The 2004 movie (ALW version)

HUH? a troll? Whatever would make you think that? I joined this group thinking it was ok to have an opinion and to post them but evidently I was wrong. BTW, I HAVE read the book, and quite frankly, found it boring.

I am not a troll but as you suggest, I will go away. This is not the type of forum I thought it was.

Madame Giry wrote:PS - If by chance you are a troll just here to stir up some mischief, please, go away.

I think that was a bit uncalled for, phanphan4ever was quite polite when it came to expressing her -albeit unpopular- opinion.

In that case, I do apologize completely. I suppose I'm just overly-sensitive based on past experiences where there have been massive fights breaking out on message boards on account of people posting highly disparaging remarks about the show/novel and instead obnoxiously extolling their love of the film. (And, to be fair, vice versa.)

However, as you so accurately point out, phanphan4ever was rather reasonable in her initial post, even though I disagree with her view. It was wrong of me to suggest that she was a troll, and I hope that it is evident that for the remainder of my post I attempted a civil discussion of why I personally disagreed with her assessment of the different versions.

So, to phanphan4ever, I do apologize and I shall attempt to refrain from making judgments or insinuations about members who hold views that differ from my own. I hope you shall give the forum another chance, and for my part I will avoid employing such a tone in the future.

A very contrite,
~Madame~

Madame Giry wrote:

While you are entitled to your opinion and preference regarding the 2004 film, I would like to take gentle exception to your characterization of the Phantom. The Phantom, while dangerous and even homicidal, has always been described as a gentleman; an elegant, if somewhat macabre figure, possessed of an extraordinarily perfect and flawless operatic male voice. (See: the original Phantom of the Opera novel by Gaston Leroux, the several translations of which are discussed elsewhere in this forum.) I think you will find that many of us here believe that despite Gerard Butler's best efforts, his (digitally-enhanced) singing was nowhere near the sound and style of voice that is required for the role. The same goes for ER singer; her likewise enhanced vocals lack the operatic strength and quality to be believable as a brilliant opera singer.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I must say that MG has hit the nail square on the head. For me an essential part of the Phantom's character is its contrasts--the beauty of his voice and music versus the ugliness of his appearance; his aristocratic elegance versus the base violence of his behavior. Butler's voice is, quite frankly, unpleasant for me to listen to--it is too harsh and over-labored, even if you take it in the context of the "rock style" singing he is often claimed to possess. David Bowie, Peter Gabriel, and the late Carl Anderson all have/had rock voices, but with much clearer tone and versatility of expression.

As for Miss Rossum...well, she's easier on the ears than Butler, I'll give her that. But what is often called "purity" in her voice I can only call a weakness of tone and a lack of depth and color. It's not a voice that would carry past the orchestra pit, let alone cause the next big sensation in the opera world. I think it's a mistake to assume that fullness and clarity are incompatible in singing--it is possible (and, in my mind, desirable for the role) to have a powerful, expressive voice that doesn't sacrifice sweetness and purity of timbre. Shirley Jones, in her youth, had a lovely voice in the classic music theater style, but it had strength and depth to it as well--and in her first film role (1955's Oklahoma), she was scarcely older than Rossum was during the 2004 film.

~LCD

Please don't feel the need to leave this group. I think it's safe to say that we've all said things in our life that we wished later that we hadn't. We're all human and Giry made an apology.

We're really all a good bunch here. We might not all have the same opinions but we can all play nicely and agree to disagree in a civil manner when we don't feel the same about some topics.

You'll find that most of us here don't like the movie but I realize there are those who do enjoy it, especially if it was their first introduction to the story. It's natural for it to be something you hold special.

If you do ever get a chance to take in a live performance though, I hope you go for it. Seeing it live on stage is a treat when it's real people in front of you rather than images on a screen. And if you still prefer the movie afterwards, that's fine.

I'm sorry this turned in to a bad situation. Phanphan4ever, I feel really bad that you felt the welcome was a hostile one rather than an including and warm one. Madame Giry has apologized, and though I don't expect you to hang around I hope you will accept her apology. IF you decide to hang around, I think you'll see we're all a friendly bunch - some fans of the movie, some not - and that this forum can be lots of fun.

