OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Shanna Marie]

8 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Sorry, I was referring to "Frozen II", the animated movie, where the Enchanted Forest was stuck in an impenetrable mist or something.  That was where the ship was.

Oops, got my Enchanted Forests mixed up and thought you were talking about Once. I haven't seen Frozen II, so I didn't realize there was an Enchanted Forest there. (And suddenly I have an urge to rewatch Galavant, in which they mocked that.)

It did occur to me that, in the Onceverse (don't know about the Frozenverse) that they might have known approximately where the ship went down if they went in search of it when the king didn't show up and came across the debris field. If they got there soon enough, there would have been an area where there was a lot of stuff floating, and they might be able to estimate about where the ship went down based on what they knew of the prevailing ocean currents. It wouldn't have been as precise as they showed, but they might have been in the ballpark.

[Camera One]

I finally finished watching "Frozen II".  Maybe I shouldn't have stopped watching a movie halfway through.

Anyway, I thought at the one hour mark, the movie finally gained some momentum.  Now they knew their parents wanted to get to that island, so Elsa had a tangible reason to go there.

The first half of the movie wasn't engaging because I couldn't care less about their "quest" to find The Voice.  

But after Elsa got to the magical island, and found out the secret past of her EVIL grandfather (and promptly froze into a statue), the nonsensical nature of this entire plot revealed itself.  

So The Voice needed Elsa to go to that island to find out the truth and get frozen so she could do nothing about it?  We never even found out what that voice was.  So Elsa was the fifth element.. uh, is that supposed to be profoundly important in some way, just because???  Couldn't the magical wind, fire, earth and water just break the dam?  

Well, thank goodness Anna received the message to destroy the dam.

And wait a minute... if Elsa's grandfather was the evil one, then why did the Forest People have to be trapped in the mist  as well?  Why were they being punished?  

I also don't get why the Forest People even needed a dam in the first place.  Why would they accept a "gift" they didn't need?  

So back to the plot.  Once the dam broke, all was right again, because why?  Was it because Arendelle would be sacrificed?  But Elsa was allowed to stop the sacrifice by preventing the destruction of the town because she was officially a supernatural being now?  

Why did Elsa become unfrozen when the dam was broken?

I had heard a few months ago that Anna became Queen, and I was hoping for a logical explanation from this movie, but I wasn't convinced.  Elsa was going to do what now?  It came off rather selfish.

Poor Kristoff... off-screen for half the movie.  I thought maybe they were going for a new romance with Ryder, the other guy who really likes reindeers.

7 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Elsa put her people in danger by summoning the spirits, so why should Arendellians trust her? We haven't see her do anything but terrorize them. T

That's a really good point.  I guess they can be thankful she stopped all their homes from being destroyed.  Even though she sort of caused it by summoning the spirits.  Once again, be a hero by causing a problem and then solving that problem!

Quote

hen Anna broke the dam to flood the kingdom, jeopardizing everyone's homes, because it was the "right thing to do." Of course, she didn't bother to even consult anyone about it. These characters kept running off and putting themselves in danger without considering any of the consequences.

How did she conclude it was the right decision?  Was that part of Elsa's magical message?

Quote

I realize these are kids films but that doesn't mean your characters should act like candidates to die alone from natural selection. They don't have to act stupid. 

LOL.

2 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

I will say that A&E did a good job of working Ingrid into the Frozen universe. She didn't feel shoehorned in because her backstory explained why Elsa's parents were so fearful of the ice powers. It gave Arendelle a darker backstory like Frozen 2 did, but it utilized stuff the first movie had already set up. (Like the rock trolls erasing memories, for example.) It wasn't this contrived second story about completely different people in a completely different place. Of course, it had the added benefit of also being in the Once Upon a Time universe where it made perfect sense for the parents to go to Rumple. I think its funny that both versions had a far off Enchanted Forest where magic is more commonplace.

Yes, I also found the Ingrid backstory explained Elsa and Anna's mother's motivations and worries much better than in this movie.

The whole thing about the mother being part of the Forest People made no sense.  So they escaped before the Enchanted Forest was closed off?  But she never told the dad until much later?  They never told Elsa and Anna either... why was that?  

If the mother lived in a society with magic, why wouldn't she have told the dad that it was okay?  Or did they not want the townspeople to know because they all hated the Forest People?  I mean, the whole situation wasn't very clearly defined at all.

Quote

It definitely wasn't the worst Disney sequel, but I'm very "meh" about it. At least it got me to appreciate Once Upon a Time. That's a rare occasion. 

I agree.  It wasn't as bad as "Maleficent"... that's the rubbish standard.  I haven't watched "Maleficent 2", though, but it might be good for a laugh.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Camera One

[Speakeasy]

@Camera One Maleficent 2 is very pretty but it is nonsense. It's worth watching fir the visuals of the 

Spoiler

Dark Fay, the race of Maleficoids that get introduced in the movie, everything about them is beautiful, they have them accessories in all different individual ways with different kinds of wings and they just look stunning.

They're also dumb as posts to a one, but, hey, when you look this good you don't have to know anything.

It also makes it look like both the human and fairy kingdom have a population of about 100-maximum, and everything is right next to everything else, so that's familiar.

Oh, also Aurora and Philip are much more like actual characters in this one, Philip actually gets to do something which is at least adjacent to plot relevance and Aurora is actually trying to help and be useful and they look like they could conceivably be a couple

Spoiler

That's undercut a bit by a few scenes of intense longing looks between Aurora and Mal which.... I mean it could be a maternal connection but it could also not be.

So yeah, it's fun. It's better than Maleficent's OUAT backstory which if memory serves was 'has some beef with Aurora's family, couldn't sufficiently mess with them, became a mopey drunk, met Regina who told her to stop being a mopey drunk, stopped drinking, cursed Aurora' 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Speakeasy

[Writing Wrongs]

I'm re-watching Smallville and am up to the Season 4 episode, "Onyx", where black kryptonite splits Lex into 2 people. That one episode was more interesting than what was done with the Regina and Evil Queen split of several episodes.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Writing Wrongs

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I'm re-watching Smallville and am up to the Season 4 episode, "Onyx", where black kryptonite splits Lex into 2 people. That one episode was more interesting than what was done with the Regina and Evil Queen split of several episodes.

The writers never really did anything with it. The Evil Queen was just edgy most of the time and Regina was I guess vaguely less confident?

Edited March 4, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

7 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

The writers never really did anything with it. The Evil Queen was just edgy most of the time and Regina was I guess vaguely less confident?

Star Trek tos split Kirk one half was aggressive and impulsive, the other sweet but indecisive. He realized he needed both halves to be an effective captain.

I was actually hoping this is what they would do with Regina. 

[Camera One]

The Evil Queen was basically just a second Regina who woke up on the wrong side of the bed and who wore garish costumes.  

On the new reboot of Charmed, they have a storyline right now about a protector figure ("whitelighter") whose negative traits and darkness were siphoned out and held in a closed flask.

