General Feeling: Kinda Liked it.
Standing point: I do not believe this can be called a sequel but rather fan-fiction and I will treat it as such.
The Music: I actually liked the music a lot. I do believe that there are some jewels in the soundtrack (Love Never Dies, Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Beautiful, Beauty Underneath, My Dear Old Friend...). Especially in My Dear Old Friend and Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Andrew Lloyd Webber's ability to combine voices shines. There are some wonderful moments when sequences from the original musical are hidden into the music which work as beautiful reminders of a fantastic musical. There are parts of the music which reminds me of songs I already know, for example the chorus of Beauty Underneath reminds me a lot of Pink's Get This Party Started. But that is to no consequence, I do believe it is a beautiful song. Famously The Phantom of the Opera's famous intro turned out to be from Pink Floyd, but the song itself had nothing to do with Pink Floyd and it works, so I don't care. Enough time has passed to tell which one survived the test of time better. (And if others can do it, why not Andrew Lloyd Webber? >> Rue's Whistle from What is a Youth by Nino Rota; The Anthem of Panem seems to have inspired It Must Be Believed To Be Seen from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory The New Musical). All in all, I love it, and I'd add it to my Spotify playlist if only I could.
The Characters: The characters have changed a lot it seems. And one would expect them to in the 10 years it claims to have passed. All throughout the musical it seemed that the characters were more like lifeless puppets singing some tunes. I do believe that improving on that would have given the songs the punch that would have made this musical the next Phantom of the Opera. But unfortunately, it's like they don't even exist. Breakdown:
Christine is a shadow of the character she was in Phantom. As one of, what I deem to be, the most important female leading roles in musicals, that does her no justice. The only way in which we can actually see her as an actual character is to think back to Phantom, but it is not easy as the role seems lifeless. The only characteristic I noticed was her care for her son. Raoul is nothing like the Raoul we rooted for in Phantom (well, most people at least). People change with time, but the extent to which he has seems superficial. He is a downright asshole. Doesn't pay attention to anyone, doesn't care about his own son or his wife, drunk and gambler in a lot of debt and with little to no dignity. I suspect he was intended as such, so that the audience would root for Christine to leave him. Making him a villain seems superficial and not well explained. The Phantom has changed too. He lacks the genius and torture that made him so appealing in the first place (I know I wanted Christine to stay with him in the end of Phantom). The character seems unstable, not in the sense of him being unstable but of his characterization being so. He oscillates from kind to evil. Meg being so little characterized in Phantom seems to be the most loyal to the original description and I do believe her to be the most believable character in this musical, actually the only one. She represents the struggling actress who would do anything and has in order to get some recognition, and in many ways she is a character with which a person can relate to. She is rounded up, and actually represents something. Madame Giry seems completely foreign. She used to love/care for Christine, and suddenly nothing. There is little to tell her motivations in Phantom, but surely she doesn't seem so Machiavellian in Phantom. The characters are poorly written. They have little to do with the originals, and one could easily change about a few names and details and then consider them different characters.
The Story: There are so many inconsistencies. Christine is supposed to be born in 1854 and to die in 1917 if one were to remember the gravestone at the end of Phantom. Phantom takes place in 1881, making her 27 years old in Phantom, a bit older than we are lead to believe. Even so, ten years later would have been in 1891, so 16 years earlier than when the musical is set. We can believe that the Phantom meet with Christine in those 16 years then. At the same time it mentions them bedding on Christine's wedding night. I would find it hard to believe that it took Raoul 16 years to marry Christine. Even so it would mean Christine had a child around the age of 43, which simply didn't happen back then, nor now. (Not to mention when the Phantom says that the boy is 10 years old he completely forgets of the 9 months of pregnancy somehow - almost a year). This is pure fan fiction and bad fan fiction too. There are more things wrong with it than timing. The writing is bad to say the least. With a few switches one could make this a standalone story.
My Conclusion: The music is lovely so don't think too hard about it, listen and enjoy.