I watched the 2004 movie again yesterday. That is, I tried watching it. I had to turn it off somewhere around the Mirror scene. Why is this movie bugging me so much?

1. I don't think Butler and Rossum does the songs justice, like at all. But even worse, I don't think their voices work well together. Like, at all. Rossum's thin, thin squeaks with Butler's groaning is a very unbalanced combo. The Mirror scene was a pain, and I just didn't bear the thought of three more scenes with them. I had to turn it off. And if I'm watching a musical/movie where I can't stand the leads, it doesn't leave me with too much.

2. The choreography. Yes, of all things to be annoyed of, the choreography really bugs me. The chain idea in Hannibal is a good one, but it's so poorly executed! I mean, it's boring to watch. It should be funky, sassy, entertaining, creative, whatever. not boring. And the "great talent" that is Christine is basically crawling on the floor. And they don't feature Jennifer Ellison's legit dance skills at all. And Masquerade, with it's vogue-ish tendency, has lost all the tenseness and danger the scene should have. And Christine in her non-movable dress of doom in TOM? Very bad move (pun intended).

3. The garish costumes and sets. It starts SO well with the auction and Hannibal. I love the opening scenes of the movie. I really, really love them. Even the kitschy blindfolded golden women of the opera auditorium. Love. But everything after that is just way too kitschy and golden - or boring - or both - for words. Except the wedding dress. I love that one. But everything between Hannibal and wedding dress makes me wanna throw something breakable into the wall.

4. The directing. Joel Schumacher, you made poo out of gold. That is one helluva talent. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

It's a pity. The movie have some good ideas. But how.... HOW is it possible to make such an intriguing musical so dull and beige and golden and unmoving on the big screen? I just DON'T get it.

The choreography. Yes, of all things to be annoyed of, the choreography really bugs me. The chain idea in Hannibal is a good one, but it's so poorly executed! I mean, it's boring to watch. It should be funky, sassy, entertaining, creative, whatever. not boring. And the "great talent" that is Christine is basically crawling on the floor. And they don't feature Jennifer Ellison's legit dance skills at all. And Masquerade, with it's vogue-ish tendency, has lost all the tenseness and danger the scene should have. And Christine in her non-movable dress of doom in TOM? Very bad move (pun intended).

Oh God, yes. Gillian Lynne took such pains to make her dancers look and move like they might have stepped out of a Degas painting....and then you have this, with ballet girls awkwardly leapfrogging chains and dragging live sheep around. (Yes, the Opera did use live animals on occasion, but it's one thing to have a trainer parade a horse around the stage, and another entirely to expect a young girl to wrangle an unpredictable, messy animal while trying to dance at the same time.) A huge letdown.

It's a pity. The movie have some good ideas. But how.... HOW is it possible to make such an intriguing musical so dull and beige and golden and unmoving on the big screen? I just DON'T get it.

The film really hammered home to me how much Hal Prince, Maria Bjornson et al were instrumental in making PotO the phenomenon it is. They created an atmosphere of darkness, danger, and thinly veiled sexual tension, and gave the characters arc and depth that the material alone doesn't quite flesh out. That's not to say nobody else could do the same, but Schumacher clearly isn't the person to do it. He thought it was enough to get pretty people into pretty costumes and film them while they stood around and sang, or wandered with vague purpose from one place to another and sang. (Say what you will about Moulin Rouge, at least Baz Luhrman understands that the songs in a musical are actual scenes with dramatic beats and purpose, and not just incidental bits tacked on to the script.) With such ham-handed guidance, it's no wonder that the film ended up magnifying the flaws in the source material and diminishing its strengths.

~LCD

Alright, now that I feel brave enough to post in this thread I'm gonna take a shot...lol!

I made a list of pro's and con's about the 2004 version.

Pros: Great special effects, lavish costumes (although I prefer the stage one's), good acting, set design is great, I really liked the cinematography and also the feel/tone/mood of certain scenes, and lastly I like the fact that when I'm in POTO withdrawl I can just put the movie in instead of traveling/paying for tickets to see it on stage (hey, I'm on a budget....what can I say!!)