But the stuff in the flask got out, and now he has an "evil" version ("darklighter") out there. 

The latest episode suggested that they might re-combine them to form one person again.

The storyline is just as bad as on "Once", though.

[Speakeasy]

On 3/5/2020 at 3:33 AM, Camera One said:

The Evil Queen was basically just a second Regina who woke up on the wrong side of the bed and who wore garish costumes.  

On the new reboot of Charmed, they have a storyline right now about a protector figure ("whitelighter") whose negative traits and darkness were siphoned out and held in a closed flask.

But the stuff in the flask got out, and now he has an "evil" version ("darklighter") out there. 

The latest episode suggested that they might re-combine them to form one person again.

The storyline is just as bad as on "Once", though.

That sounds dire, I haven't seen it yet but I'm not looking forward to that.

But in this context it's given me the funny image of the Vera girls hearing about the OUAT storyline and deciding he just needs to love himself, at which point they trap him in the attic and tell him things that they love about him while he tries to get a word in edgeways to tell them that's not how it works 

Spoiler

I've been avoiding spoilers until I stumbled into this one so I'm assuming it's poor Harry who gets Jekyll and Hyded.

Presumably that doesn't happen 😁

Splitting yourself in two or more never goes well. NEVER. I was always bemused on this show how people who are archetypal storybook characters or children of same-one of whom was given a magical Special Destiny as the author/recorder of stories-had not a single genre savvy neuron in all their heads. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Speakeasy

[Camera One]

5 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

But in this context it's given me the funny image of the Vera girls hearing about the OUAT storyline and deciding he just needs to love himself

I'm sorry about including a spoiler!  I didn't know anyone else was watching the show.  Is Season 2 going to air soon in your area?

[Speakeasy]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

I'm sorry about including a spoiler!  I didn't know anyone else was watching the show.  Is Season 2 going to air soon in your area?

Not sure when it's back on where I am but don't worry! There are lots of spoilers in this thread, it's a bit much to expect everything to be covered in spoiler tags.

[Guest]

So the Magicians is cancelled and it just occurred to me that OUAT is why I'm so enormously miffed with that show.  I think my subconscious recognized a pattern and bailed.

I think back to OUAT and how I was so excited by the possibilities at the mid season finale when everyone was cursed back to the EF except Emma and Henry who got false memories and dropped back into NYC. Then Hook shows up at the door and hiatus.

Season three Magicians cliffhanger has everyone with false memories and then a possessed Elliot finds Quentin..  And coming off such a strong couple of seasons I was excited by what they had in store.

What both shows had in store sucked.  Major letdowns.  Where they diverged is the season finales.  OUAT pulled out a pair of episodes that I loved.  It was enough to keep me in.  The Magicians not so much.  

I think part of my avoiding this season of Magicians in not wanting to repeat watching a show gnashing my teeth over the mistakes made and things they could do to "fix" it that aren't going to happen.  OUAT has made me not willing to consider any other possibility.

And the show runners. Ugh.

[daxx]

Watched fantastic stories last night. I actually really liked it. Perhaps anthologies is where their talent lies. No need for continuity, no world building, nothing has to make sense past the single episode. Just need a great idea and a single script.

[KingOfHearts]

55 minutes ago, daxx said:

Watched fantastic stories last night. I actually really liked it. Perhaps anthologies is where their talent lies. No need for continuity, no world building, nothing has to make sense past the single episode. Just need a great idea and a single script.

Gives me hope for "Epic" if that ever comes to pass. I would like to see an OUAT-style anthology series. But if they're so busy with the Gaston prequel, who knows.

I find it interesting that A&E are working with Gad again after their Muppet show fell through.

Edited March 7, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I was watching a sneak peek and trailer for live-action Mulan.

I laughed when I found out what the three Chinese characters on the sword meant.  Seriously, must the memory of "Once" taint everything?

Christina Aguilera is singing Pinocchio's theme song too, LOL.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I rewatched the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie last night, and I kept getting OUAT flashbacks. For one thing, "Grumpy" and "the Jolly Roger" had roles. For another, it seemed really obvious how much Hook was influenced by Jack Sparrow. So many of his speech patterns seem to have come from Jack, and not just in a generic pirate way. Really, I think Hook ended up being a cross between Jack and Will. There was the swagger and charm of Jack (though I think Hook's was more effective while Jack's was mostly in his head) mixed with the earnestness of Will. I don't think Hook was meant to be as much of a comic figure as Jack, but you can definitely see the influence there. I was working on something with the movie on in the background, and I kept expecting to see Hook on the screen when I looked up (and then it was really disconcerting when I did see the Jolly Roger). It didn't help that there was a character everyone kept calling "Miss Swan."

As big a role as Hook ended up playing, I think they terribly underutilized his potential. Did he even get into one good bar brawl in the whole series? We didn't ever see any proper piracy, just the land pirate thing in season three and then the killing the king's men and David's father in season 6. No clever sea raids in which he let his reputation do all the work and conned the enemy into giving up. And just think what a rep he could establish when he was able to disappear to Neverland and reappear a decade later without having aged a day. There would be stories about the mysterious pirate ship that vanished into the mist and the pirates who never aged.

[Camera One]

Apparently, Aladdin 2 will not follow the plot of any of the animated straight-to-video sequels, so people are wondering what the sequel will be about, plot-wise.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/disneys-live-action-aladdin-sequel-will-reportedly-tell-a-completely-new-story.html/

[Shanna Marie]

I just discovered that Jim Henson's The Storyteller is now on Amazon Prime Video. I don't know if this is new, but I recall searching for it not too long ago and not being able to find it streaming anywhere. It looks like they've done some remastering. For one thing, it's in widescreen format, and given that it aired in the late 80s, that's not how it originally aired.

For those who don't remember the 80s, this was a really short-term series (it's listed as being on for 3 years, but there's only one "season," so I guess it was on only a few episodes at a time) in which John Hurt played the Storyteller, who sat by the fire with his dog (a Muppet) and told stories (mostly from the Grimm collections, but with some from other cultures) that we then saw acted out with a mix of human actors and Henson creations (and human actors with Henson prosthetics). It was really well-done. Anthony Minghella wrote the scripts, and the cast contains a number of future known actors when they were very young (including what must have been a teenaged Gabrielle Anwar -- our Victoria). Some of the special effects are pretty 80s, but it kind of fits the overall surreal look of it.

With so few episodes, they went pretty deep into the catalog and covered some lesser-known tales. It's good comfort viewing. You really do feel like you're sitting by the fire being told a story.

[Speakeasy]

On 3/16/2020 at 1:20 AM, Camera One said:

Apparently, Aladdin 2 will not follow the plot of any of the animated straight-to-video sequels, so people are wondering what the sequel will be about, plot-wise.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/disneys-live-action-aladdin-sequel-will-reportedly-tell-a-completely-new-story.html/

I tried watching 'Aladdin and the King of Thieves'-the second feature length sequel-a few months ago and couldn't get past the first 10 minutes. I don't remember 'Thr Return of Jafar' being very impressive either..so maybe this is a good idea.

