I like the The Phantom of the Opera. I used to play songs from the musical on the piano (and sing along) when I was a whippersnapper. I've read the novel several times. It wasn't until 2008 that I got to see the musical on the West End. Even 20 years out, the spectacle of the show was still breathtaking (though the music was a little dated).
When I first heard that there would be a sequel to Phantom of the Opera opening on the West End this year, then on Broadway, I was skeptical. I mean who is Lloyd Webber to just add onto the story?
Then I realized I was being a bit of a hypocrite. Why is okay for people to add on to and modify older stories, you know, those of the Greeks, but I'm getting all up in arms about Sir Lloyd Webber adding a new twist to this one? At the very least I owed this show the benefit of the doubt.
Now it's opened on the West End and it's apparently not too good. Confusing, stiffly acted, slow moving. But I still want to see it. I actually want to see it even more knowing that no one else is enjoying it. Aside from what is perceived as poor acting and weak choices, does the story warrant being extended? Can we find anything of value in transplanting the Phantom, et al to Coney Island ten years after the original ended?