I'm way less impressed with that video than you seem to think I should be. The whole thing screams high school.
As for the crazy-assed reprise of Bathing Beauty... that was the one part of this show that I thought was seriously chilling and effective.
Look, I'm not going to say that LND is a great show, because it really does suck. But there are tiny bits of it that stand on their own, and sometimes I swear this fandom has gotten so far gone on the concept of Leroux > everything that it will bash anything along those lines. LND is a terrible literal Phantom sequel, but I think that if ALW had produced it as a Spiritual Successor instead I'd be all over this mess, if only for the lulz. The decent bits of it are getting unilaterally panned just for being attached to it, and I'm frankly starting to be a little sick of this.
And now I clearly have to find that thing I found a while ago about Leroux himself having written a treatment for a sequel to the silent film, because he did. I'm off to finish my own review of LND, which I should probably attach a warning to, as it takes several cheap shots at the novel and the first musical too.
Like I said, it's not perfect. But personally, I'd rather a decent "high school" rendition of Erik's final monologue (I'm not a Leroux purist by any means but I think it's one of the things about it that no adaptation has surpassed, despite a century of trying) than the umpteenth rendition of the "Once Upon Another Time" chorus. But YMMV.
And I'm not panning the "decent bits" simply because they're attached to this mess. I just don't think there are very many of them to begin with. In fact, there are only two things I found salvageable: "Dear Old Friend" and the melody for "Till I Hear You Sing." Everything else left me bored, annoyed, and unhappy.
I like the reprise of "Bathing Beauty", too. This is partly because I love my singing prostitutes and partly because Erik is held somewhat accountable for being a self-absorbed moocher. I'd like Meg's character in general, actually, if her obsession with Erik were explained better.
The only reference I can find to the leroux/sequel thing is this: " Leroux died in 1927, at age 59, from complications following surgery, two years after The Phantom of the Opera's release. In a bizarre episode in 1929, Universal announced plans for a sequel, "The Return of the Phantom," ostensibly written by Leroux; it was claimed, by no less than Carl Laemmle Jr., son of the studio's founder, that the author had been so impressed with the studio's adaptation, that he'd written a sequel before he died. This was totally untrue, but it does illustrate the author's prominence at the time, that his imprimatur would be invoked falsely"
However I'd be keen to learn if that rebuttal is itself false.
And the novel needs a few cheap shots in my opinion - I've often said that no version of the story lives up to the potential inherent in it - and that includes the original source material. I always found much of the opening few chapters to be dreary, confusing and bizarre for example.
Personally I tend to skip over the nonsense with the safety pin...I mean come on, Christine has just been kidnapped in the middle of a performance and Raoul's searching for her and we're spending time with the goddamn managers? Get back to the story!
As for the crazy-assed reprise of Bathing Beauty... that was the one part of this show that I thought was seriously chilling and effective.
Look, I'm not going to say that LND is a great show, because it really does suck. But there are tiny bits of it that stand on their own, and sometimes I swear this fandom has gotten so far gone on the concept of Leroux > everything that it will bash anything along those lines. LND is a terrible literal Phantom sequel, but I think that if ALW had produced it as a Spiritual Successor instead I'd be all over this mess, if only for the lulz. The decent bits of it are getting unilaterally panned just for being attached to it, and I'm frankly starting to be a little sick of this.
And now I clearly have to find that thing I found a while ago about Leroux himself having written a treatment for a sequel to the silent film, because he did. I'm off to finish my own review of LND, which I should probably attach a warning to, as it takes several cheap shots at the novel and the first musical too.
Reply
And I'm not panning the "decent bits" simply because they're attached to this mess. I just don't think there are very many of them to begin with. In fact, there are only two things I found salvageable: "Dear Old Friend" and the melody for "Till I Hear You Sing." Everything else left me bored, annoyed, and unhappy.
~LCD
Reply
Reply
Reply
The only reference I can find to the leroux/sequel thing is this:
" Leroux died in 1927, at age 59, from complications following surgery, two years after The Phantom of the Opera's release. In a bizarre episode in 1929, Universal announced plans for a sequel, "The Return of the Phantom," ostensibly written by Leroux; it was claimed, by no less than Carl Laemmle Jr., son of the studio's founder, that the author had been so impressed with the studio's adaptation, that he'd written a sequel before he died. This was totally untrue, but it does illustrate the author's prominence at the time, that his imprimatur would be invoked falsely"
However I'd be keen to learn if that rebuttal is itself false.
And the novel needs a few cheap shots in my opinion - I've often said that no version of the story lives up to the potential inherent in it - and that includes the original source material. I always found much of the opening few chapters to be dreary, confusing and bizarre for example.
Reply
~LCD
Reply
Leave a comment