Disney could do worse than digging up some storylines from the 90s Aladdin cartoon series, there was some good stuff in there. Mozenrath! Mirage! (?-the cat lady), That Guy with the animal mecha-Greatest of the Great Greek Geniuses!

Edited March 20, 2020 by Speakeasy
Nostalgia

[KingOfHearts]

This sarcastic remark from Buffy immediately made me think of Once Upon a Time. Spike comes in after getting his chip in S4.

Buffy: "Oh you haven't murdered anyone recently? Let's be best friends."

I snickered. 

[Shanna Marie]

So, apparently Disney is planning to make a "live action" (CGI) version of the animated Robin Hood, with the anthropomorphic animal characters. This is one of those, "um, why?" things. It's charming as a reasonably cheap cartoon (they reused so much animation from other things in it), but I'm not sure it would work done more realistically. What might have been interesting would be to do it as truly live-action, with human actors playing human characters who retained the personas of the animated version. So, Robin's human, but with the sly charm of the fox Robin.

But I'm not sure there's an actor alive who could fully pull off the sheer sexiness of that cartoon fox. I was going to say "and sing, too," but Robin didn't do a lot of singing.

[Camera One]

Just now, Shanna Marie said:

So, apparently Disney is planning to make a "live action" (CGI) version of the animated Robin Hood, with the anthropomorphic animal characters. This is one of those, "um, why?" things.

Agreed.  They're going live-action The Lion King route?

[Shanna Marie]

13 minutes ago, Camera One said:

They're going live-action The Lion King route?

That's what it sounds like. With music. It's such a terrible idea. I don't want to see a realistic-looking fox wearing costumes and shooting arrows. At least in The Lion King, the animals acted like animals. These are animals acting like people, wearing clothes, using weapons, and living in houses and castles. How is that even going to work? You're going to have a realistic-looking fox running around on his hind legs, wearing a tunic and a hat but no pants, and boots on his hind legs but not on his forelegs?

Is Lady Cluck going to be a giant chicken as big as a bear? That would give me nightmares.

[daxx]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

You're going to have a realistic-looking fox running around on his hind legs, wearing a tunic and a hat but no pants, and boots on his hind legs but not on his forelegs?

So Rocket Raccoon except a fox. 

[KingOfHearts]

On 4/10/2020 at 9:35 PM, Shanna Marie said:

What might have been interesting would be to do it as truly live-action, with human actors playing human characters who retained the personas of the animated version. So, Robin's human, but with the sly charm of the fox Robin.

I really like this idea. OUAT did it with Hopper's parents (Honest John and Gideon). With some clever costume design and casting, you can still make the characters recognizable as humans. 

[Camera One]

I was watching "The Phantom of the Opera" musical yesterday since it was available for 48 hours, and I couldn't help but think about Rumbelle.  Seriously, "Once Upon a Time" is the biggest Curse there is.  Spoilers ahead.

The Phantom was "The Beast" of sorts, but it was more like the "Once" variation.  In the Disney "Beauty and the Beast", the whole point is that the Beast was physically repulsive, but good inside.  However, in both "Once" and "Phantom", the Beast was pretty ugly inside and out.  They were possessive and violent.  Yet in the end, I felt like I was supposed to feel sorry for The Phantom, even though he killed two people.  I don't know if there were people cheering for The Phantom to win Christine's heart at the end (though granted, Raoul was not very likeable either).  How were we supposed to interpret Christine kissing The Phantom - did she love him deep inside, or was she just trying to save Raoul?  Initially, Christine was quite intrigued in him much like Belle in "Once". 

I was talking to someone afterwards, and she was telling me that The Phantom was such a good person since he didn't kill Raoul and he let them both go.   That also reminds me of the "Once" reasoning.  A villain decides not to kill everyone, so now they're a hero?  

Edited April 19, 2020 by Camera One

[daxx]

I don’t think Christine loved the phantom, but he taught her as a teacher for likely months and she viewed him as a father figure of sorts before he got all weird on her.
I believe she was primarily trying to save Raoul but also felt pity for the Phantom.

I don’t think anyone would want her with the phantom given his behavior. 
The line she sings here is about pity and sacrifice.

“Pitiful creature of darkness... 

What kind of life have you known? 

God give me courage to show you you are not alone..”

 

[Shanna Marie]

14 hours ago, Camera One said:

How were we supposed to interpret Christine kissing The Phantom - did she love him deep inside, or was she just trying to save Raoul?  Initially, Christine was quite intrigued in him much like Belle in "Once". 

I haven't read the original book, but my take based on the many productions of the musical I've seen (I'm not an obsessive fan. I just had season tickets to the musical theater series for a long time, and for a while they brought back this show every other year or so) is like what daxx said, that it was pity. Christine found the "other way" they always talked about on OUAT. Instead of choosing to stay with the Phantom to save Raoul or choosing to escape and letting Raoul die, she chose a third way, showing the Phantom some kindness and pity. This was the first loving human contact the Phantom had ever had, and it affected him so deeply that he realized that he couldn't hurt Christine if he loved her, so he relented and let both her and Raoul go. There was the moment of false hope when Christine turned back, but she was just returning his ring to him, which showed that it really was over. Then she and Raoul went off together, and we hear them singing their love duet as they row back across the underground lake, leaving the Phantom alone. It looks for a while like he's just going to let the mob take him, but at the last second he uses one of his tricks to disappear.

This production showed it somewhat differently, and I don't know how much that was because of having to change the staging to fit the stage. It looked like Christine was truly torn and was even kind of tempted to stay before Raoul started singing to her and practically dragged her away. That may have been because this stage didn't have the room to show the lake and the boat in the background, but if Christine and Raoul were leaving, there was no reason for them to stay onstage and keep singing to each other instead of escaping. Her trying to go back gave them a reason to stay onstage while they were singing.

However, this is the only production I've seen that seems to have come after they created the sequel show, Love Never Dies, which is basically crazysauce fanfic. It's based on a sequel novel someone else wrote (and I think the novel came after the musical, so it's more fanfic of the musical than fanfic of the original novel). The actors playing Christine and the Phantom here were the original cast of the sequel show. In the sequel, Raoul and Christine's marriage is somewhat on the rocks because he's been drinking and gambling. She's had to resume her opera career to support the family after he gambled away his fortune. It turns out that their son is actually the Phantom's child, and when she runs into the Phantom again while she's on an opera tour, she realizes he was her true love and that upsets Raoul enough that he leaves her. Or something like that. I had been thinking of going to the show when it toured in my area, then I read the summary and found myself gagging. I tried listening to the cast album, which was on Amazon Prime Music, and I couldn't even get through it in spite of the performers being very good. It was basically the kind of fanfic you get when the writer has to demonize the romantic rival to the chosen 'ship.