Con's: Where the acting was good the singing was not the greatest. I'm a big Gerard Butler fan and he did okay considering he really had no training (classically that is). He pulled it off buuuut.....I think I'll leave it at that...haha! Emmy being classically trained was a let down to me. She's young, beautiful, sweet, the perfect look for Christine but her voice was too weak in my eyes. Patrick Wilson as Raoul was good actually....dashing and handsome, gentle. He also has a great voice but I think at times it comes off too weak for my taste. As I said above, the costumes were great but some of them (like the Wishing gown) did NOT compare to the stage version! I have a grudge against Minnie Driver who played La Carlotta....okay so everyone else had to sing their OWN part but her? Why? Minnie sings but not classically. Who cares? Why should she get the role? I'm left stumped here...they should have just cast a lady who played Carlotta on stage! (Ahem...that's probably how they should have cast the entire movie but....) The only other thing at this point I can think of is that even though it's great to be able to put the movie on whenever you want, it will never EVER compare to the real thing. Seeing it on stage is a thousand times more magical.

That being said, the 2004 Phantom was good. I saw it several times in the movie theater. I own it on DVD. There are quite a few things that were positive about it but then negative as well. I guess that goes with many films or especially musicals that get adapted to the screen at one point in time. I really liked the special edition I purchased with the documentaries and extras, watch that more than the actual film most of the time...LOL

But again, seeing it on stage....there is absolutely NO comparison! :-) However I would also say to any Phantom phan who has not seen this version.... watch it.

Pros: Great special effects, lavish costumes (although I prefer the stage one's), good acting, set design is great, I really liked the cinematography and also the feel/tone/mood of certain scenes, and lastly I like the fact that when I'm in POTO withdrawl I can just put the movie in instead of traveling/paying for tickets to see it on stage (hey, I'm on a budget....what can I say!!)

You certainly aren't the only one who's expressed this view, but am I the only one who hates the set design and the cinematography AS WELL? For me Phantom is a show of darkness, mystery and threatening shadows, and instead I found the scenes and sets were too bright and garish and just wrong in tone altogether. I am also incredibly disappointed the setting was not the Palais Garnier, which is probably the second most important 'character' in the whole thing after the Phantom itself, it being the 'other' title character of Phantom of the Opera. I can forgive it (although I don't like it) in the previous films that chose to relocate the story to London or Budapest, but if you're going to set it in Paris, the Paris Opera House is an integral part of it all! It's the whole reason for the story existing in the first place. The total disregard for history in the film (such as setting it in 1870) means I don't even enjoy the prologue in the movie.

Scorp wrote:

Pros: Great special effects, lavish costumes (although I prefer the stage one's), good acting, set design is great, I really liked the cinematography and also the feel/tone/mood of certain scenes, and lastly I like the fact that when I'm in POTO withdrawl I can just put the movie in instead of traveling/paying for tickets to see it on stage (hey, I'm on a budget....what can I say!!)

You certainly aren't the only one who's expressed this view, but am I the only one who hates the set design and the cinematography AS WELL? For me Phantom is a show of darkness, mystery and threatening shadows, and instead I found the scenes and sets were too bright and garish and just wrong in tone altogether. I am also incredibly disappointed the setting was not the Palais Garnier, which is probably the second most important 'character' in the whole thing after the Phantom itself, it being the 'other' title character of Phantom of the Opera. I can forgive it (although I don't like it) in the previous films that chose to relocate the story to London or Budapest, but if you're going to set it in Paris, the Paris Opera House is an integral part of it all! It's the whole reason for the story existing in the first place. The total disregard for history in the film (such as setting it in 1870) means I don't even enjoy the prologue in the movie.

