A tad delayed, but Victory nonethess. I've not been this happy since The Woman left my life.
]THE SEQUEL IS OVERRRRRRRRR. WOOOOPPPPPPPWOOOOPPP. O-V-E-R YEAH! PARTY PARTY IT CLOOOOOSSSSED LIKE A WEEK AGO HELLZ YAHHHHHHH. PLAYING MY VICTORY PLAYLIST THAT I MADE WHEN THE WOMAN LEFT! THIS LEAVING MY LIFE IS EVEN BETTER THAN THAT UNBELIVABLY. Um...London down, Melbourne to go. And sure, it's still playing in Melbourne, which is far closer than London, but it's still not getting fab reviews at all. And with all the trouble it's had, what Broadway backers are going to back it. I mean, it closed in London, got revised, then they made it entirely different for Autralia. Well....actually. They kept the storylive that they used when it closed and got revised in London and just has new costumes. But even those changes were minimal and people still disliked it. It has little chance, methinks, and this makes me happy. It almost makes up for the fact it opened in Australia and at the Regent Theatre, no less, where it completely sullied the once-hallowed theatre where I first ever saw Wicked <3. And sure, it'll leave the cast album behind, but there's plenty of musicals no one remembers, amirite? That said, the RUG dealt with the closing of the show badly, and I feel for the cast and people who bought tickets for the week after the show was meant to close. You see, the ticket office continued to sell tickets for the week after it eventually closed (i.e, it closed at the end of August and still sold tickets into September, even though they'd kinda known it was gonna close) and they didn't notify the cast the show was closing and that they were gonna cut their contracts short BEFORE the news got to the press, and thus, the cast pretty much found out they were being fired by the newspaper instead of the boss :/. But I digress. My blogs haven't been quite so happy in quite a while. Or my posts when I found out about the musical. Take a lookie at these posts from October last year! QUOTE Rant time: OMG I HATE ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER THE FIRST STORY FINISHED ERIK(THE PHANTOM) LET CHRISTINE GO WITH RAOUL, AND THE PHANTOM HAD LEARNED HIS LESSON TO STOP STALKING AND BEING EVIL AND CRAWLED OFF TO DIE SOMEWHERE BUT NOOOOOO, NOW HE'S STALKING HER AGAIN! SO MUCH FOR BEING REPENTED BY CHRISTINE'S KISS IN THE FIRST ONE. HE'S AT IT AGAIN. AND CHRISTINE IS DUMB ENOUGH TO GO TO CONEY ISLAND BASED ON AN INVITATION FROM A VERY THINLY VEILED PHANTOM. I DON'T THINK SHE'S THAT STUPID ANYMORE. THIS QUOTE IS FULL OF TRUFAX: "There is no reason for a sequel of this musical to be made. I don’t think The Phantom would have gone to Coney Island, I don’t think Christine would be so stupid to go there… and Raoul. Don’t get me started on him. When and why would he become an alcoholic? Does no one care about the rich history of this story, or the musical that gave birth to this misshapen thing?! Teenagers will be the selling point of this musical, since instead of someone ‘harboring’ a ‘melodic, hypnotic’ and ‘tenor’ like voice, we now have a ‘cool’, ‘sexy, and ‘rocker tenor voice’. There was a reason why the film flopped when it included that formula." THEN SOMEHOW SHE HAS A KID WITH HIM, WHICH INSINUATES SHE LOVES HIM(UNLESS IT WAS SONETHING MORE SINISTER ON THE PHANTOM'S PART, IF YOU GET WHAT I MEAN), WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PAHNTOM'S COMMENTS ABOUT BEING DENIED THE JOYS OF FLESH? I THINK THAT SAYS A LOT. CHRISTINE DOES NOT. LOVE. THE. PHANTOM. SHE LOVES RAOUL GOD DAMN IT!!!!!! AND ALW'S MADE RAOUL A DRUNK! HE MUST BE READING SOME OF THOSE TERRIBLE FANFICS THAT STARTED CIRCULATING AFTER THE MOVIE WHERE PEOPLE WANTED CHRISTINE TO GO WITH THE PHANTOM, SO THEY MADE RAOUL EVIL IN THE PROCESS. RAOUL IS NOT A DRUNK! ANOTHER TUFAX QUOTE: "The fact that they make Raoul an alcoholic in my opinion, is just a way to make the audience hate him." DAMNIT! HE'S A SWEET MAN WHO'D NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HURT CHRISTINE, BUT ALW WANTS TO SHOW THE AUDIENCE HOW AWESOME THE PHANTOM IS. AND ANOTHER QUOTE: And I'm sure Erik is doing / has done much worse drugs and liquor than Raoul anyway, he he he. Aha, but don't you see? It's okay when Erik does it. He's special. But when RAOUL does it, the sweet, gentle man turns into a raving psycho abusive lunatic while the... raving psycho lunatic turns into a sweet, gentle, albeit tragic dude.