Welcome to Gaia! ::

1925: I absolutely adored this one, and I just died laughing at the screens for when they were talking. I loved when Christine unmasked the Phantom the most though. <3

1943: Forgive me, but I INSTANTLY fell in love with this one.. though the disfiguration would've been better if it had just been a REGULAR birth-done.

1962: DIdn't like it all that well, wasn't my favourite.

1990: Phantom of the Opera II: I LOVED this, thought it was cheesey and Raoul a dork, but I still loved it.

of course:
2004: Yes, yes. I don't know, but I don't know if this is my absolute-- nevermind. It's my most favourite out of all of them. x3 Casting would be better for Le Fantome de l'opera.

Since I was bored the other night, and since I hadn't seen it in awhile, I rented the Lon Chaney verison of PoTO.

The tape (yes actually watched a VHS *shudder*) I rented was the silent film version obviously, but it didn't even have music on it, just silence. All other silent films I've watched have ha some music added on for effect. Since it was completely silent, I think it made me appreciate the film even more.

The story is by far the most accurate and faithful version of the book we've gotten those far. With exception of the ending, which is my biggest problem with the movie. Well, it's really the studio's fault, since they added it on later.

Overall, I can't say enough good about it. My only other problem with it, and this is just a personal thing, I hate Erik's mask in it. It looks so corny.

Also watched the horrible horrible 1990's none ALW musical version ,I think it's listed here as PotO II, just god awful.

Okay, so I have so far seen the ALW version, the Lon Chaney (1925) version, the Dario Argento movie, The Phantom of the Paradise (yay Winslow!), the Robert Englund (1989) version, and one half of the Charles Dance movie. Here is how I rate them so far:

1. Phantom of the Paradise. Okay, okay, I know, it's not exactly PotO. And the reason I put it first may just be my attraction to Winslow's character. But hear me out. I actually thought it would be laughably bad when I first heard of it. I was incredibly surprised at how likeable Winslow (the Erik in this version) was. He was a truly sympathetic character, and when his life was ruined, I felt horrible for him. I was under the impression at first that he was some crazy maniac with brain damage. Who would just decide to stick their face in a record press one day? He actually turned out to be a three-dimendional character with strengths and weaknesses, wants and fears, and I could fully sympathize with him. So his character is what made me like the movie so much. The story, while decent, is really strange, and at certain points it screams "Rocky Horror Picture Show". And that's how I describe this movie in brief: A combination of PotO and Rocky Horror Picture Show.

2. Lon Chaney (1925) version. This one is a very close second. It's the second place mainly because it was quite short, and it was a silent film, so there were some things that couldn't be put in. Still, I liked the fact that it was the closest to the book, since the Leroux novel is my favorite version of all time. Lon Chaney was excellent at portraying Erik's character, and I've never seen anyone who's comparable to him as Erik. He looked the closest to Erik in the book, and he acted the closest to Erik in the book. Christine in the movie was a right proper career woman. And there was a character, while not the Persian, was close enough for my tastes. I would have preferred it if they had kept his role exactly like in the book, but it was better than leaving that role out completely.

3. Charles Dance version. Erik is likeable, and the closest to Leroux!Erik after Lon Chaney. My complaint is that there is something off about his character. Charles Dance plays him as though he were a bit too smooth, and knows how to relate to people very well. Erik in the original novel seemed quite awkward with people, like he didn't know how to be around them. The pacing is a tad slow, like they took a one-and-a-half to two-hour story and dragged it out for three hours. Despite this, it was a nice little take o the story. I would say that I liked it. I saw only half, so I don't know how his deformity compares with the others, so I'm not going to judge on how close or far from the book it was. From what I saw though, I'm expecting something more like the traditional acid burn.

4. ALW movie and Robert Englund (1989) version. These tie for fourth because, while not bad, I did have some issues with them. Let's go for the ALW movie first:
Gerard Butler sucked as Erik. He was way too whiny and thereby, not as sympathetic as the other versions of Erik. I liked his voice at certain parts in the movie, but overall, it was annoying. I just generally find Gerard Butler's voice horribly irritating, and I can only congratulate him for losing that god-awful Scottish accent of his for the movie. I thought his deformity was pretty pathetic too. I couldn't see it for most of the lair scene. He just looked like he had a really messy mohawk and a red face. So it goes down as my second least favorite deformity. (My first will be mentioned later on.) I loved the imagery, and the music was cool, but I was pissed at the fact that they took out some part from the play version. The acting was a bit sub-par, and the characters weren't quite believable. But I will say that I liked Raoul more in this movie than in the book, because he seemed more noble and less snoopy and childishly jealous. So, I mean, it was okay, but there were some huge disappointments (i.e. Gerard Butler and some of the acting).

The 1989 movie was...well let me put it this way: It was the PotO movie I'm most likely to forget. It wasn't horrible, but it was all kind of blah. Robert Englund is not Erik. He is not Erik to the same degree that Gerard Butler is not Erik. His deformity looked very much like the way Freddy looks in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and ironically, Erik in this movie is played by the same person who is Freddy in those. So imagine Freddy dressed up like Erik, trying to woo Christine, partially in Paris in the 1870s, partially in New York in 1989. Scary thought, eh? Erik in this movie was also not exactly sympathetic. He started off just murdering people, with no really good reason. I mean, okay, he does that in the book, but only after he goes crazy. He is introduced as a serial killer in this movie. Some of the parts were okay, like the lair scenes and the masquerade, and perhaps the graveyard scene, which were impressive on sheer "woo" value. In other words, imagery. And the reincarnation aspect was intriguing. But the whole reincarnation thing was kind of out there, and what the hell was up with that random violinist at the end? Was Erik still supposed to be alive even after he was supposedly killed? So it was okay, but there were some parts that were just kind of disappointing and pointless.

