the titles down.Mark E (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like your plot summary. I finished mine but got stuck when editing when I tried to do a final draft because as you see above I've got "they sing this", "and then sings" (I did them just so I knew where to write more kind of). But yours is good. I'll re-read through and see if there's anything I could add, probably not as its quite good already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I restored what I put the other day. Let me just explain this is not me wanting it to remain as it is BUT:
  • I spent quite a bit of time making sure spelling and grammar was right, and there have been a load of edits made which made this TERRIBLE! Also the song titles I included are what is in the PROGRAMME not the cd tracks, alot of which in the greater scheme are BOOK numbers and so the prose explains that. Please though, use a spell checker and proof read.Mark E (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the best now. To begin with it was good then someone made it really long and to be honest if I was someone wanting to find the "plot" that was too long. It's just perfect now. Really good. —Preceding

The reference date of the sequel is wrong in the main article. The sequel is set a decade later than the original. The original plot of the Phantom of The Opera ocurred in 1870, wich will take the sequel to 1880. This will match the age of Roul being an old man at the beggining of the play when the Auction is taking place and he is an old man already. The aution takes place in 1917 wich is 47 years after the events at The Opera House. This data can be verified in the Phantom of The Opera Motion Picture by Joel Schumacher. ( Jaime Reyes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.253.162 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ALW has said it is set in 1907 so thats when it is, regardless of whether it makes sense. The film is but one adaptation of Phantom of the Opera.Mark E (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Has the reception section been expanded enough?

Advertising

[edit]

Why is a ticket touting agency linked from this page (and has been for several days)? Is this acceptable practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvader (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is unacceptable advertising, and I've removed it.oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory dates

[edit]

It's been repeatedly added that the time between the two shows is 26 years. Now, I admit the known dates seem to show this, however in Love Never Dies the Phantom states that it's been 10 years since the events in the first show. Given that to my knowledge, the date is not stated in either show, I think we have to accept the difference being approximately 10 years as canon.

Therefore, I would suggest that mention of this be rewritten to reflect the fact that the external information (e.g. the Las Vegas website) seems to contradict the information in the show, as opposed to stating that the narrative is wrong. Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the date of the original show IS specified as 1881, and therefore the correct difference is 26 years. The official libretto for the original specifies 1881, which you will also find in the Playbill for the Broadway production and in the official cast recording for the original show. The error is the fault of the creative team of 'Love Never Dies'.User:WikiFantôme 12:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFantôme (talk • contribs) [reply]
Clearly yes. However, it's not stated in canon e.g. in someone's dialogue, so I think we have to assume it's been retconned (either one date gets moved back, or one gets moved forward). Because the fact of the matter is, messed up as the dates are, the characters say in dialogue/song it's 10 years. So in my mind, we should have something in the article that states that the dates are wrong, but not in the opening paragraph (because that makes it confusing for the casual reader). The lead-in to the article it should say it's set 10 years after the first. Planewalker Dave (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the film of The Phantom of the Opera the date on Christine's Tomb is 1917 - should this me mentioned as a date error too as it couldn't be possible with the plot of this sequel Turquoisefish (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Should Die website

[edit]

Someone added a link to www.Loveshoulddie.com. This website "opposes" the sequel, which is a POV, and I believe that this link should eventually be removed. However, the site offers actual links to the unfavourable newpaper reviews of the show. Does the Reception section mention all of the major newspaper reviews listed at the site? If so, I would delete it. If not, I'd add the info to the references section and then delete it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed, and did remove it. However it was since added back in. It is not even constructive criticism, it is just a pure hatred site.Mark E (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you didn't answer my question above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read through the reception section of the article and think it gives a very good all round view of the critical response to the show. Infact, I think it is actually a bit too long and could say what it wants to using less space.Mark E (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is too long. My question is whether it covers all of the major unfavourable newspaper reviews mentioned in the link that you want to delete? I need to know this before I can help you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are covered apart from metro, financial times, the scotsman, ew.com, theatremania.com and new statesman (all quite minor news sources when compared to the likes of the Guardian/Mail etc)Mark E (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done some streamlining and re-org on the section. I think it is fair balanced and complete. Since we agree that the EL is unnecessary and POV, I will remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel criticism

[edit]

I have reverted the show received "mostly negative" reviews from critics in the intro, that is incorrect. I found several references from the news and journals saying the sequel has "mixed" reviews, and it was not generally negative or generally positive. If you read a negative review, you have to tally in how many positive and neutral reviews the show received, because the show has mixed critical reception. Also I changed the link to New York Times Patrick Healy's comment [1] that the show "opened to negative reviews", which is incorrect. In an earlier report he actually said the show received "mixed reviews", so it is now linked it to his original comment [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.86.15 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the first musical sequel staged in the West End

[edit]

"The production is the first time a musical sequel has been staged in the West End" This is untrue. Sandy Wilson wrote a sequel to his successful musical The Boyfriend. It was called "divorce Me Darling" and featured the same characters, 10 years later. Both played London's west end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.31.32 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title song - Not original for this show

[edit]

So I'm listening to an online musicals radio station and a song comes on from the musical The Beautiful Game (also by Lloyd Webber) called Our Kind Of Love and it's the same melody as the title track from LND. I'd add this in, but I can't find a proper source, but have a listen to the song at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoIHLEi39Os and you'll see what I mean CaptainPedge | Talk 01:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even that wasn't the first time the tune had been used. Lloyd Webber explains it all in his notes in the CD Booklet. Keithmall (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Never Dies (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Love Never Dies (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Love Never Dies (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Never Dies (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Score" section

[edit]

The "Score" section had a lengthy explanation about burlesue in music, but it does not need such a detailed explanation here - I did not know how important burlesque is to this production since the other sections did not mention burlesque, and the explanation was not quite related to the score itself. I was a bit confused about why such a long explanation was here. The link to Burlesque is enough. Furthermore, some sentences lacked proper references. I shortened the section and added the "See also" template. --saebou (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Never_Dies_(musical)&oldid=1252255280"