(Bold=first thing said, Italics=Response) AND THE PHANTOM STALKS HER! I DON'T THINK THAT EQUALS AWESOME. NO CHILDREN, STALKING IS NOT AWESOME. AT ALL. PERIOD. ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE THE PHANTOM HAS A DESK WHERE HE KEEPS A LOCK OF CHRISTINE'S HAIR. THAT IS CREEPY, NOT ROMANTIC. ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER IS A STUPID OLD MAN, WHO SHOULD STOP WRITING MUSICALS ALTOGETHER. HIS MILKING THE CASH COW FOR ALL IT'S WORTH AND SCREWING AROUND WITH GASTON LEROUX'S BOOK IN THE PROCESS. AND NOT TO MENTION EVERYONE IS TEN YEARS OLDER(AND HE'S MUCKED UP THE DATES AS WELL) BUT HE'S CHOSEN YOUNG, SEXY ACTORS LIKE THE MOVIE. THAT WAS WHY THE MOVIE WAS BAD. THE PHANTOM WAS SEXY. NO THE PHANTOM IS NOT SEXY! HE'S UGLYIER THAN THAT WEIRD MANGLED BIRD THAT ONCE HIT OUR INDSHIELD. AND THE MUSIC IN THIS NEW SHOW IS SO GENERIC. THE SONG WE'VE ALREADY HEARD (TIL I HEAR YOU SING) SOUNDS LIKE A POP BALLAD, NOT THE POTO I KNOW AND LOVE, AND THE MAIN THEME, THE CONEY ISLAND WALTZ IS GENERIC AND BAD. OH AND REMEMBER THE DOLL THE PHANTOM HAD OF CHRISTINE IN THE FIRST ONE? IT'S NOW AN AUTOMATON, WHICH HE DOES BAD THINGS TO AND IF I DIRECTLY SAID WHAT HE DOES WITH SAID AUTOMATON, I'D BE BANNED. BUT YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN. TO SUM IT UP I HATE THE SEQUEL AND I THINK ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER IS A STUPID IDIOT. THANK YOU. [/rant] As you can see I'm wholly opposed as a phan to this sequel. And yes, I heard the ABC broadcast right as I got out of the car at school yesterday, then stuck my head in, to hear Mr. Frogface Webber talk about it, and nearly started ranting in the middle of the street, I've known about this horrible sequel for months. QUOTE He says he can't watch the last twenty minutes of Love Never Dies, and I'm pretty sure it's because Christine gets killed off in the Phantom of Manhattan book(what it is based off), and I think he's going to in LND, so essentially he's killing off Sarah Brightman, and the first show was written for her. So basically Sarah Brightman=Christine, and he's still really friendly with her. ANd knowing Andrew Lloyd Webber he might be TOO friendly with her, Mr. I've-had-three-wives-and-have-admittly-become involved-with-each-one-wile-still-married-to-the-other. ANd it's coming to Australia. I must resist any urges to go trash the theatre and sets in anger at the destroyal of the original story(musn't start rantiiing). QUOTE More than likely. As I said in Phantom of Manhattan(which LND is loosely based off, but IDK how much ALW changed as he's not giving credits to the author because he says it's pretty different) it's the same with the whole Christine comes to New York with a son, but *legasp* Raoul can't have any kids!!!!!1 So who's the father? Who else has Christine been with? Hmmmmm...anyway don't take my word for it that Christine is killed, but the pieces fit together IMO, but who knows, maybe she doesn't? Only the cast, crew and ALW know for sure. My theory is, however general speculation among other fans, who have read the montrosity Phantom of Manhattan. Now excuse me while I go attempt to errase this horrible, horrible plotline from my brain, but I'll admit it, the music is ACTUALLY pretty good, but musicals have to have a good plot though, so just... no. QUOTE Well actually, Webber actually asked Frederick Forsyth to wrtie Phantom of Manhattan and told him what to put it, so I think he might, but the kid is pretty much spelled out to be the Phantom's. According to the cast list Gustave(the child in question) is meant to have an earthreal voice...oh I wonder. But anyway Webber can do anything he likes. Heck, he could make the kid's father be Joesph Buquet or something....wait what? QUOTE Musical sequels have never