Standing point: I do not believe this can be called a sequel but rather fan-fiction and I will treat it as such.
The Music: I actually liked the music a lot. I do believe that there are some jewels in the soundtrack (Love Never Dies, Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Beautiful, Beauty Underneath, My Dear Old Friend...). Especially in My Dear Old Friend and Devil Take the Hindmost Quartet, Andrew Lloyd Webber's ability to combine voices shines. There are some wonderful moments when sequences from the original musical are hidden into the music which work as beautiful reminders of a fantastic musical. There are parts of the music which reminds me of songs I already know, for example the chorus of Beauty Underneath reminds me a lot of Pink's Get This Party Started. But that is to no consequence, I do believe it is a beautiful song. Famously The Phantom of the Opera's famous intro turned out to be from Pink Floyd, but the song itself had nothing to do with Pink Floyd and it works, so I don't care. Enough time has passed to tell which one survived the test of time better. (And if others can do it, why not Andrew Lloyd Webber? >> Rue's Whistle from What is a Youth by Nino Rota; The Anthem of Panem seems to have inspired It Must Be Believed To Be Seen from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory The New Musical). All in all, I love it, and I'd add it to my Spotify playlist if only I could.
The Characters: The characters have changed a lot it seems. And one would expect them to in the 10 years it claims to have passed. All throughout the musical it seemed that the characters were more like lifeless puppets singing some tunes. I do believe that improving on that would have given the songs the punch that would have made this musical the next Phantom of the Opera. But unfortunately, it's like they don't even exist. Breakdown:
Christine is a shadow of the character she was in Phantom. As one of, what I deem to be, the most important female leading roles in musicals, that does her no justice. The only way in which we can actually see her as an actual character is to think back to Phantom, but it is not easy as the role seems lifeless. The only characteristic I noticed was her care for her son. Raoul is nothing like the Raoul we rooted for in Phantom (well, most people at least). People change with time, but the extent to which he has seems superficial. He is a downright asshole. Doesn't pay attention to anyone, doesn't care about his own son or his wife, drunk and gambler in a lot of debt and with little to no dignity. I suspect he was intended as such, so that the audience would root for Christine to leave him. Making him a villain seems superficial and not well explained. The Phantom has changed too. He lacks the genius and torture that made him so appealing in the first place (I know I wanted Christine to stay with him in the end of Phantom). The character seems unstable, not in the sense of him being unstable but of his characterization being so. He oscillates from kind to evil. Meg being so little characterized in Phantom seems to be the most loyal to the original description and I do believe her to be the most believable character in this musical, actually the only one. She represents the struggling actress who would do anything and has in order to get some recognition, and in many ways she is a character with which a person can relate to. She is rounded up, and actually represents something. Madame Giry seems completely foreign. She used to love/care for Christine, and suddenly nothing. There is little to tell her motivations in Phantom, but surely she doesn't seem so Machiavellian in Phantom. The characters are poorly written. They have little to do with the originals, and one could easily change about a few names and details and then consider them different characters.
The Story: There are so many inconsistencies. Christine is supposed to be born in 1854 and to die in 1917 if one were to remember the gravestone at the end of Phantom. Phantom takes place in 1881, making her 27 years old in Phantom, a bit older than we are lead to believe. Even so, ten years later would have been in 1891, so 16 years earlier than when the musical is set. We can believe that the Phantom meet with Christine in those 16 years then. At the same time it mentions them bedding on Christine's wedding night. I would find it hard to believe that it took Raoul 16 years to marry Christine. Even so it would mean Christine had a child around the age of 43, which simply didn't happen back then, nor now. (Not to mention when the Phantom says that the boy is 10 years old he completely forgets of the 9 months of pregnancy somehow - almost a year). This is pure fan fiction and bad fan fiction too. There are more things wrong with it than timing. The writing is bad to say the least. With a few switches one could make this a standalone story.
My Conclusion: The music is lovely so don't think too hard about it, listen and enjoy.
Tell Your Friends