el fantasma de la ópera

responde esta pregunta

el fantasma de la ópera Pregunta

Why the hate on the 2004 ALW/JS film?

I'm not saying everyone should like it, I'm just not sure why it is so hated - even por some to whome it was their first touch with PotO?

Look, I know that it:
- doesn't have professional singers. (Except Patrick Wilson.)
- is way too sexed up, even on expense of logic.
- the Phantom has a variating Sunburn of Doom instead of a beliavable deformity.
- his background story is somewhat illogical too.

But...What about the storyline and characterizations personality wise? shouldn't they count for something, too? And if tu feel they too are so horribly done - I'd be interested in hearing how?

'Cause...that film is not basing on Leroux's horror story really, it's first and foremost basing on ALW's romanticized stage musical which already in itself is far from Leroux....So complaining about Leroux-this-and-that seems a bit "off-topic".

My first touch with PotO was that film, and then I watched the stage play a few times, (but not for many years now), and for all I saw the film and the stage play...
Well, let me throw a quote:

"The film looks and sounds fabulous and I think it's an extraordinarily fine document of the stage show. While it doesn't deviate much from the stage material, the film has dado it an even deeper emotional center. It's not based on the theatre visually o direction-wise, but it's still got exactly the same essence. And that's all I could have ever hoped for."
— Andrew Lloyd Webber

I personally agree with ALW there. On basics the film respects the stage play and introduces people well to it, while seeks to be and offer something new in its own right.

tu don't have to agree, of course. But in that case...Please explain why do tu downright hate/resent the film?
I'm just interested. :)
 bendaimmortal posted hace más de un año
next question »

el fantasma de la ópera Respuestas

PandaKISS said:
In a role where the MAIN CHARACTERS are suppose to be great singers it helps as an audience member to believe that when they can actually sing. I couldn't believe Gerik could teach a dog to sing let alone Christine.

"But...What about the storyline and characterizations personality wise? shouldn't they count for something, too? And if tu feel they too are so horribly done - I'd be interested in hearing how?"
This movie has the most incoherent back story, and setting! for one its set in 1870 during the freaking Franco-Prussian war! the opera house was being used as a armory then (you'd think that's something Raoul would remember) he sure remembered what Christine was/n't wearing that night. (well he wasn't drinking then...lol)

Erik's back story is even más ridicules than the stage version, not to mention IMPOSSIBLE! even if we made Erik 30, in 1870 he would still be to old to have been a child when he was first brought to the Opera house because it wasn't built yet! I know ALW just likes to make square pegs fit in round holes but jeez... can't he try to make a story make sense? the rest of [the story] does, just not when it comes to back stories that evolve any sort of time.
I have never been a fan of Mme. Giry, and the movie only gives her más screen time, though that's only a personal pet peeve of mine and not universal and I bet it had a lot to do with the fact that Miranda Richardson played the part. oh and her hair, was she trying to be a Geisha? women didn't even wear their hair that way then, well not in France anyway.
-Phantom- Lets see "Gerik" wears his mask as an accessory because he certainly doesn't need it, the whole time I'm watching it I'm thinking "what is he doing there? why am I suppose to feel bad for him? he looks better than I do, what's he moping about?" but as far as what I gauged as a "good" there just wasn't a lot. Putting aside the god awful canto I didn't even like the way he delivered the lines, some of the just seemed like he was lectura cue cards. For someone who I have seen be really funny in interviews, to be so lifeless in that role is disappointing.
-Christine- even though Christine is suppose to be naive, doesn't make up for bad actuación Emmy just seemed to only have to emotions sad/ happy. She looked great for the part her voice was okay, it was certainly better than her ángel of música (maybe Raoul was her real teacher) Oh and the scene I hate the most from this movie is PtPoNR Christine knows its the Phantom before he even says a word! and she even seems to be happy about it, (poor Raoul) so when it gets to the point where she "unmasks" him its pointless because she 1) knew from the beginning it was him 2) didn't try to expose him o run away being as she knew it was a coup. There's no feeling there, she didn't mostrar anger ( I know its not one of her emotions but she could have tried) its like she was sad because it was her only emotional option.
select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
*
1.) Thank tu for your opinions. May I offer new point of views? 1.) At leas they can sing (as in they don't sing out of note and can put emotion in their singing.) As in, it's possible to get past the non-professionality of their singing. I personally don't care in the end because Erik is supposed to sing beyond human ability and Christine to sing like angels...And no human can really do that anyway. So all that matters to me is that they don't sing out of note, put emotion in their canto and don't have dull voices. (I like the rock'n roll edge in Gerry's voice and thin Emmy sings nicely too.) 2.) The año 1870 is pointed out only once for a few segundos in a subtitle text. So, this is something tu REALLY should be able to get past and not get enredados in. 3.) As I dicho up there I acknowledge Gerik's background is illogic. Although I wasn't thinking of the setting year. But hence, the way the año is included, that detail shouldn't really become that much of a problem. Especially as they didn't even mention when the opera house was built. 4.) I disagree about Gerard and Emmy's acting. I personally see Emmy mostrando a wide scale of emotions throughout the film, and do not think Gerard is lifeless. But it would be pointless to try and make others interpret emotions in a certain way for emotion interpretations are such a personal matter. 5.) Seeing to that Gerik and Christine were meant to have shared much together in a great affect friendship over approx. 10 years – (Emmy Rossum's words), share a deep and soulful union – (Joel Schumacher's words), and lately her feelings for him had developed into darker and mature kind – (obviously), I think the PoNR unmasking scene has a very valid point. As in, she wanted to see what this man looks like. It's not like she saw that much in the darkness of his lair at the first unmasking. I've always seen in her eyes the feeling of being moved and then suddenly a spark of curiosity and then she puts her hand on his mask to take it off. And why would she do that in front of thousands of people in full stage lighting, knowing he freaked out already togetehr alone in the lair's darkness? I'd say her mind likely wasn't in the present moment because of the dicho emotional complexity and turmoil, combined to having just been under his spell during PoNR. Hence, as ALW too pointed out – this film has even deeper emotional center than the stage show.
bendaimmortal posted hace más de un año
*
Oh, and one más thing about the 1870 timeline...This is a work of FICTION, therefore I don't think the timeline not matching our world's timeline should be that much of a problem. Especially as this movie doesn't even claim that it tries to follow the real life timeline. Whereas Leroux DOES claim that the story in his novel is true but even that has inaccurate dates and stuff...But I don't hear fans complaining about that?
bendaimmortal posted hace más de un año
Hiding 2 comments... click to show.
*
ALW does know deep emotional centers. His visions just got twisted when he apparently lost all respect to his characters and the original story. Back in 2004 he still had that respect.
bendaimmortal posted hace más de un año
Angels-Protegee said:
My beef with the JS film is Joel Schumacher himself. I just think he made some poor decisions in the process, and absolutely none of them have to do with Gerard Butler and Patrick Wilson. Both of them rose above the ridiculousness of nearly every other aspect of the movie and owned their roles. If JS had put más care into the project, LOTS más logic, and toned down his sexual underpinnings, then I don't think I'd have much to complain about. This is just my two cents, as I have no idea why so many other people hate the movie.
 select as best answer
posted hace más de un año 
next question »
Cookies help us bring you Fanpop. By using Fanpop, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More Got It!