5. Dario Argento movie. This was the movie with my least favorite deformity. Why? Because he wasn't deformed! He was a pervy hottie of a guy who stuck rats in his pants after he he got down and dirty with Christine. I liked the movie for it's dialogue, which was so horribly bad that it was hillarious. Otherwise, I'd liken it to a combination of PotO and House of a Thousand Corpses (which, in my opinion is kinda pointless, but hey, were here to talk about PotO.) It's pretty gory. I am not the squeamish type at all, but the scene where Erik rips the tounge out of somebody's mouth was pretty bizzare. Christine runs around the Opera house in her underwear, which nobody notices. She's a perv too. She likes to get it on with a guy who thinks he's "Tarzan, the Rat Man," for god's sake! I liked that they filmed it in the Opera Garnier itself, but there was something seriously wrong with Dario Argento when he came up with this movie. And casting his daughter as Christine too! That's...a bit wrong. And the worst part...Raoul goes to a strip club! That is also hillarious, but so pointless, and out of character. There's not much I can say about it, but that it was weird. It wasn't even "Phantom of the Opera," more like "Tarzan, Rat Man of the Opera" or somesuch. If you're bored, are up late at night, and are generally slap-happy, I'd fully reccommend this movie to you. Unfortunately I was none of those when I saw it, and it is the worst interpretation of the story around, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I'm glad I saw it. If left me with fond memories of...*ahem* rats in pants.

Okay, so there are my assessments so far. If anybody cares to read them. Sorry if they are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, but I am not going to read it over right now, because for one thing, I'm gonna have to get offline soon, and for another thing the computer's being a b***h, and it'd be a huge hassle.

God, that was a huge post.

My favorite portrayal of Erik has been by Charles Dance, in the 1990 TV movie of it. Every other version I've seen (And I haven't seen alot, I wont even pretend to be an expert) hasn't been able to capture his magician side, his mystical and whimsical side. Though, as said somewhere earlier in this thread, he definately doesn't make the Phantom into the cellar dwelling socially awkward recluse that he actually is.

My only problem with that version is that the story was altered, so Erik's parents both loved him deeply. As sweet and touching as that is, it kind of takes away his initial motivation to hide from the world, and takes away the 'specialness' of Christine being the only person in his life.

I agree with the fact that the 2004 version is the best theatrically, but Eriks face!! Gosh, they could have done so much better!!
The warning in the beginning says its rated PG-13 for "Brief Violent Images". If they had done his face correctly, it would have been rated for "Horrific Gruesome Disfigurement". Seriously, in the book someone died from looking at him!! I wanted to go to the movie theatre, and at the unmasking have people passing out and throwing up around me. Then I might have been satisfied.

Actually, Utakan, my calling him "Gerik" is intended to be a (subtle) insult, at least to the actor. That's why I call him such. I use it as if to say he is not the true Erik and will never be, he was just some too hot, too little deformed dude who ALW cooked up to attract young, shallow girls to the movie. In essence, I'm using the name to say that he is not Erik, but a seperate entity altogether. I usually call the Erik of a certain version by the actor who played them or the version they were in, followed by the name "Erik". So, like I would say Michael Crawford Erik or MC!Erik, or Charles Dance Erik or CD!Erik. But in the awful performance Gerard Butler gave as Erik, I feel that to say "Gerik" is to negate the fact that Erik was a whiny crybaby, and that was just the way Gerard Butler came off in tohe role.

I do not mean it as an insult to the character. Personally, I love the character of Erik, and feel that it should not be mutillated the way it was in the movie. I do have a problem with Gerard Butler though. Something about him just annoys the hell out of me. So I, personally, feel justified in insulting him, as do some other phans I know.

Well if you want a good psychological thriller, see "The Skeleton Key". I grew up on horror, so I know a good thriller when I see it. Horror movies are meant to make you jump more than invite plot or reason into the film. A Psych. Thriller is more to boggle your mind; like a mystery.

*Back on-topic*
The movie, like many other renditions of Leroux's book, are meant to be blood and gore. The movie was from the makers of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies (also starring dear Freddy) so naturally there's mindless bloodshed. Now to me, it's amusing because I'm used to gore. To others, yeah I can see someone going "ew".

The plot of Erik selling his soul to Satan was playing on Faust (which they ironically put in the movie). That was more or less the irony plot.

And the whore thing I found befitting to Erik's character for that particular film. Because he's not hideous (at least after sewing skin onto his face and covering the stitches with makeup) so he has no reason to be a fifty year old virgin. Besides, all the better he indulge his hormones in a lady of the evening rather than chase Christine around and end up raping her like in the Argento film.

On a side note: For the love of hot pockets people, stop comparing the musical with the 2004 film. It's been said by ALW himself that they are two entirely different ends of the stick and therefore cannot be compared.

I know it's old hat that I say this, but it seems like I have to constantly remind people about it. I know some like the musical way more than the film and that's fine. Just don't put the two in the same sentence and expect anything positive from it. Doing that is like comparing Spam to Ham. Just cuz it rhymes and they both smell funny when grilled doesn't mean they can be compared in taste or anything else.