|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:58 am
Very true. I don't know all this stuff about stage things. I'm not exactly the best actress out there. People more or less have asked me in the past if I'm a girl or not. So playing a female role in a play is rather out of the question. (eesh. i feel like a female erik, 'deformed' by looking like a guy.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:44 pm
Utakan 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. I think I have to agree with Painted Black, I mean, I thought the movie was decent, It had its bad part, Emmy had the "Deer in the headlights look" on her face the entire movie, But I though Gerald did a great job. He wasn't the classical Erik we all know and Love, but he did make a good Phantom in a new way. and as for them getting original cast members to play the roles...I really don't see how that could work, seeing as who ever would be playing christine yet again would be almsot twice the correct age (not saying that realsim should over power skill by any means)I think that yes it could have been better, but it did not dissapoint, I loved it, and all my friends who are "Phans" loved it, and my Band director (who knows quite a bit about singing) Even said that he loved it, though it did lose some of its power. The singers were great, you shouldnt hate something jsut because its a diffrent version. Every time someone else puts on the mask, a new a diffrent phantom is born. Just becasue you dislike it, does not mean you should go about bashing a version someonelse loves, and even if you must, I fail to see how this is the place for it. I do believe this thread was started to enlighten us to the fact that Schumacher is indeed gay. If you must tear apart a version, you could at least do us the courtesy of ranting in the right thread, because someone may not want to read all this mindless "this is better" "No this is better" banter. Sorry if this sounds, rude, I do not intend to step on any proverbial toes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:15 pm
Hm...very prophetic of you. It would seem that everyone here is better at arguing/discussions than me. Could it be because I'm not exactly the best discusser in the world? Heck, sometimes I've even broken into tears from discussions. This year too. My god, am I really a nut-case who can't control emotions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:28 pm
SeraphimSeranade Utakan 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. I think I have to agree with Painted Black, I mean, I thought the movie was decent, It had its bad part, Emmy had the "Deer in the headlights look" on her face the entire movie, But I though Gerald did a great job. He wasn't the classical Erik we all know and Love, but he did make a good Phantom in a new way. and as for them getting original cast members to play the roles...I really don't see how that could work, seeing as who ever would be playing christine yet again would be almsot twice the correct age (not saying that realsim should over power skill by any means)I think that yes it could have been better, but it did not dissapoint, I loved it, and all my friends who are "Phans" loved it, and my Band director (who knows quite a bit about singing) Even said that he loved it, though it did lose some of its power. The singers were great, you shouldnt hate something jsut because its a diffrent version. Every time someone else puts on the mask, a new a diffrent phantom is born. Just becasue you dislike it, does not mean you should go about bashing a version someonelse loves, and even if you must, I fail to see how this is the place for it. I do believe this thread was started to enlighten us to the fact that Schumacher is indeed gay. If you must tear apart a version, you could at least do us the courtesy of ranting in the right thread, because someone may not want to read all this mindless "this is better" "No this is better" banter. Sorry if this sounds, rude, I do not intend to step on any proverbial toes. It's called opinions. That's what is part of a healthy discussion. Firstlt, Painted knows me personally and can very well tell me to shut up if she hates what I'm saying. That SHE brought it up means that anyone is open to discuss it. I dislike the film and I dislike Schumacher. Not because he's gay, but because he thought it would be nice to add unnecessary sexual tension between someone who wasn't even legal and a thirty-something year old man. Again, my "rant" was stipulated by Painted's words and I was replying to them. If one does not wish something to be replied to, they need not post what they think at all. Regardless of the thread, when it comes up, it comes up. Besides this thread is in the overall "spam" forum of this guild. It can stand an off-topic moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:50 pm
It's called opinions. That's what is part of a healthy discussion. Firstlt, Painted knows me personally and can very well tell me to shut up if she hates what I'm saying. That SHE brought it up means that anyone is open to discuss it.
I dislike the film and I dislike Schumacher. Not because he's gay, but because he thought it would be nice to add unnecessary sexual tension between someone who wasn't even legal and a thirty-something year old man.
Again, my "rant" was stipulated by Painted's words and I was replying to them. If one does not wish something to be replied to, they need not post what they think at all. Regardless of the thread, when it comes up, it comes up. Besides this thread is in the overall "spam" forum of this guild. It can stand an off-topic moment.
I never stated that you didn't or that you were attacking her. I was merely expressing my opinon as well and if you read my entire message you would know that I wasnt attacking your (Though I will admit it seems as though I was) opinion either. If you believe I was in the wrong in my earlier message I apoligize whole heartedly to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:03 pm
Hm...I'll say this. Forgive my idiocy, I've had a massive project thrown on me and it's due tomorrow, and I got it on monday. As for this mess, I don't dislike Shumacher, but I don't think he should have added the tension. It turned the movie from horror to some genre that I can't describe. 'Tis romantic-horror-mystery-whatever else was in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:15 pm
SeraphimSeranade Utakan It's called opinions. That's what is part of a healthy discussion. Firstlt, Painted knows me personally and can very well tell me to shut up if she hates what I'm saying. That SHE brought it up means that anyone is open to discuss it. I dislike the film and I dislike Schumacher. Not because he's gay, but because he thought it would be nice to add unnecessary sexual tension between someone who wasn't even legal and a thirty-something year old man. Again, my "rant" was stipulated by Painted's words and I was replying to them. If one does not wish something to be replied to, they need not post what they think at all. Regardless of the thread, when it comes up, it comes up. Besides this thread is in the overall "spam" forum of this guild. It can stand an off-topic moment. I never stated that you didn't or that you were attacking her. I was merely expressing my opinon as well and if you read my entire message you would know that I wasnt attacking your (Though I will admit it seems as though I was) opinion either. If you believe I was in the wrong in my earlier message I apoligize whole heartedly to you. There's honestly no need to apologize for what you believe. It's just a matter of defending beliefs and as it sometimes goes, stirring up the mud in the pond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:51 am
Phantom-of-the-Forum Hm...I'll say this. Forgive my idiocy, I've had a massive project thrown on me and it's due tomorrow, and I got it on monday. As for this mess, I don't dislike Shumacher, but I don't think he should have added the tension. It turned the movie from horror to some genre that I can't describe. 'Tis romantic-horror-mystery-whatever else was in it.
That's an interesting opinion becuase that's actually what Webber hated about the original book in the first place, that it's genre was confusing. That's why he created the musical as a purely love musical. Funny then that he hired a director to re-confuse it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Red_Death_Stalking Phantom-of-the-Forum Hm...I'll say this. Forgive my idiocy, I've had a massive project thrown on me and it's due tomorrow, and I got it on monday. As for this mess, I don't dislike Shumacher, but I don't think he should have added the tension. It turned the movie from horror to some genre that I can't describe. 'Tis romantic-horror-mystery-whatever else was in it. *legasp* someone actually saw my post for once! Yeah, I mean really, why'd they hire Butler if they knew there'd be this mess in it? Eh, I blame Webber. (well, sorta. This evil teacher at our school is named Mr. Weber. When he gets mad, he looks like a fuzzy tomato...We blame him for everything bad! Eheh...I'll stop being weird now...) Webber shouldn't have changed the genre, that made it worse. Plus, how could they change the plot-line enough to make it entirely a love musical? Then Buquet wouldn't die, nor Piangi, and our beloved chandelier wouldn't fall! Or would it...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:17 pm
Aw.
Howie.
No doubt he's gay. Never was doubt.
As soon as he screamed higher-pitched than Christine when she took off his mask, it was clear. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