I hear ya there. The film itself didn't have any feel of the Opera Garnier at all. Maybe some design but I think they were more going for the stage production. I think the problem this film ran into was they tried to "Hollywoodize" it too much. Not to mention, perhaps they didn't have the budget or means/rights to film in the Paris Opera House. Even though I don't dislike the film I do think they failed several times. There are many flaws with it and I guess it was the vision of Joel Schumacher. Again, with the atmosphere I liked the lighting in some scenes. I liked the blue hue during the ride to the cemetery right before "Wishing." There are some elements to the mood or feel I like but then some not so much. I try to find the good and the bad. But I'm crossing my fingers and hoping they remake the ALW version someday. But this time I do hope the casting and costumes are better and that they stick very close to the stage production!

Devon wrote:

Scorp wrote:

Pros: Great special effects, lavish costumes (although I prefer the stage one's), good acting, set design is great, I really liked the cinematography and also the feel/tone/mood of certain scenes, and lastly I like the fact that when I'm in POTO withdrawl I can just put the movie in instead of traveling/paying for tickets to see it on stage (hey, I'm on a budget....what can I say!!)

You certainly aren't the only one who's expressed this view, but am I the only one who hates the set design and the cinematography AS WELL? For me Phantom is a show of darkness, mystery and threatening shadows, and instead I found the scenes and sets were too bright and garish and just wrong in tone altogether. I am also incredibly disappointed the setting was not the Palais Garnier, which is probably the second most important 'character' in the whole thing after the Phantom itself, it being the 'other' title character of Phantom of the Opera. I can forgive it (although I don't like it) in the previous films that chose to relocate the story to London or Budapest, but if you're going to set it in Paris, the Paris Opera House is an integral part of it all! It's the whole reason for the story existing in the first place. The total disregard for history in the film (such as setting it in 1870) means I don't even enjoy the prologue in the movie.

I hear ya there. The film itself didn't have any feel of the Opera Garnier at all. Maybe some design but I think they were more going for the stage production. I think the problem this film ran into was they tried to "Hollywoodize" it too much. Not to mention, perhaps they didn't have the budget or means/rights to film in the Paris Opera House. Even though I don't dislike the film I do think they failed several times. There are many flaws with it and I guess it was the vision of Joel Schumacher. Again, with the atmosphere I liked the lighting in some scenes. I liked the blue hue during the ride to the cemetery right before "Wishing." There are some elements to the mood or feel I like but then some not so much. I try to find the good and the bad. But I'm crossing my fingers and hoping they remake the ALW version someday. But this time I do hope the casting and costumes are better and that they stick very close to the stage production!

Actually good point about the blue hue during the Journey to the Cemetery scene, that was fairly successful and was the sort of feel I would have wanted from a decent film version. Unfortunately it all goes downhill when she gets to the cemetery and we are confronted with a gaudy, fake-looking (supposedly deliberately so) cemetery with boring direction and an exposed frost-bitten bosom. The only other things I can think of that I liked about the film at all were the skull wax seal and the very, very end of 'Music of the Night' with the Phantom drawing the curtains around the bed.....and that's it. Seriously nothing else I liked. Not even the orchestra.

Even when I initially liked the movie for a few months, the cemetery was a MASSIVE disappointment from the start. I love old cemeteries and I love the Sarah Brightman WYWSHA video...so I was *really* looking forward to seeing this scene.

But it was just so cheap, ugly, fake, and boring. A collection of tacky over-sized "Victorian reproduction" garden statuary. Awful.

"Actually good point about the blue hue during the Journey to the Cemetery scene, that was fairly successful and was the sort of feel I would have wanted from a decent film version. Unfortunately it all goes downhill when she gets to the cemetery and we are confronted with a gaudy, fake-looking (supposedly deliberately so) cemetery with boring direction and an exposed frost-bitten bosom. The only other things I can think of that I liked about the film at all were the skull wax seal and the very, very end of 'Music of the Night' with the Phantom drawing the curtains around the bed.....and that's it. Seriously nothing else I liked. Not even the orchestra."