worked. Look at both attempts to do a sequel to Annie! The first one flopped and the second only had limited success! Then again, we're not talking Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals which always make it to the West End/Broadway no matter what and usually have a decent enough score, neither of the Annie's were on Broadway or really had very good scores, even though we haven't heard much of the score of LND, so far it's actually OK. And another thing annoys me about the sequel is the fact in the book the Phantom died shortly after the end of the story! But no, ALW has to change it. I don't think he realizes the story had finished. 'No' he says 'I don't think the story was satisfying, because Christine went with the boring guy"RAOUL IS SO NOT BORING OLD MAN. Although he claims Maria Bjornson(the designer of the original show) said this, I think he's lying because Maria herself once indicated she felt the story was perfect, considering there's no way to confirm with her that she said this, because she's conveniantly, for ALW, dead, I think he decided to get himself out of hot water by claiming she said that. QUOTE Exactly. I heard it was pretty terrible. The plot for both of the Annie sequels sound pretty terrible, they're pretty cliche and cringeworthy. And, yeah, Raoul's a good guy, I meaan, the Phantom stalks and kidnaps Christine, murders multiple people, in the book has a toture chamber and finds pleasure in watching people die in inhumane ways. When people say they'd go with the Phantom I'm like "Are you serious? WHat are you on?", making Raoul a drunk is just a way to make people hate him and make the Phantom look like a good guy, when really Raoul is just a sweet guy, albeit a bit of a crybaby(well, in the book, not the musical.). Or they hate him because he's the perfect Prince Charming...IDK I don't think he's perfect either, he's definately got flaws. Oh and since Christine was loosely based on Cristina Nilsson, as Gaston Leroux met her and apparantly thought a lot of her, so I think Christine's past was loosely based on Cristina's. QUOTE And plus, the Phantom isn't really pure evil, he's misunderstood, and lived a crappy life, you can sort of understand his action, being shunned from the whole world with even your own mother hating you would be pretty terrible, but I still don't think this excuses his actions. And anyway the tragedy of it is why people like the story. If Christine goes with the Phantom the story just loses some of what it had, the fact that this man, so bitter from years of solitude and ostracization has been redeemed but ultimately loses again. And I don't think the sequel WILL affect the original, as a lot of people seeing the sequel are curious fans, consistent Broadway goers who would've seen the first already, or tourists who I don't think it really matters to. On that note, though, the original still gets consistant reviews after 23 years on the West and 21 on Broadway, so I don't think the original losing popularity is an issue. QUOTE Well...this is new. Andrew Lloyd Webber has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Now I feel bad for that rant up there, where I didn't say the nicest things about him...nothing like guilt to hit you in the face. I hope he has a speedy recovery. Only well wishes from me. Link for those to read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33472653/ns/en...rts_books_more/ Wasn't I an angry child? Oh, and that bit about the music being good? LIES. I was attempting to be optimistic. The music is WUBBISH. Definitely not ALW's worst, but not his best either. Far, far, far, faaaaaaar from it. And um....wow...back then, the London production was only at 23 years. Now it's at 25 and I'm very shocked. Like wow. 25 years of Phantom. A whole quarter of a century in the same theatre in London. I'm so proud. *teartear*...and very sad that the 25th Anniversary is in London and I can't go see it. My parents would never agree, obvs *tear*. Buuuut, I guess I'll just see it at the movies. That'll at least please me. Actually, I'm not sure if I'd even want to spend the