|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:43 pm
As a filmmaker I think the shooting and editing was beautiful. o_O;
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:20 pm
For once I agree with Baka about something concerning the 2004 movie.
The imagery and shooting were actually what made the movie worth the money. That and the music were all that made the movie worth the money. 'Cause I have a special dislike for the acting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:13 pm
I'm giving MAJOR props to JS right now, I just saw the movie of the Producers and yes I totally loved it but JS managed to pull off PotO without anyone STARING in the camera which if you haven't guess by some of my other posts is my biggest pet peeve!
STOP STARING IN THE CAMERA LEO!!!!! *cries*
>.>
Rent still gets my vote for BEST musical to movie transfer though.
And just because I'm a filmmaker those are the things I pick up on. Dude the shot with Bouquet turning around in the catwalks and OMGWTFPHANTOM! made me happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:23 pm
I knew it!
I just didn't have any proof that Joel Schaumacher was gay.
I just suspected it by some of the pictures I have-
Like one of them with him and Patrick,
and him and Gerry.
Woah....The freakiest thing would be if he and Andrew Lloyd Webber went out.
XD
That would never happen though, since Andrew is straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:40 am
I'unno. With Webber's bad luck at keeping a wife I'd say it was only a matter of time before he gave up and tried his own team. Though I don't want to imagine what he might write with Schumacher if he did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:37 am
I was listening to one of Hugh Panaro's songs on Youtube and people were talking through comments that he was gay... does anyone know if that is true or not? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:34 pm
Yeah, Hugh Panaro's gay. Still a damn good Phantom, though.
I'll allow that Schumacher is an excellent cinematographer, but he should stick to that and let someone capable of in-depth thought make the executive decisions for his films. The man doesn't seems to understand that pretty is not enough.
...That and you aren't allowed to re-write history just because it's 'prettier' to set your movie in 1870 than 1880. stare b*****d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:56 am
Thanks. xD Yeah he is an awesome Phantom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:14 pm
That just shattered yours and Catnipp's dreams, now, didn't it, Beth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:01 pm
Thorn Venatrix That just shattered yours and Catnipp's dreams, now, didn't it, Beth? Yeah. xDDD She's actually much more obsessed than I am. o.O xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:02 pm
Howard McGillin (who I saw on B-way twice) I found out is gay too. He was the only Phantom to really scare me, or maybe that was the fact that I had a speaker over my shoulder that made me jump. He also screams like a girl smile hehe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:25 pm
Thorn Venatrix Grr. Gerik was bad. At least as Erik. It pissed me off because he just didn't embody the character of Erik, plus he had a really minor deformity. That annoyed me.
I'm sort of tired of people bashing the '04 movie simply because of that stupid deformity, and blaming it on Gerry. Gerry has no control over the MAKE UP ARTISTS. He just sits there, hoping that they won't put him in too much pain by pulling his eyelid down. Besides as far as acting goes, he wasn't a terrible actor. Every single moment of the '04 movie I could tell exactly what he was thinking, because of his subtle expressions.
He embodied the Phantom. Not Erik. It's ALW's version, and he cast Gerry, Emmy and Patrick, ALW assited Schumacher. If it was a literal word by word book translation, then no, Gerry did not play Erik.
And yes, he has sex appeal, simply because ALW's version is more sexual than Leroux's book.
The cinematography was amazing, the costuming was fantastic, and the set design was good.
I'm just tired of people ragging on movie that did exactly what it promised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:02 pm
Wait a sec, he's Erik? That means he has to kiss Christine! I'm thinking that that must have been odd for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:24 am
Painted Black Thorn Venatrix Grr. Gerik was bad. At least as Erik. It pissed me off because he just didn't embody the character of Erik, plus he had a really minor deformity. That annoyed me.
I'm sort of tired of people bashing the '04 movie simply because of that stupid deformity, and blaming it on Gerry. Gerry has no control over the MAKE UP ARTISTS. He just sits there, hoping that they won't put him in too much pain by pulling his eyelid down. Besides as far as acting goes, he wasn't a terrible actor. Every single moment of the '04 movie I could tell exactly what he was thinking, because of his subtle expressions.
He embodied the Phantom. Not Erik. It's ALW's version, and he cast Gerry, Emmy and Patrick, ALW assited Schumacher. If it was a literal word by word book translation, then no, Gerry did not play Erik.
And yes, he has sex appeal, simply because ALW's version is more sexual than Leroux's book.
The cinematography was amazing, the costuming was fantastic, and the set design was good.
I'm just tired of people ragging on movie that did exactly what it promised.
So it promised to dissapoint? Cinematography aside, the actors were not appropriate, the ACTING was very pitiful, and the vocals were less than what you would want from the stage version. Webber let the success of his musical get to his head. Schumacher AND Webber wanted more sexual tension. It was Schumacher's idea to tone down the deformity for the film. EVERYTHING wrong with the film, besides the shitty vocals, can be blamed on two men: Webber and Schumacher. Webber's casting for the main roles was terrible. Yeah maybe he did something good in casting Patrick Wilson because he was a Broadway star once, but Emmy who was only previously known for her rather obscure role in some nature-horror film (the name escapes me) and Gerard Butler whose main talent is standing there and looking halfway attractive? No. What the man needed to do was get either a past Christine and Phantom for the role, or present ones. Getting "new blood" is NEVER EVER EVER a good idea when it comes to musicals. Unless they have the training, they are not even considered. So yeah maybe their anger is vented at the wrong people, but it is not unjustified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:26 am
`~[Christine--Daae]~` Wait a sec, he's Erik? That means he has to kiss Christine! I'm thinking that that must have been odd for him. Technically you can't call it a kiss. There's the rubber thing that's used to make his deformed lips and basically that acts as a barrier for an honest-to-goodness kiss. Not that it was honestly awkward, I wouldn't think. It's acting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[-Popped-Cherry-]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/6a/5e/2c60b6f0c5e6a_flip.png?t=1398258181_6.00_11)
