|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:03 pm
Okay, before I begin this, I will say it once that I am not bashing Andrew Lloyd Webber or his movie/play/musical. I am simply going to point out some things. I prefer the people who engage in this discussion to know not just of the 2004 movie, because a lot of this content has to do with the original stage performance and cast. Now, just so you know, this is not another “The movie sucked, the play was better, who agrees?” thing. So just hear me out.
The phantom of the opera is probably the most touching and famous musical of all time. What he created was simply a masterpiece. In my opinion anyone who could create something like this must be a genius. To make this easy for both me and you gaians, I will take you back to the beginning.
When I first saw the 2004 movie, it was probably my first real encounter with the story of the phantom of the opera. I had always wanted to see the play, but I just thought the movie would be the same thing. So I watched it and I really liked it. A while later, I started to get more curious about the ORIGIONAL one, so I went on YouTube and watched Michael Crawford perform “Music of the night” and IMMEDIATELY fell in love with his voice and his presence as the phantom. I started to watch more scenes taped by fans (unfortunately they were very old and blurry) and I knew that I had found the REAL thing. In fact it made me sad that I could never see him perform live.
But anyway, It really kind of shocked me how different the movie was from the play. The movie was very “fluffy” and totally “Hollywood-like”. Now we get to my first dilemma with ALW. Why would you change a classical masterpiece you created that is already famous? Changing a classic?
The play in my opinion had so much passion and emotion to it, and yet in the movie it’s like they turned it down 5 notches and just made it more pretty. I mean, when you watch the movie towards the end what are you feeling? A little sad for the guy, stupid Christine, etc. But (as said by a fan) when you walk out after seeing the stage musical with M.C you are basically on your knees and in tears. Even in the clips I watched there were people in the audience just sniffling like crazy. So, if you are the creator of such a brilliant musical, why would you want to dull it down and then rave about how amazing this new movie is when you know the original one will always be the best?
Now here’s a big one. Michael Crawford was probably the most famous and adored phantoms there ever were. Sometime after her retired, they were going to do a big movie on it, and Andrew Lloyd Webber wanted to cast Antonio Banderes or some other guy as the phantom. But, there were SO many M.C fans that people protested and wanted him to be in the movie because he was still pretty young looking and could still sing. He even stated that he would love to be in the movie. So everyone wanted Crawford to be in the movie, Crawford wanted to be in the movie…but ALW really didn’t. My question is why? If all the fans wanted it, why didn’t he do it? It would have been so awesome for future generations to see how it originally was. So what does he do? He waits until the next generation of kids come along that aren’t familiar with the original stage performance so there will be no protests, and does a big fluffy Hollywood like movie with people who don’t have hardly any singing experience as the characters. So he basically let everyone forget about the original classic and tried to replace it with the 2004 movie. Why?!!!!!!!
Now, I have lots of respect for the 2004 movie, because it introduces people to the story, including myself, but I think it would have been really nice to have a movie with the original stage performers in it as well. It just makes me mad that ALW just absolutely REFUSED to do a movie with the original and very famous cast
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:10 pm
OMG My situation is basically the same... I was introduced to Phantom by the movie.. I got really obsessed, was dying to watch the broadway... Looked it up on youtube and there it was on broadway! I watched one with Michael Crawford, right away I fell in love with the broadway waaay more than the movie... In fact this past year I went to see the broadway live twice, and both times I basicly cried... But when I saw the movie the most I felt was "Awww that stinks" and maybe a little lump in my throat... I bought the original cast on broadway, of course with MC... And I was soo mad when I heard that they were going to make it with MC but they didn't.... Yes I admit the movie was great, but broadway version is better, it is 'untouched' by Hollywood...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:16 pm
you mean you bought a video tape of it? And yeah the movie really does nothing to you emotional wise..there were so many people out there just begging them to make the movie with Michael..so WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE A MOVIE WITH MICHAEL! scream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Webber's obsessed with hollywood. He wanted his Phantom movie to be a big, movie extravaganza with hollywood actors and top of the line effects, not just a stage-to-film adaption of the show, which you must admit is getting a little dated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:37 pm
The fact that Andrew used Gerard Butthead makes the movie not as good. That's all I have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:45 pm
That's a little rude... if you're going to hate Gerry Boy, do it constructively. Or at least creatively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:56 pm
Actually that wasn't bad compared to some comments I read about him, and those are from proffesional critics.
He can't sing. There. Thats my constructiveness.
But i will say something nice just cuz there are Gerry fans up in here. He's hot. I'll give him that.
But thats all I can give him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:52 pm
I have to say my biggest peeve with Gerry was how unsexy and stubby his hands are. Its actually a turnoff to watch him feel up Christine with those hands.
I quite liked his voice when he was being scary!Erik but he completely lacked the subtlety I wanted to see in emotional!Erik and seductive!Erik.
I liked the casting other than Gerry though. The set design was absolutely gorgeous as well. Lots and lots of things were done right with this movie but there is the single glaring flaw: everything they did with Erik was pretty much wrong.
My absolute biggest disappointment in the film has to have been the scar on his face and how he just looked like "Brendan Fraser on a bad day". The movie is built around the character of Erik and the complete lack of deformation hideous enough to prevent him from living in society makes him seem like a whiney emo brat (OMG I have perma-pizza face!).
He also looked waaay too good for someone Mme. Giry's age (according to the film). His backstory was crap too. But that's not something technical but a personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:16 pm
Gerald Butler is cute, but he is really opera-ish. I thought the movie was ok, but they could have done better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:07 pm
What bothers me most about ALW? His teeth. Dear God...how much does toothpaste cost in England? Is it too much to ask for? D:
Vain, I know. I cannot help it. It seems terribly unhygenic though, and I'm sure he can afford to have them cleaned/straightened.
The way he claimed Don Juan to be his own in the extras on the 2004 DVD also made me incredibly angry. This is when I realize I need to come off my obsession a teeny bit. Heh.
Gerard Butler...hmm...
In the beginning, I will admit, I thought him terribly good looking. xD; I never liked his vocal skills though. Unimpressive for such a powerful part, I thought. Now I have moved on from liking him (hooray!). He's just...there. And Fox's versions of him in dresses do not help in the liking factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:42 pm
La Belle Isolde I have to say my biggest peeve with Gerry was how unsexy and stubby his hands are. Its actually a turnoff to watch him feel up Christine with those hands. I quite liked his voice when he was being scary!Erik but he completely lacked the subtlety I wanted to see in emotional!Erik and seductive!Erik. I liked the casting other than Gerry though. The set design was absolutely gorgeous as well. Lots and lots of things were done right with this movie but there is the single glaring flaw: everything they did with Erik was pretty much wrong. My absolute biggest disappointment in the film has to have been the scar on his face and how he just looked like "Brendan Fraser on a bad day". The movie is built around the character of Erik and the complete lack of deformation hideous enough to prevent him from living in society makes him seem like a whiney emo brat (OMG I have perma-pizza face!). He also looked waaay too good for someone Mme. Giry's age (according to the film). His backstory was crap too. But that's not something technical but a personal preference. Haha, yeah he has little kid hands..which is wierd. I think in one of the comments on a YouTube video with Michael Crawford in it, someone was saying that his hands were way too big. So, short stubby hands or ginormous hands? Not really a hard question for me, i think M.C's hands are sexy cool but seriously, When you look at Gerry's face in the movie it just looks like a teen with bad acne on one side. heck, my face has looked worse than that whenever i'd break out. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