Yeah even though I mentioned the great effect of the blue hue I will totally agree with you that the headstones and other props on set of the cemetery are really fake looking. I think sometimes less is better meaning they didn't need all that crap in there. Obviously on stage ther'es not much during that scene and I think it would have looked more natural if they would have taken out a lot. Thinking about other musicals which have been adapted to screen, many of them look at times a bit fake as well. However, with Phantom they should have known better NOT to do that. Oh, I love when you mentioned the "exposed frost-bitten bosom"...LMAO!!!!! With regards to Emmy's dress during "Wishing", it was so blah....wish they would have used something similar if not exact to the stage version of the Wishing gown. I've always thought the black mourning gown for this scene I would have liked in ANY other movie than this one!!
Oh and I LOVE the part where the Phantom draws the black lace curtains around the bed....GREAT end to the MOTN scene!!

Paula74 wrote:Even when I initially liked the movie for a few months, the cemetery was a MASSIVE disappointment from the start. I love old cemeteries and I love the Sarah Brightman WYWSHA video...so I was *really* looking forward to seeing this scene.

But it was just so cheap, ugly, fake, and boring. A collection of tacky over-sized "Victorian reproduction" garden statuary. Awful.

In regards to what you said about the cemetery scene. My husband and I are paranormal filmmakers and often times shoot on location in old cemeteries for our documentaries. Boy they could have made that scene A LOT better and more importantly authentic if they would have added maybe some ivy growing around some of the stones, made less stones and create a more deteriorated/dilapidated look to them which in return would have given the headstones a Gothic flare without being over the top. The color during the scene was good but they blew it basically going over the top with props on set. It wouldn't have taken too much time for them to do their homework on what an old French cemetery of that era would have looked like. That would have made it more realistic and I think the audience would have felt more "in the moment" or at least more of a connection with Christine's character as she's descending upon her father's grave (and not what appears to be a Vegas show!!)

This is totally random, but amusing.

It's been years since I've watched the movie. I decided today that what the heck. I'll watch it. Husband is busy with football, so I'm watching it on my computer.

The first 30 minutes are fine, and I'm thinking to myself that this isn't as bad as I remember....

Then Butler begins to sing....

...and at that moment, during the title song, my Harmon/Kardon speakers, make this fizzling sound then go silent. No more sound. I test them with other songs on the computer, hook them up to a DVD player I have, and they're gone. (Granted, they're 9 years old, but the sound wasn't up very high on it, not enough for them to blow out)

I do have another set that I haven't used in a while that I've now hooked up but I'm a little worried Butler's singing will fizzle these, too....

...maybe I won't watch the movie any more...and I think I know what my computer's opinion of the movie is, now, too...

PhantomsGhost wrote:This is totally random, but amusing.

It's been years since I've watched the movie. I decided today that what the heck. I'll watch it. Husband is busy with football, so I'm watching it on my computer.

The first 30 minutes are fine, and I'm thinking to myself that this isn't as bad as I remember....

Then Butler begins to sing....

...and at that moment, during the title song, my Harmon/Kardon speakers, make this fizzling sound then go silent. No more sound. I test them with other songs on the computer, hook them up to a DVD player I have, and they're gone. (Granted, they're 9 years old, but the sound wasn't up very high on it, not enough for them to blow out)

I do have another set that I haven't used in a while that I've now hooked up but I'm a little worried Butler's singing will fizzle these, too....

...maybe I won't watch the movie any more...and I think I know what my computer's opinion of the movie is, now, too...

Bahahahaha! That's too funny. I, like you, decided to watch the movie for the first time in years (though it did not result in my speakers being blown out ). It's been on HBO a lot lately and I had nothing better to do, so I sat down and watched it right from the beginning. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get up to Gerard Butler's entrance without feeling angry. I think one of the worst scenes in the movie is Hannibal. It's sad, because Hannibal is one of my favourite scenes in the show. I love the costumes, the dancing, the dialogue, et cetera. The movie retains barely any of these things. Also, I hate Minnie Driver's portrayal of Carlotta. And what's up with Piangi's little midget henchman? I think the only redeeming quality is Patrick Wilson. He makes a pretty decent Raoul in my opinion.

