The Phantom of the Opera The Phantom of the Opera discussion


205 views
Is the movie of "Love Never Dies" a worthy sequel?

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy I haven't watched Love Never Dies, but I want to know what people think of it. Is it worth watching?


Holli It is an interesting movie, but hardly a valid sequel. This is not what you would expect to happen to characters in the future. And at points I was thinking "these actions are so out of character for these people. This would never happen, or even be appropriate for people of class at that time period." It was a good movie, but I did not like it as a sequel.


Sarah I've never seen Love Never Dies, but I know enough of the major plot to have an opinion. And just the idea of it makes me want to loose hope in humanity. Christine would never cheat on Raoul with the Phantom. Let's not forget that she was utterly terrified of him for most the play, and was kidnapped and harassed by this man who so-called loved her. And even if she did love him, she was a good and honorable person. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely obsessed with The Phantom of the Opera. But no, Webber should have stopped tampering with the original story. It completely contradicts everything that happened in the first. Ugh.


message 4: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Yeah, I also looked up the major plot line so I also have an opinion now! Yes, Sarah, I agree with you completely. The way Raoul and Christine acted together in TPOTO proves they would never fall apart in their relationship. look, what he did to try win her! And the way she saved his life! And the Phantom is a murderer! I am also ADDICTED to The Phantom of the Opera, but I agree with you Sarah, Webber SHOULD NOT have tried his luck with a sequel. And so true, it does contradict everything. I mean, I felt sorry for the Phantom in TPOTO, but I was all for Raoul and Christine. Now they spoil everything in the sequel. Come on, Raoul would never lose Christine's love or her his.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

One can argue if it's a good SEQUEL, but the music and setting are phantstic! And Anna O'Byrne as Christine is just brilliant. I recommend it! See it as a show on it's own, if your don't like it as a sequel.


message 6: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Yes I agree the music is fantastic, but the actual plot and story are so wrong and upsetting, in my opinion. I will see sometime though, and I'll try to think of it as a individual show.


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

I think a lot of it fits...

1. Meg as a show girl. People always think Meg has to be a super innocent little ballerina. But people don't understand, that ballerinas and show girls has basicially the same social status. A very low one, indeed. Same goes for opera singers. The thing is, a ballerina could find more spotlight as a leading show girl, especially one who also has some singing abilities, which are not enough for opera but perfect in addition to her dancing. Being a show girl was just the right chance for her to become famous on her own, which would never work in the opera ballet.

2. Raoul is an alcoholic. Alcoholism is a genetical problem and - being aristocratic - gen defects are very likely. His whole family could be related o.O And he always was a weak person. It just makes sense that he needed some "help" and didn't get out of it, especially after hsi brother's death. (Don't get me wrong, there is NO offence here! I just want to find an explanation and these things are very frequent!)

3. Christine sleeping with Erik. Well, some people love that idea! Most people, actually. There are so many ideas of them having a child. Of course, it's matter of opinion.


The only weird thing is the time - they made the original PotO being set ten years later. But the 1880's and the 1890's are not THAT different :/


message 8: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Ok, I don't really have a problem with the whole Meg thing, but Raoul's story line is the problem and Christine's child with Erik. No offense taken, it just upsets me!
First, Raoul loved Christine. Look what he did to win her. Besides, there is no reason for him to become an alcoholic; his relationship with Christine was fine, so he obviously wasn't depressed. he might have been a weak person in adaptions other the 25th anniversary show, but he doesn't seem stupid. If he was getting too obsessed with alcohol, he would have cared enough for Christine and their relationship to get better and accepted her help getting over it.
Now Erik and Christine's child. WHAT RUBBISH, no offense to what you said, just to what the story was! There was no chance for them to have slept together. In the "point of no return" the Phantom wanted to sleep with Christine for the first time; that was the whole point; he desperately wanted her. Yet nothing happened, and no there was no chance for the child to have been conceived. AND Christine was not a slut; she loved Raoul and wouldn't have been with Erik; in the final scene: the "Final Lair" you can see how the idea repulsed her.
So that's my opinion! Sorry I'm getting quite worked up about this! :)


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

One does not have to be depressed to become an alcoholic, there are lots of different factors! But I don't want to start an off-topic discussion^^

No, I see your problem. I'm not too fond of that idea either. Still, I find it silly when people scream "IT'S RUNED PHANTOM FOR ME111!!11!!!" while it's just a mediocore (not even bad!) piece of fanfiction. Still, everything does kind of make sense - except that it doesn't mean one would like it.