I'm not sure how Christine got pregnant by the Phantom. If it happened as part of his warped wedding when he took her down to his lair near the end of the show, then it was rape. If she consented and willingly had sex with him, then the pity kiss wouldn't have been enough to change his heart because he'd have already had loving contact. But any sex she had with him during the time he'd kidnapped her and forced her to wear a wedding dress couldn't have been truly consensual. So, it's rape no matter what happened. The other option would be that she cheated on Raoul after these events. They turn Raoul into the bad guy for being upset that his wife lied to him about who the father of the child he was raising as his was after she was either raped but still has feelings for her rapist or she cheated on him. That's a very OUAT energy.

There may be a possibility that the ending was tweaked to set up the sequel (which bombed miserably) so that it looked like Christine might have been kind of into her abductor. And, sadly, it does seem, based on the plot of the sequel, that we were supposed to ship Christine and the Phantom.

I never thought Raoul was such a bad guy. True, plotting to use his girlfriend as bait was probably not the most gallant move, but she'd contributed to the situation by being such a ninny that she went along with taking secret voice lessons from a guy she knew was murdering people. Raoul offered to take her away from it all, but it looks like she chose to stick around and pursue her career, and it doesn't look like he did anything to stop her from continuing her career (which would have been pretty radical for a nobleman at that time). The only way to stop the killings was to catch the guy, and Raoul's plan was pretty good.

Besides, I've always been a sucker for childhood friends reunited and falling in love stories, and the original cast Raoul went to my university (which was kind of how I ended up discovering the cast album in the first place -- my roommate was a drama major and he did some kind of workshop, so she was talking about it).

I think Love Never Dies is on the list of shows that's being released for these at-home viewings, so if you want to put yourself through that, you'll have the chance. I may or may not be curious enough to at least try, but then I couldn't get through the soundtrack.

[Camera One]

Quote

It looked like Christine was truly torn and was even kind of tempted to stay before Raoul started singing to her and practically dragged her away.

I think this might have been a reason I thought we were supposed to ship Christine and The Phantom.  This was only the first time I've seen the entire production from start to finish... I saw it once before in a theater decades ago.  Back then, I thought The Phantom felt a twinge of human decency because Christine was nice to him.  But then again, I didn't remember her kissing him on the mouth.  

But since then, so many shows glorify the "bad guy" love interest, and The Phantom sort of fits that description, in the warped "Once" sense.  

Quote

This production showed it somewhat differently, and I don't know how much that was because of having to change the staging to fit the stage. It looked like Christine was truly torn and was even kind of tempted to stay before Raoul started singing to her and practically dragged her away. That may have been because this stage didn't have the room to show the lake and the boat in the background, but if Christine and Raoul were leaving, there was no reason for them to stay onstage and keep singing to each other instead of escaping. Her trying to go back gave them a reason to stay onstage while they were singing.

That's interesting to know.  I didn't realize this production had different staging.

Quote

However, this is the only production I've seen that seems to have come after they created the sequel show, Love Never Dies, which is basically crazysauce fanfic.

A friend of mine gave me the soundtrack CD to that, so I glanced at the synopsis and I was pretty appalled.  So I've avoided listening to the music since it seems to ruin the ending of the original.   I don't know if curiosity will get the better of me, though!

Quote

I never thought Raoul was such a bad guy.

I liked him when I originally watched it in the theater.  This version felt a little too abrasive and arrogant.  

I was imagining if instead of The Beast and Belle, "Once" had opted for Rumple being The Phantom and we had Christine instead.  We would have lost all the references to the chipped cup, LOL.  But we could have swooned at the wedding dance with Rumple wearing the white mask and they sing in the candle-filled prison, uh I mean labyrinth.  

Edited April 19, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

34 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I didn't realize this production had different staging.

The normal staging is much more elaborate. This was adapted to fit the Royal Albert Hall, which is designed more for concerts, not plays. They had the orchestra above the stage because there's no orchestra pit, and they used LED backdrops instead of stage sets. The real show uses the full depth of the stage, plus multiple tiers above. For the touring show, they even have a stage that goes on top of the existing stage so they can have candles come up from below, and they can depict the underground lake. For the most part, I actually think stripping out the bells and whistles improves the show. This was the best production I've seen (aside from that weird bit at the end). Maybe that was because they had stronger actors and the camera got close enough you could see the acting (I'm used to seeing the show from the balcony of a 2,000-seat theater), but I also think that the actors having to use their imaginations more made for better performances. I liked it better without all the distractions. I don't even mind not getting to see the chandelier crash on the stage -- something that's always bugged me because they telegraph it in the prologue. They start with the auction scene, unveil the chandelier, then it rises during the overture. But that just shows the path it will take when it crashes at the end of Act I.

Speaking of the prologue, a wonky timeline is something else this show has in common with OUAT. The prologue is in 1905, and Raoul is an old man in a wheelchair, attended by a nurse. The main action takes place in 1881. That's only 24 years apart. Even if Raoul is 35 or so in the main action, that puts him under 60 for the prologue. But he should probably be much younger if he was childhood friends with Christine. If she's a chorus dancer, she's probably in her late teens to mid-20s, so Raoul's probably 25 at the most, otherwise he'd have been an adult when she was a child. And that puts him under 50 in the prologue. I guess finding out that your son was actually the son of the murderer who tried to kill you and that your wife was in love with him all along so that you were driven to drink prematurely ages you.

47 minutes ago, Camera One said:

But since then, so many shows glorify the "bad guy" love interest, and The Phantom sort of fits that description, in the warped "Once" sense.  

Until I found out about the sequel, I actually thought Phantom did a good job of showing pity for the Phantom while also never shying away from him as a villain and never suggesting that Christine should end up with him. The romantic duet between Raoul and Christine is about him supporting and caring for her and asking only that she love him. The duets between Christine and the Phantom are about how he's manipulating her and using trickery to seduce her. It's right there in the show that one relationship is healthy and loving and the other is twisted and manipulative.

But looking at my Facebook and Twitter feeds, it seems that a lot of people are on Team Phantom and being Team Raoul is an unpopular opinion. The guy playing the Phantom is rather hot, but I also thought Raoul was cute. A sad backstory seems to get 'em every time.

[Camera One]

That explanation about the difference in venue makes a lot of sense.  I thought it was weird how Christine and The Phantom were off-screen so much during the song near the beginning when he first takes her into his labyrinth.  I wanted to see them singing, but they were somewhere deep in the stage.

The last two weeks' musicals were ones I had never seen before ("Joseph" and "Jesus Christ Superstar").  I mean, I had heard of them and I was also given the soundtrack to "Joseph" which I listen to sometimes, but I didn't know how they presented the story so I listened to the songs without any context.

Watching those two made me think how A&E would have done a Bible Story realm.  Of course, that would be too touchy for a mainstream fantasy show but speaking from a non-religious stand-point, religious stories do have well-known characters and common archetypes and plotlines.  