Anyway, I watched up to AIAOY before I fell asleep (not saying much for the movie) and even my boyfriend who feels nothing towards Phantom besides toleration was complaining about how awful Gerard Butler's singing voice is. It's hard to believe that the movie is based on the stage show. Aside from the music, there's almost nothing similar about them.

The film really hammered home to me how much Hal Prince, Maria Bjornson et al were instrumental in making PotO the phenomenon it is. They created an atmosphere of darkness, danger, and thinly veiled sexual tension, and gave the characters arc and depth that the material alone doesn't quite flesh out. That's not to say nobody else could do the same, but Schumacher clearly isn't the person to do it. He thought it was enough to get pretty people into pretty costumes and film them while they stood around and sang, or wandered with vague purpose from one place to another and sang. With such ham-handed guidance, it's no wonder that the film ended up magnifying the flaws in the source material and diminishing its strengths

At this point, it's almost become cliche to hammer on Schumacher. However....

*boink! boink!*

Every time I watch the movie, I can't help but think of a quote by Jay Christian Emerte: “In lieu of creativity, there is an undue emphasis on sexuality”.

Instead of exploring the complexity of human loneliness, budding sexuality, or the nature of love as I think the stage play and most of the books do to some extent, Schumacher lowered the bodices and padded the butts. Any deep moment had to be crushed by his insane need to make it sexier.

I don't know who keeps giving Joel work, but whoever it is needs to be found and stopped.

I was going through some old New York Times articles leading up to Phantom's transfer to Broadway and the fight with Equity over Sarah Brightman's casting...and came across this tidbit.

According to sources close to Mr. Lloyd Webber, he is considering a lucrative offer from Steven Spielberg to produce a film of the show and bypass Broadway altogether. That move would considerably upset the Shubert Organization, which has been paying for an extensive renovation of the Majestic specifically for the show.

That's one movie rumor I never heard...and it's interesting to think of how things would've played out if there had been no Broadway production at all and just a movie produced back then.

Paula74 wrote:I was going through some old New York Times articles leading up to Phantom's transfer to Broadway and the fight with Equity over Sarah Brightman's casting...and came across this tidbit.

According to sources close to Mr. Lloyd Webber, he is considering a lucrative offer from Steven Spielberg to produce a film of the show and bypass Broadway altogether. That move would considerably upset the Shubert Organization, which has been paying for an extensive renovation of the Majestic specifically for the show.

That's one movie rumor I never heard...and it's interesting to think of how things would've played out if there had been no Broadway production at all and just a movie produced back then.

Wow, never knew that one before! That's crazy, and I'm glad that he didn't decide to go that route. Though I do wonder what it would have been like to have Spielberg involved in the making of a film, even as just a producer. Aliens and adventuring archaeologists everywhere!

Blaidd_Drwg wrote:

Paula74 wrote:I was going through some old New York Times articles leading up to Phantom's transfer to Broadway and the fight with Equity over Sarah Brightman's casting...and came across this tidbit.

According to sources close to Mr. Lloyd Webber, he is considering a lucrative offer from Steven Spielberg to produce a film of the show and bypass Broadway altogether. That move would considerably upset the Shubert Organization, which has been paying for an extensive renovation of the Majestic specifically for the show.

That's one movie rumor I never heard...and it's interesting to think of how things would've played out if there had been no Broadway production at all and just a movie produced back then.

Wow, never knew that one before! That's crazy, and I'm glad that he didn't decide to go that route. Though I do wonder what it would have been like to have Spielberg involved in the making of a film, even as just a producer. Aliens and adventuring archaeologists everywhere!

It's interesting... Spielberg has always wanted to do a musical. (Which is part of the reason that show with a whole bunch of Broadway actors is coming out next year.) It would have been very interesting to see what he would have done with it.

ML6 wrote:

It's interesting... Spielberg has always wanted to do a musical. (Which is part of the reason that show with a whole bunch of Broadway actors is coming out next year.) It would have been very interesting to see what he would have done with it.

The Phantom might have looked like E.T.



I know he had talked about doing an animated version of Cats for a long time. IMHO, I thought that would have been kind of a cool idea.