money. Ramin and Sierra are playing the leads, and I don't like them THAT much. I don't hate them, they're fantastic, but they're not my favourites, and they do disappoint me a bit, and they were in LND, and I don't want that to mingle too much with the original. Even if I am over, don't wanna open old wounds, amirite. Oh, and they're using an entirely new costume design. I like the original costumes. That's like...a good sixteenth of the appeal of the show. The beautiful sets/costumes. The movie costumes were WUBBISH, and I think they may as well just stop trying to make better costumes. It won't happen, so, um, stop, kay? Now, I just have to see the show on Broadway, and maybe I'll see it on the West End again. Just for good measure. Like...if I don't see the original Broadway production(and not a revival kathx, refer to a previous blog, kay?) before I die, I'll cry. I must have see both major original productions, and London's down. So Broadway to go! And if it closes in the next few years, before I get a chance to go to New York on my own, my parents have been told if they don't take me, I'll steal their credit cards and run off to New York on my lonesome. But hopefully it won't. I don't think it will, and I pray to Richard it doesn't. Even though I don't think it will. But anyway, re: the 25th Anniversary production, I may just buy this collector's pack: http://store.universal-music.co.uk/restofw...t/0600753351567 Pretty groovy, huh? I mean, it's gonna be like...$150 AUD, but is it weird I'd be prepared to pay that? Or maybe for Christmas. That said, I'm already asking for a Beatles CD boxset, with all the CDs and some groovy extras, so I'm not too sure what to do...I really want that replica program, the book, the medallion and the silk print. They're all limited edition, so it might be cool to have them. I'm not too fussed on the CDs/DVD, since I have the two shows cast recordings (yes, even LND, but that is for lulz/I like, like one of the songs and is from when it first came out so I could listen to the show and make an evaluation and because I never delete ANYTHING off my iPod) and I'm fairly sure you can find all those clips that are on the limited edition DVD on youtube. Well....not the private collection video of ALW and Michael Crawford at the show's 10000th performance, OR the interviews....possibly, but I digress. I only want the collector's items really. But it'd be that or the Beatles boxset, and they're like...my two number one loves battling for first place...the Beatles thing is $300, BTW....hum...I really don't know, especially since those clips that are exclusive i.e the 10000th performance can be found on youtube from an audience member and not one of RUG's people. It's rubbish quality though...but anyhoo, Beatles boxsets anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Stereo_Box_Se Maybe though, my two loves don't have to battle. Afterall, they DID once combine in one movie, how I won the war. Michael Crawford and John Lennon in the same movie? I almost DIED. I'm fairly sure I found that out after reading Cynthia Lennon's book, and she referenced Michael and then I went aGooglin and died. Check. It. Out. Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player. Kids. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061789/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Won_the_War Amazingness. Perhaps I'll purchase it. Something which I found out is easy to be sneaky about on EBay, and how to get a cheaper copy is to find a copy where they mention Michael Crawford in the listing title, as opposed to listing John Lennon or both of them in the listing title, I looked for one with Michael's name, and all of them were at least $10 cheaper than their counterparts. Perhaps Beatles fan are willing to spend more? Or perhaps they're a tad dumber, or maybe even more fangirly, and are willing to spend lots on their love. Kidding, of course . But it is still puzzling. I wouldn't want to speed too much on a movie that mightn't be good. My grandad says he thinks he's seen it and said it wasn't great. Buuuut he's not sure. So