I found that version of "Jesus Christ Superstar" production to be unique in setting the story with modern-day protesters.  Was the original musical set during Biblical times?  Or was it always portrayed with modern costumes? 

It sort of shows how you could take a story and set it during a completely different time, and it still works.  I kind of wish "Once" played with that concept a little more.  There have been a lot of Cinderella stories set in the present-day.  I guess some of the other fairy tales are a bit more difficult to adapt with more magic, and attempts at murder and all that.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

22 hours ago, Camera One said:

I found that version of "Jesus Christ Superstar" production to be unique in setting the story with modern-day protesters.  Was the original musical set during Biblical times?  Or was it always portrayed with modern costumes? 

I don't know about originally, but I've seen it done both ways, in a modern setting and in a quasi-Biblical setting, and I've seen a staging that was sort of ambiguous -- modern clothes, sort of, but with some Biblical-like accessories. My beef with that show is that it perpetuates the "Mary Magdalene was a prostitute" myth, which was a conflation between two people by the medieval church (in part as a way to keep women down, since Mary Magdalene was a major leader in the early church, and having her be a reformed prostitute gave them an excuse to disregard her leadership) and which isn't Biblical at all.

22 hours ago, Camera One said:

It sort of shows how you could take a story and set it during a completely different time, and it still works.  I kind of wish "Once" played with that concept a little more.  There have been a lot of Cinderella stories set in the present-day.  I guess some of the other fairy tales are a bit more difficult to adapt with more magic, and attempts at murder and all that.

They took one of the few somewhat present-day Disney stories and moved it from 1920s New Orleans to a generic medieval swamp. So there was that.

One thing that might have worked would have been to have a fairytale character from the Enchanted Forest who's now in Storybrooke, but the actual fairytale part of their story plays out in Storybrooke in the present rather than it being backstory. Like, the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a security guard who calls in false alarms because he's been sleeping on the job.

Thinking about Phantom and other Beauty and the Beast stories makes me wonder if you could tell that basic story without the Stockholm Syndrome. She's never a prisoner who's coerced into staying at the castle but rather, say, is running away from something like an abusive parent or employer and takes refuge in what she thinks is an abandoned castle. The Beast is just glad for some kind of company and has his enchanted servants look after her, maybe talks to her at night when she can't get a good look at him. There's still a power disparity there because she's dependent on him, but he doesn't have any control over her, so it's less Stockholm Syndromey, and if he sees her as a possibility for breaking his curse, then she also has power over him. I don't think this even erases the conflict, since in the Disney version the conflict between them is pretty much gone at the point when he saves her from the wolves. There's still the external conflict of whatever she was running from finding her again, plus the emotional conflict of him getting the courage to let her really see him and find out if she can actually love him.

[Camera One]

11 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

My beef with that show is that it perpetuates the "Mary Magdalene was a prostitute" myth, which was a conflation between two people by the medieval church (in part as a way to keep women down, since Mary Magdalene was a major leader in the early church, and having her be a reformed prostitute gave them an excuse to disregard her leadership) and which isn't Biblical at all.

I didn't like that either.  The show gave me the impression that Jesus was a sort of clueless show-off who sort of provoked the anger of the authorities, while Judas knew better.  The story is told from the perspective of the misunderstood "villain".  

 

11 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

They took one of the few somewhat present-day Disney stories and moved it from 1920s New Orleans to a generic medieval swamp. So there was that.

The story had little to no resemblance to the original, so I give them an F for that, LOL.

Quote

Thinking about Phantom and other Beauty and the Beast stories makes me wonder if you could tell that basic story without the Stockholm Syndrome. She's never a prisoner who's coerced into staying at the castle but rather, say, is running away from something like an abusive parent or employer and takes refuge in what she thinks is an abandoned castle. The Beast is just glad for some kind of company and has his enchanted servants look after her, maybe talks to her at night when she can't get a good look at him. There's still a power disparity there because she's dependent on him, but he doesn't have any control over her, so it's less Stockholm Syndromey, and if he sees her as a possibility for breaking his curse, then she also has power over him. I don't think this even erases the conflict, since in the Disney version the conflict between them is pretty much gone at the point when he saves her from the wolves. There's still the external conflict of whatever she was running from finding her again, plus the emotional conflict of him getting the courage to let her really see him and find out if she can actually love him.

I think that would sort of work.  I think the whole imprisonment aspect is there to give the protagonist a reason to stay there and not leave immediately, so there's time for them to get to know the misunderstood pariah.  

Typing that sort of reminded me of how in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Esmeralda went into the cathedral and interacted with Quasimodo there.  Though of course, that wasn't a love story, at least not two-way, and she met him outside, and he's not a tyrant.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I think the whole imprisonment aspect is there to give the protagonist a reason to stay there and not leave immediately, so there's time for them to get to know the misunderstood pariah.  

Her being on the run or in need of shelter might work for that.

Or if we really want to play with the "Beauty and the Beast" concept, have him be a truly good guy, not even the hot temper, with him just looking hideous, and while she's physically beautiful, she's actually kind of awful, a criminal fugitive on the run when she stumbles into this castle. Of course, she'd have some kind of sad backstory to explain her criminal behavior somewhat, like she was abandoned and left to fend for herself. She sees the castle as a good place to hide out until things settle down, and she's already assessing it for what she can steal. But over time and her interactions with the Beast, she starts changing and can't go through with scamming him. She breaks the curse that changes him physically, but he helps her change internally. Which one is really the beauty and which one the beast?

Though I have this weird feeling I've seen it before. I know there have been a lot of "con artist falls in love with the mark and changes" type stories, but probably not done in the Beauty and the Beast format.

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

Typing that sort of reminded me of how in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Esmeralda went into the cathedral and interacted with Quasimodo there.  Though of course, that wasn't a love story, at least not two-way, and she met him outside, and he's not a tyrant.

I need to see that one again. I think I just saw it the once at the theater, though I did get the soundtrack. I loved the music, but was so-so on the movie.

For other theatre-type entertainment streaming now, I recommend the National Theatre's version of Treasure Island, showing this week, until Thursday, I think. It's got some really interesting staging, and they gender flip some of the characters in a way that works. Arthur Darvill from Doctor Who plays Long John Silver, and there's a scene in which he teaches the kid about navigation that reminded me a lot of the scenes in which Hook taught Bae and when he showed Henry how to use a sextant. The pirate crew is highly amusing and made me wish they'd bothered to flesh out Hook's crew beyond Smee because there's a lot of room to have fun with the kind of people who might be on a fictional pirate crew.

[KingOfHearts]

14 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I loved the music, but was so-so on the movie.

Just think - we could've gotten the Quasimodo, Esmeralda, and Phoebus in S8 of OUAT. Then we would've finally had the dream couple - Regina and Frollo.

[Camera One]

FROLLO: Your reputation precedes you.

REGINA: Why thank you.  It is rare for me to meet someone else who has burned someone at the stake for a really good reason.

FROLLO: And burned down countless homes to chase down a fugitive for a really good reason.