Anyways, you shall give it a try - just see it as a stand alone musical, where people for some reason have the same names. ;)


message 10: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Yeah totally!

Yes I do agree. It's just not the story I like, and I'm happy to love POTO on its own, without worrying about LND.

Yes I'll try see it, thx.


Carina I was disappointed with Love Never Dies. The music wasn't as good, though it was still good it just doesn't have the resonance of Phantom.

The alcoholic storyline - mmm. I don't mind that, it is something that could happen - as Chiara said there are various things that can cause it, and you do hear of people who love their families but are still alcoholics.

The child. Going from the book - it would NEVER happen. Same for the 25th anniversary show version. Going from the Gerald Butler film version - I don't know, the fangirl shipper part of me thinks Christine kinda regrets going with Raoul so I kinda like it but I do think it ruins the unrequited love which is such a key element to Phantom of the Opera. So... mmm.

I did like Meg being obsessed with the Phantom, in the adaptations (especially the Gerard Butler version) they do seem to suggest Meg wants to know more about him so... I like that element.

Overall I would say that it isn't a worthy sequel - it reminds me of the book Scarlett which tried to 'fix' the end of Gone with the Wind, it just takes away the impact of the original and almost cheapens the original story.


Connie Chiara wrote: "I think a lot of it fits...

1. Meg as a show girl. People always think Meg has to be a super innocent little ballerina. But people don't understand, that ballerinas and show girls has basicially t..."


Actually, at the beginning of LND, it says that it is 1905, while POTO is set in the late 1870s or early 1880s, depending on which version you go by, so there is actually a time period of 25-35 years between the two.


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

I always thought PotO was in the 1880's and then transformed into the 1890's for the show... Well, anyways, they switched the time.


message 14: by marc (new) - rated it 4 stars

marc i saw it i like the reaguler phantom of the opera not love never dies. iam a fan of andrew Loyd webbers but when i saw love never dies i hated it! there were a few cathcey song like the carnival song, and the devils advoicate and also the one where the boy sees the phantoms face.


message 15: by marc (new) - rated it 4 stars

marc but instead of that i HATED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


message 16: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Thanks, Marc, that's good to know! I totally agree with you!


message 17: by [deleted user] (new)

Well, I don't hate it. I don't take it seriously, but, I'm also the only person who thinks that Kay's novel is a worse Phantom adaption. I don't think LND is that good, but I adore the music (especially the Waltz!) and I think the storyline is mediocore compared to most phanphictions and sequel.


message 18: by Lisa (new) - rated it 2 stars

Lisa Chiara, you're not the only one who didn't like Kay's novel. I thought it was terrible.


Euraylie I only know a few songs from 'Love Never Dies' but I read the book it is based on many years go and hated it.
I thought it was one the worst Phantom 'sequels' ever written.
Don't know what ALW was smoking.


message 20: by Kristin (last edited Dec 04, 2014 09:34PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kristin Just throwing this out there, but Raoul and Christine are not some epic love affair. Do you remember he didn't believe her when she told him what was going on. We never get a scene of him acknowledging that he was wrong, and apologizing to her. He essentially called her crazy. At the masquerade he is mad at her for allowing a delusion to prevent her from wearing their engagement ring! And then, when it is proven the phantom is real, does Raoul admit he was wrong? Does he comfort her for the insanity she has had to deal with? Nope. He decides she should be bait! He put her in danger? For what? Nothing! If he loved her, they could have ridden off into the sunset. He is rich; they could have travelled anywhere! In fact, the only reason to take on the phantom was to save his investment in the opera house, which is a pretty selfish motivation, not the behavior of a man who loves a woman and wants to protect her.

So, long story short, it is perfectly possible that their relationship would have fallen apart because Christine was more of a possession to him than a real love. Conversely, I am not even remotely suggesting that Erik's love was any better. Christine was ultimately a toy these boys were fighting over.

I haven't read or seen "Love Never Dies," I was just responding to something I read further up in the comments.


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

Kristin wrote: "Just throwing this out there, but Raoul and Christine are not some epic love affair. Do you remember he didn't believe her when she told him what was going on. We never get a scene of him acknowled..."