Paula74 wrote:I was going through some old New York Times articles leading up to Phantom's transfer to Broadway and the fight with Equity over Sarah Brightman's casting...and came across this tidbit.

According to sources close to Mr. Lloyd Webber, he is considering a lucrative offer from Steven Spielberg to produce a film of the show and bypass Broadway altogether. That move would considerably upset the Shubert Organization, which has been paying for an extensive renovation of the Majestic specifically for the show.

That's one movie rumor I never heard...and it's interesting to think of how things would've played out if there had been no Broadway production at all and just a movie produced back then.

That somewhat matches up with a newspaper clipping I have from around the time of the beginning of the London production. A PotO film adaptation featuring Crawford, Brightman, and Barton and directed by Spielberg would have been great. Guaranteed to have been leaps and bounds better than Schumacher.

TAFKaR

....don't think about the way things might have been...

(cause it drives me MAAAAD! AAAARRRRGHH!!!)

This is really random.... But I found this old picture of Sarah Brightman (original Christine) and Gay Willis (later Toronto Christine):

http://www.gaywillis.com/full.php?src=http://www.revisemysite.com/images/gwill-snap1.jpg

Look at the dress Brightman is wearing. I'm not the only one thinking the movie "Sissi" (Think of Me) dress, right?

operafantomet wrote:This is really random.... But I found this old picture of Sarah Brightman (original Christine) and Gay Willis (later Toronto Christine):

http://www.gaywillis.com/full.php?src=http://www.revisemysite.com/images/gwill-snap1.jpg

Look at the dress Brightman is wearing. I'm not the only one thinking the movie "Sissi" (Think of Me) dress, right?

Oh...........my...............god.......

Enuf said.

Devon wrote:

operafantomet wrote:This is really random.... But I found this old picture of Sarah Brightman (original Christine) and Gay Willis (later Toronto Christine):

http://www.gaywillis.com/full.php?src=http://www.revisemysite.com/images/gwill-snap1.jpg

Look at the dress Brightman is wearing. I'm not the only one thinking the movie "Sissi" (Think of Me) dress, right?

Oh...........my...............god.......

Enuf said.

Someone is definitely obsessed with that Sissi dress.

I just re-watched this movie tonight and loved it, again - colors, costumes, sets, ROSES (is there any movie with so much ravishing roses), music (singing is very good to my UNTRAINED ear), all the gorgeous and very enjoyable Gothic melodrama. I felt Gerik irritating and smug, but that´s too with musical, too. I feel sorry for Phantom DESPITE him being a jerk. This is one of my favorite POTOs and favorite movies. For some reason, some of these un-Lerouxian versions - 1943 film, Hammer movie and this one - are my favorites. Hm.

I remember when I saw this film the first time. It was my first experience of Phantom and I was distinctly underwhelmed.

I borrowed a copy of the DVD from work (back in the days when we were allowed to do such things), and the family and I sat there expectantly, watching the auction. It looked interesting, but there was something wrong: no sound. As we had no knowledge of the story we wondered whether, being in black and white, it was meant to be silent, so we sat there for a bit longer. When the chandelier came to life and the picture started changing to colour we knew something definitely was up and so I went investigating - it turned out that in order to actually hear anything you had to choose either stereo or surround sound in the soundtrack menu!

I've no idea whether all the DVDs were like that or if we ended up with a faulty batch, but for weeks afterwards we were having to tell customers what to do so that they wouldn't return the discs as faulty. Now I know what Phantom should sound like, I can't help wondering whether the DVDs themselves were trying to tell us something...

charleygirl wrote:
I've no idea whether all the DVDs were like that or if we ended up with a faulty batch, but for weeks afterwards we were having to tell customers what to do so that they wouldn't return the discs as faulty. Now I know what Phantom should sound like, I can't help wondering whether the DVDs themselves were trying to tell us something...

Yes, all the DVDs were like that. I remember RUG issuing a statement advising customers on how to get the sound.

In other news, this film has made one website's top 10 of worst ever Anglo-American film adaptations of French novels: http://www.topito.com/top-pires-films-americains-adaptes-livres-francais