REGINA: And raised a brat through gaslighting and emotional manipulation for a really good reason.

FROLLO: And is sanctimonious but hypocritical as hell.

REGINA: What's that last one?  Oh, never mind.  So what brings you from your realm?  Fictional Victorian England, is it?

A&E: Big Ben and Notre Dame were built around the same time, right?   

Edited April 21, 2020 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

@Camera One and don't forget they both tried to get rid of a baby.

I'm starting to think A&E unwittingly drew more inspiration from Frollo than the actual Evil Queen character when writing Regina.

Edited April 21, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

I follow Andrew Lloyd Weber on Twitter. They are discussing that phantom sequel. I find the whole concept of it disgusting but so many women find it so romantic.

I guess there really is a market for Rumbelle.
Ugh. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to watch phantom again and before Hamilton it was my very favorite.

[Shanna Marie]

4 hours ago, daxx said:

They are discussing that phantom sequel. I find the whole concept of it disgusting but so many women find it so romantic.

I guess there really is a market for Rumbelle.

Yeah, I noticed that in the thread about Raoul or Phantom, no one mentioned the teensy detail about the fact that the Phantom lied to and manipulated Christine and murdered people as a way of "courting" her. It was all about how he deserved love. And he's the "underdog" in spite of having control over the theater.

So I guess the Rumbelle model is pretty foolproof: evil guy who lies to and manipulates a woman and kills people is super romantic if he has a sad backstory, really loves (is obsessed with) her, and seems like an unlikely romantic figure because of some flaw (in addition to the murdering).

I think I'm going to skip the sequel when they're showing it this week. The part of the cast album I heard was only marginally bearable because it was the same cast as in the production of Phantom they just showed, but the production they're showing is the Australian production. And I really don't want to see Raoul demonized. I could maybe have dealt with Christine being such a flake that she always had unresolved feelings for the Phantom, but they didn't have to turn Raoul into a drunk gambler. And making her baby be the Phantom's is just wrong because it has to have been rape, and that is definitely not romantic.

This falls into the same "it didn't happen" as all the Alien movies after Aliens.

[Camera One]

20 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I think I'm going to skip the sequel when they're showing it this week. The part of the cast album I heard was only marginally bearable because it was the same cast as in the production of Phantom they just showed, but the production they're showing is the Australian production. And I really don't want to see Raoul demonized. I could maybe have dealt with Christine being such a flake that she always had unresolved feelings for the Phantom, but they didn't have to turn Raoul into a drunk gambler. And making her baby be the Phantom's is just wrong because it has to have been rape, and that is definitely not romantic.

This falls into the same "it didn't happen" as all the Alien movies after Aliens.

I'm torn about whether I want to see it.  I am always worried about sequels ruining the original. I've been burned quite a few times with that.  I think I would have been more interested if it had been the same cast, though maybe having a different cast would make it easier to dissociate the sequel from the original.  

4 hours ago, daxx said:

I follow Andrew Lloyd Weber on Twitter. They are discussing that phantom sequel. I find the whole concept of it disgusting but so many women find it so romantic.

I guess there really is a market for Rumbelle.

 

22 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

So I guess the Rumbelle model is pretty foolproof: evil guy who lies to and manipulates a woman and kills people is super romantic if he has a sad backstory, really loves (is obsessed with) her, and seems like an unlikely romantic figure because of some flaw (in addition to the murdering).

It really is quite disturbing.  The reason why the Phantom killed was for such a petty reason.  He wanted absolute power.  The possessiveness factor is even more repulsive.  At least with Rumple, it wasn't as obvious that he wanted to control Belle.  I think I reached the breaking point with that relationship in "Our Decay", in the scene with Rumple and Belle in the elevator, where he declares that he knows she fell in love with both the man and the beast or whatever.  And then he was outright controlling in Season 6 when she was pregnant.  And yet we're supposed to think it's a love story for the ages!  

[Shanna Marie]

23 hours ago, Camera One said:

The reason why the Phantom killed was for such a petty reason.  He wanted absolute power.  The possessiveness factor is even more repulsive. 

I haven't read the book, but it seems like he went straight to violent overkill and deception without even trying other things. He's supposedly a great musical genius, so why did he have to kill people to get his operas staged? Did he ever try leaving a copy of this brilliant opera on the manager's desk? If it was that good, they'd have jumped at it without him having to make threats. Did he ever try to be straightforward with Christine without pretending to be her father's angel? I guess him taking her to his lair was his first attempt to approach her directly, but by then he'd already manipulated and deceived her.

Like so many of the OUAT villains, he was wronged and he'd had a terrible life, but he was tormenting people who had nothing to do with that. In fact, Madame Giry had been kind to him and was the one who helped him escape from the carnival and live at the opera house. There really was no reason for him to be murdering people at the opera house.

23 hours ago, Camera One said:

At least with Rumple, it wasn't as obvious that he wanted to control Belle. 

I'm not even sure what he wanted with her initially. It was like he took her as payment for saving her kingdom from the ogres because she had to go live with him in order to have a Beauty and the Beast story. Did he really want or need a maid, or was it just a case of magic having to come with a price, so he made up a random price and then was stuck with her?

Talking about Phantom of the Opera reminds me of my personal Phantom encounter: When I was 9, my mom took me and some of my friends to a local haunted house around Halloween, one of those charity things run by some civic organization. We all thought we were very brave and grown-up and had begged to go. But it was a bit too intense for us. I jump and scream when a phone rings, so I way overreacted to the jump scares. One of my friends was severely asthmatic (to the degree she frequently ended up in the hospital) and was starting to wheeze. My mom realized we needed out of there and was looking for staff members to get us to an exit. That was when we came to the Phantom of the Opera room, and they'd done a brilliant makeup job, even better than what's on Broadway. My mom went before us into the room and announced that she had kids in distress, so no scares, and we needed an exit. It turned out that the Phantom in real life was a paramedic, and she (yes, a woman, but in costume you couldn't tell, so it wasn't a genderbending portrayal) immediately went into professional mode to come to the aid of my friend, who was in bad shape by that time. But she forgot she was in hideous makeup, so it only made matters worse when this thing came right at us, and my mom had to intervene to keep the paramedic Phantom away. They finally got a non-costumed staff member to get us through the house to the nearest emergency exit. When I see the musical, I can't help but remember that Phantom coming right at us. That may be another reason I'm definitely not on Team Phantom. And I still don't like haunted houses.

Would the Phantom of the Opera be in Victorian Literature World? Is there a Paris in the same world, or is French Literature World different?

[Camera One]

26 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

When I see the musical, I can't help but remember that Phantom coming right at us. That may be another reason I'm definitely not on Team Phantom. And I still don't like haunted houses.

That sounded like a really harrowing experience!