I digress. ANYWAY, BACK TO THE BOXSETS. I like/want the black one, as it's the stereo boxset, not the mono boxset....but...read on. Except I saw that box in White. And there is a white boxset, the mono boxset, but the box I saw was the same size as the one in the image, and the mono boxset is tiny. So I dunno. BUT BACK TO PHANTOM, METHINKS. Anyway, apparantly the 25th Anniversary show should come out in theatres, like the Les Mis one did. Which comes to another reason I wouldn't have seen it live, but would just watch it...it's not the full show...um, apparantly anyway...it's at Royal Albert Hall, so....that's what I'm guessing. Les Mis's 10th Anniversary was there, and it was only a concert version...but who knows. I mean, I guess it'd be worth it...if you lived in London...but I'll see it at the movies, like I said (oh, and if you thought I meant actual theatres above, I didn't really, ya big sillies. My mistake, and for some reason on this MC post, I can't backspace. Hum.) and then buy the DVD after, just like I did for Les Mis's 25th Anniversary. And this DVD isn't the same one that comes in the 25th Collector's item, BTW. This is the DVD of the 25th Anniversary concert, and the DVD that comes in the 25th Collector's pack is just a DVD of extras, which I dunno if I want. Silly as it may be, the 25th Anniversary DVD doesn't come with the 25th Anniversary Collector's pack. So meh. OH, and speaking of Concert's at the movies, I missed the re-release of Concert For George a few months ago. Grrr. But ho hum. I"ll just buy that on DVD as well, even though it's been out for years. George IS my favourite Beatle. Disappointing I missed it, but what can ya do, eh!? Lesigh. Life is good. Well, ish, but that's another story considering I'm still annoyed about things not related to Phantom,i.e exams, and my mother's criticisms. But this blog has gone on for long enough, and you don't wanna hear me mope about all that. This has been the cheeriest blog I've done in a while, and if you have no clue whatsoever what I'm ranting about, don't even bother trying . There's absolutely no point in the slightest, I promise. Just me babbling. But perhaps I'll post a mopey blog later, if you REALLY want to hear my problems about my mother being mean, and my stupid exams . Kidding of course. It's really really time to end this psycho babble or we'll be here forever. Gawd, that was long-winded and LONG....shutting up now. And as I said, just ignore all the babble. I just needed a good, happy rant/vent, and a slightly annoyed/depressed one at the end there. But yeah. Ignore. ;P Tata! Kate out! *lewave* LOVE YOU GUISE <3.
|
Last entries
A tad delayed, but Victory nonethess. I've not been this happy since The Woman left my life.
Irrational People and MSN NICK JONAS AS MARIUS IN LES MIS? PHANTOM FOR SCHOOLS? WTH. KILL ME NOW. FAIL ALW. OH GOD. ONLY 12 1/2 HOURS. PANIC MODEEE. FOUR DAYS AND COUNTING! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! PREPARE TO LIVE UNDERGROUND UNTIL THIS BLOWS OVER. Whhhhyyyyyy? 6 DAYS! KILL ME NAO. Teh Story Sample-Super-Duper Time Travellers GOD-DAMNED SEQUEL! IT'S FOLLOWING ME! WHYYYYY? WHY MUST IT POP INTO MY MIND WHILE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES? Neeeedles Tomorrow D: Last Comments
winxclubrox23 on NICK JONAS AS MARIUS IN LES MIS? PHANTOM FOR SCHOOLS? WTH. KILL ME NOW.
Winx4eva! on Irrational People and MSN W.I.N.X on Irrational People and MSN Winx4eva! on Irrational People and MSN W.I.N.X on NICK JONAS AS MARIUS IN LES MIS? PHANTOM FOR SCHOOLS? WTH. KILL ME NOW. Jahnavi on NICK JONAS AS MARIUS IN LES MIS? PHANTOM FOR SCHOOLS? WTH. KILL ME NOW. {§hani™} on OH GOD. ONLY 12 1/2 HOURS. PANIC MODEEE. W.I.N.X on FOUR DAYS AND COUNTING! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! PREPARE TO LIVE UNDERGROUND UNTIL THIS BLOWS OVER. Ranma on FOUR DAYS AND COUNTING! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! PREPARE TO LIVE UNDERGROUND UNTIL THIS BLOWS OVER. dittadulla on Whhhhyyyyyy? 6 DAYS! KILL ME NAO. My Blog Links
Search My Blog
1 user(s) viewing
1 guest(s)
0 member(s) 0 anonymous member(s) |