That is absolutely true. And again what I always say: I am not a ChristinexErik shipper, BUT I dislike Raoul a LOT. In both the musical (with the exception of some productions) and the book he treated Christine badly. He also didn't trust her, stalked her, asked other people out about her instead of asking herself and he didn't believe what she told him. And he didn't take her serious. In the musical he nearly made fun of her, while in the book he simply didn't believe her and told her she was crazy.

Christine though is an intelligent woman with an unusual and rather uncedonventional upbringingand lifestyle, considering the time she lived in. It just makes sense that she grew out of her relationship with that spoiled little titled girl with a moustache...


message 22: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Yes ok I see your points, but I have some of my own to add to what I've already said. Yes in the book Raoul came across a bit weak BUT he did go down after Christine to rescue her from Phantom. Which threw him into a torture chamber and still he persisted in trying to help her. In some of the productions the Raoul actors totally spoil him, I agree, but overall I am fully convinced he loved Christine. He used her as "bait", coz he knew overall it would get rid of the Phantom. And then he went down looking for her. And anyway, I get the impression they had quite a good friendship as children and got on quite well.
It depends on how you look at it, and which actors you've seen shape Raoul. To be honest, I think he is definitely one of the most controversial characters, and there are a lot of ways you can interpret him, while Christine and the Phantom usually keep their classic traits. Yeah, I guess I'm mostly supporting him because of Hadley's awesome portrayal of him. Otherwise, I don't really like Raoul SO much and don't mind Christine and Erik together.


message 23: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy And another thing to add, :)
When Raoul found out that the Phantom obviously wanted Christine, it's not like he chickened out and got another girl, which would suggest a weak character. He had to love Christine, surely, to fight for her. He persisted for Christine, although Leroux suggests in his description of Raoul that he could have easily got another rich girl if he had wanted one.
Oh well, :)


message 24: by Euraylie (last edited Dec 05, 2014 03:05PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Euraylie Also Raoul was a member of the aristocracy and Christine just a broke chorus girl. He didn't have to marry her, he could have made her his mistress (the fate of many actresses/singers at the time) or just tossed her aside when she proved too much trouble.
He was by no means perfect, but I think his heart was in the right place.


message 25: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy I agree :)
But he went through and married her, which really makes me think that he must have loved her (of course this is contradicting LND, but makes me feel more strongly than ever that LND spoiled the story.)
Looking at LND, and if I'm to go along with its story and ideas, then I'll try explain what I think happened to Raoul. Obviously, things got too much for him. I feel that maybe in POTO, definitely by the book, that maybe Raoul was broken by the end, by the torture chamber and the stress, and whatever else. As a (maybe) spoiled young man this was all too much and completely new. He just hadn't been brought up in the right way to face all of this that life had to offer, especially the challenges he faced in LND. So yeah, blame his parents :) I just feel that in LND Raoul was obviously struggling from perhaps a miserable childhood? Raoul simply wasn't equip for all of this, but he loved Christine despite everything.


message 26: by Euraylie (last edited Dec 06, 2014 12:24PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Euraylie Nikita wrote: "I agree :)
But he went through and married her, which really makes me think that he must have loved her (of course this is contradicting LND, but makes me feel more strongly than ever that LND spo..."


That makes sense. :) Much more sense than how it was presented to us in LND.
However, I still think the major flaw lies with Frederick Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan. It was simply an awful book; it read like a Mary Sue fanfic.
So if you're using that as your basis for a musical sequel then you're doomed from the start.
I know the author is established, but the book was just so amateurish and showed that he didn't understand what made the original novel and the musical so special.


Christina McNulty I agree that Webber should have left this one alone! I'm a long time phantom "Phanatic!" I am positively enthralled by the original storyline and plot! So needless to say when I heard that a "continuation" of the story had been created I admit I was curious.... And was completely and utterly let down when I got the soundtrack and read the plot! It was like a completely different story all together! And the characters were messed around with way too much! No offense or disrespect to Mr Webber but where the "Phantom of the opera" is concerned if it ain't broke don't fix it! Just my honest and humble opinion.


message 28: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy Christina wrote: "I agree that Webber should have left this one alone! I'm a long time phantom "Phanatic!" I am positively enthralled by the original storyline and plot! So needless to say when I heard that a "conti..."

I agree :)


back to top