I too don't do well with haunted houses.  I was pretty traumatized by a visit to the one at Disneyland when I was a kid.  When I was an adult, I went to a Madame Tussoud Wax Museum and it was so crowded that you were being pushed by the people behind you.  So I wasn't able to escape the entrance to the torture chamber.  It was pretty horrible with people in hideous makeup jumping out and arms grabbing you from behind prison bars, etc.  

30 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I'm not even sure what he wanted with her initially. It was like he took her as payment for saving her kingdom from the ogres because she had to go live with him in order to have a Beauty and the Beast story. Did he really want or need a maid, or was it just a case of magic having to come with a price, so he made up a random price and then was stuck with her?

Yes, that is an unanswered question, and a pretty important one.  Were we supposed to think Rumple was secretly lonely?  If he was used to having a maid, I shudder to think how many of them he killed off over the years.  But really, couldn't he just create food, and clean up using magic?  Or is there a "price" for that?

[KingOfHearts]

12 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I'm not even sure what he wanted with her initially. It was like he took her as payment for saving her kingdom from the ogres because she had to go live with him in order to have a Beauty and the Beast story. Did he really want or need a maid, or was it just a case of magic having to come with a price, so he made up a random price and then was stuck with her?

Belle said he took her in because he was "lonely", but my headcanon is that Rumple went through many servants and housekeepers. He probably killed the last one and needed a replacement. Even when he still lived with Bae in the hovel, he had a mute maid he later killed. 

[tennisgurl]

I convinced one of my friends to watch The Expanse recently (one of my favorite shows) and she just got to one of my favorite scenes near the end of season three. Long story short, Anna Volovodov, played by our very own Snow Queen herself Elizabeth Mitchell, is in the brig talking to one of the seasons bad guys, who, without getting into too many spoilers (because The Expanse is awesome and you should all watch it) has killed and hurt several people, is instigating an intergalactic conflict that could lead to a bloody war, and is out to destroy the protagonists, all because of her massive ass daddy issues. When Ana comes to see her and try to understand why she did so many awful things, we get this exchange: 

Anna: I keep looking for a way to care about you. I think, "Her father was a terrible person." But a lot of people have terrible parents, and...I think "Well, she's clearly a damaged person", but then...who isn't? So, I'm down to "Maybe she has a brain tumor?" Do you have a brain tumor?
Bad Guy: (As a tear runs down her cheek)...No.

Its especially awesome because Ana is one of the kindest, most empathetic, most idealistic people in the whole show who serves as a moral center/conscience to several more morally ambiguous characters. Ana is a very good and heroic person who wants to see the best in people...but she is no fool and doesn't take any crap either. She is idealistic, not stupid or impractical. And making the whole thing even better, this actually has an effect on the bad guy, who has been increasingly questioning her actions, and this speech is one of the things that finally triggers her to change for real and help the heroes at personal risk, and then turns herself into the authorities for her crimes. Because sometimes when you actually give someone a dose of hard truth, instead of just letting them off the hook because they make excuses, they can actually find real redemption, and not just a hand wave. 

Oh God, I would have given so much to have someone give that speech to a few characters in this show...

[Camera One]

I decided to try the Phantom sequel.  Christine and Raoul (even the way they are styled) looks nothing like the last production, so I'm going to imagine this is a "Once Upon a Time" episode.  

The first few musical numbers at the circus were a bit of a cacophony and not too memorable.  I don't see why Madame Giry would have rescued the Phantom after she helped Raoul in the first musical.  

Raoul is a real jerk in his first scene getting off the steamer and later with his wife and the kid.  Dismissive and pompous.  

I stopped for now just when Christine first see the Phantom again for the first time.  I'm thinking this production might be easier to take in 30 minute doses.  

[daxx]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

 

I decided to try the Phantom sequel

 

Just reading the synopsis has kind of ruined the original for me. I don’t think I could bear to watch the sequel.

[Camera One]

I finished watching it.  It was even worse than I thought it was going to be.  The good thing is it was almost laughable, but I think I will be able to dismiss it from my mind. 

I didn't read the synopsis, so I didn't know what was going to happen... I was just appalled when they had that ending because who the heck would have been satisfied by it is the REAL mystery. 

Spoilers/details follows.

So 30 minutes in, Christine and The Phantom meet and then she faints.  Could they make Christine more of a damsel?  She has zero agency in this one.  Christine and Phantom sing wistfully about the night they were "together".  There is no recognition that it would have been rape.

No one in this musical, not Christine, not Raoul, not Madame Giry or Meg mention a single line about The Phantom committing multiple murders in the first musical.  Why they don't leave immediately and call the police is just incomprehensible.  

And then, in the next bit, that the Phantom lures the kid into his lair.  I found that to be creepy.  I also wondered what if Greg and Tamara had taken Henry to 1800s Paris and Rumple's father was The Phantom instead?

The next plot point I found weird is that Christine finds them, admits the truth, and somehow, The Phantom is all "Forgive me" and lets them go.  Huh?  I don't follow but I was glad that they could leave the psycho.  But nope, Christine has to insist "Your music will live again" and promise to sing the performance. 

That also makes no sense because The Phantom could still have, you know, SOMEONE ELSE sing his music... ever heard of that?

Meanwhile, Ms. Giry is super bitter about The Phantom "casting us aside" when Meg and her hopes are "in their grasps".  So Ms. Giry is pinning her hopes on Meg being the headliner at a freakshow circus?  They waited 10 years for this?  There are low goals and then there's this one.  Plus, Christine would be singing for ONE night and Meg's star could shine, the NEXT evening, and thereafter, so who cares?  Talk about dramatics.

The Raoul character assassination is heavy, with his drinking at the bar singing a really really subtle song about how he gives Christine "ugliness" (even though The Phantom is ugly!) and Raoul sings that he"wears a mask" figuratively (even though the Phantom wears a mask literally!).  

As if Christine wasn't enough of an object caught between two men, Raoul and The Phantom make a sickening bargain that if she sings, Raoul would leave and if she doesn't, The Phantom would still pay them and let them go.  The Phantom must have gotten a really good therapist because he hasn't gone homicidal once.

Raoul tries to convince Christine with emotional manipulation and then The Phantom, always the gentleman, locks Christine in the room and convinces her with a song.

I thought it couldn't get more nonsensical but there's the climax with Christine singing, Raoul running away, Christine kissing The Phantom since performing makes her realize she loooooves him, Meg going Crazytown over being cast aside and threatening the boy, The Phantom playing a skilled suicide negotiator and then the gun goes off.  I was sure The Phantom would be hit, and he would die a "hero", but he is needed if there's a third musical with the boy growing up to be Adult Henry, so Christine has to die.

Like "Once", the story had to drag characters (Raoul, Meg, Mme. Giry) through the mud and ignore past crimes and circumstances to ensure the anti-hero deserves love.

It really was a very very bad sequel.  I am really glad it was a different cast so I can dissociate this mess from the original.  

I started reading the original book last night, so I think I will keep going to cleanse my mind of this monstrosity.  I am finding it interesting how they took so many elements of the book to construct the musical.  Though I did read they had watched the two movies based on the book when writing the musical, so that probably helped.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

I finished watching it.  It was even worse than I thought it was going to be.  The good thing is it was almost laughable, but I think I will be able to dismiss it from my mind. 

Thank you for taking one for the team. It does sound like the sort of thing A&E would write.

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

Christine and Phantom sing wistfully about the night they were "together".  There is no recognition that it would have been rape.

If it wasn't rape, if she enthusiastically consented (even without knowing for sure who/what he was, being his prisoner, and possibly being hypnotized), then it sort of negates the whole dilemma at the end of the first one, when she has to choose to stay with the Phantom forever or let Raoul die. If she'd had good, consensual sex with the Phantom and loved him, then it shouldn't have been a dilemma. Just stay with the guy she loves and let the other guy go. Then there was all the screaming about "you deceived me" and "the tears I might have shed for your dark fate grow cold and turn to tears of hate." Which would have come after the sex.

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

That also makes no sense because The Phantom could still have, you know, SOMEONE ELSE sing his music... ever heard of that?

I keep coming back to the fact that if he's some great musical genius, he should be able to get his operas produced and his music performed without going to such lengths. He can find other singers. He might not be able to go out in public, but he could have a career writing operas and get paid and probably some acclaim, and trust me, sopranos are a dime a dozen. He could surely find another. Though maybe not one so easily swayed.

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

Meanwhile, Ms. Giry is super bitter about The Phantom "casting us aside" when Meg and her hopes are "in their grasps".  So Ms. Giry is pinning her hopes on Meg being the headliner at a freakshow circus?  They waited 10 years for this?  There are low goals and then there's this one. 

Meg wasn't even competition for Christine in the show. Christine wasn't much of a dancer, and Meg was a brilliant dancer. Christine would never have had much of a career as a dancer, and her only hope was in singing. Meg was on track to be the star dancer. Did the Phantom kidnap them and force them to work at the circus with him? Otherwise, why isn't Meg with some ballet company?

It really does sound like the kind of fanfic people write when a story doesn't turn out the way they want it to, so they write a sequel that disregards and retcons the original story to the point it's unrecognizable in order to get things the way they want, and all perceived rivals to their chosen pairing and favorite characters get dragged through the mud. So Christine and the Phantom had loving sex when he kidnapped her and they had a baby, Raoul's a jerk, Meg's jealous of Christine. And I guess Christine had to die after choosing the Phantom because she has to be punished for not going with the poor woobie in the first place.

18 hours ago, Camera One said:

I was sure The Phantom would be hit, and he would die a "hero", but he is needed if there's a third musical with the boy growing up to be Adult Henry, so Christine has to die.

I don't think there's any danger of a third musical because this one bombed pretty badly.

In better online theater news, the National Theatre's show next week is the Benedict Cumberbatch/Jonny Lee Miller production of Frankenstein, and since they alternated who was playing the monster and who was playing the doctor, they're showing both versions.

I don't know what the next Andrew LLoyd Webber show is going to be. I kind of hope they skip Cats and go deeper into the catalogue. I've always wanted to see a production of Aspects of Love. Sunset Boulevard is pretty good. Supposedly they were making a movie of that one with Ewan McGregor, but that was years ago, so I guess it stalled out.

[Camera One]

16 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Meg wasn't even competition for Christine in the show. Christine wasn't much of a dancer, and Meg was a brilliant dancer. Christine would never have had much of a career as a dancer, and her only hope was in singing. Meg was on track to be the star dancer. Did the Phantom kidnap them and force them to work at the circus with him? Otherwise, why isn't Meg with some ballet company?

I too was wondering why Meg and Christine would be competing.   According to this ridiculous story, Madame Giry and Meg willingly helped the Phantom to escape to America and establish his show (they don't fear him at all), and Madame Giry was hoping Meg would be chosen to sing the Phantom's new aria (apparently, she loved her daughter so much but she conveniently forgot that the Phantom's tutelage of Christine was a bit of a nightmare). 

For most of this production, Meg didn't seem to care that Christine was singing that night, until the last 10 minutes or so.  It was meant to be somewhat of a twist ending, I guess.  Who kidnapped the boy?  Is it Raoul?  Is it Madame Giry?  OMG, it's sweet Meg!  

Edited April 26, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

59 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I too was wondering why Meg and Christine would be competing.   According to this ridiculous story, Madame Giry and Meg willingly helped the Phantom to escape to America and establish his show (they don't fear him at all), and Madame Giry was hoping Meg would be chosen to sing the Phantom's new aria (apparently, she loved her daughter so much but she conveniently forgot that the Phantom's tutelage of Christine was a bit of a nightmare). 

Weird. Meg wasn't even supposed to have been a singer. Obviously, she sang because the production was a pseudo opera and everyone sang, but the character wasn't a singer, and the role is written as an alto, so she wouldn't have had the same arias Christine sang.

As I recall from what I've heard of the book, Madame Giry was the one who rescued the Phantom from the freak show and hid him at the opera house, which would explain them not really fearing him. I don't know why he'd escape the opera house and go to a freak show. As I said, he's supposed to be a genius composer. Why not write his brilliant operas and send them mysteriously to opera companies?

It occurred to me that Christine apparently hiding from Raoul that she was pregnant by another man when they got married was like what Cora was trying to do with Leopold, and it was Eva, capable of so much darkness and deserving of being murdered, who ratted her out, and I guess Leopold deserved to be murdered because it bothered him. Similarly, Raoul is one of the real villains here because he's unhappy about his wife hiding the fact that "their" son is actually the son of someone else she's been in love with all this time.

I wonder who gets custody of the kid here. This is before DNA testing, so Raoul should have legal custody, but did Raoul skip out and leave the kid behind so that the Phantom will now raise him?

[Camera One]

46 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

It occurred to me that Christine apparently hiding from Raoul that she was pregnant by another man when they got married was like what Cora was trying to do with Leopold, and it was Eva, capable of so much darkness and deserving of being murdered, who ratted her out, and I guess Leopold deserved to be murdered because it bothered him. Similarly, Raoul is one of the real villains here because he's unhappy about his wife hiding the fact that "their" son is actually the son of someone else she's been in love with all this time.

Raoul only found out in the middle of the show that he wasn't the boy's real father.  Yet even before that, he just barked at the kid and his wife, and chose to spend his entire time in a bar.   So I guess we were supposed to believe The Phantom would have made a better father anyway.  Especially with the creep (uh, I mean the romantic Phantom) singing a duet with his son about beauty.

Quote

I wonder who gets custody of the kid here. This is before DNA testing, so Raoul should have legal custody, but did Raoul skip out and leave the kid behind so that the Phantom will now raise him?

Raoul came back at the end after Christine died, and The Phantom moves aside and lets him caress the dead body.  It was a touching moment, LOL.  Maybe they could become BFFs now and acknowledge that they were equally to blame for what happened.  Just like Regina and Snow were equally to blame for their feud.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Camera One