I just saw this movie today, and wow...it was incredible. I'm sure most of you have heard the music to this really great musical, but it takes on so much more emotion when you see the actors get into the music too. It's actually being released everywhere January 21st (at least in the States), so if you have the chance, I highly recommend you go see this movie. And if the movie confuses the heck out of you, please, read the book, it explains so much. But oh my...after seeing the movie, I was thinking "Andrew Lloyd Webber, how do you do that? :bow:" I loved how the movie started after the whole "incident" with the Phantom occurred, and then goes back in time to show us what happened. The funny thing is that the "present" time is in grainy black and white when the story that's in the "past" is in color.
Ok...I could keep going on, but I'll end my post with one last thing...the opening part is really really awesome. Think powerful time-reversal shots paired with the Phantom of the Opera theme blaring on the organ... :yay:

I'm planning on seeing this... I will see it... No matter what! *Stands her ground*

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

:D I. Love. This. Movie. hehehe

*reads post so far and shakes head at self*

*sigh* What can I say; when it rains it pours, but that's alright; I love rain :D

See the movie! Read the book! Listen to the soundtracks! Go see the play! (the last of which I have yet to do, but I want to *sigh*)

Then come back and tell me if you'd chose Raoul or the Phatom, and I'll argue with you either way ;) Tchao!

I'm really not this squeal-y... I mean, say "mmm pudding" to Licia and see what happens! Ha! ;)

I still haven't seen it :cry: but I am in love with Gerard Butler so the Phantom for me!!! I can sing and I'm a pretty big loner as well...We'd be so good together... :yes: yes yes my precious...

oiy vay...

Guess what! I bought Phantom by Susan Kay off ecampus.com for less than $20!! YAY! (the cheapest I've seen it elsewhere was used for nearly $50!)

A pretty big loner...hmm outcast by the cruelness that is mankind morelike! *sigh* Gerard Butler may play Erik (and very well at that) but he isn't Erik (well, no one is, because he's fictional, but still) They're not the same! Argh! *shakes head*

Tisk, I feel sorry for the people that see the movie but never read the book, they just don't get it *dramatic, elitist sigh* And I feel sorry for me for having read such a crappy translation! GR!

(Hehe *snickers* pudding...mmm...*laughs*)

Awesome! I might just have to borrow that book from you friend ;-)

Well, you know my answer already Jewelz...yes, I would pick Raoul just because he's so selfless...and the Phantom's...not...I mean, she didn't love the Phantom...if she ended up with him it would have been a pity thing and she probably wouldn't be very happy with him. Raoul loved her sans that creepy obsessive thing, and he was her sweetheart before that, so I would like to think they belonged together. *shrugs*

I hope that the movie gets people to want to read the book, because really the musical was just an artistic interpretation of the book (though I won't be surprised when people read the book and are shocked that there is a whole lot less singing in it, lol).

If by selfless you mean whiny and annoying; then sure: that'd be Raoul ;) hehehe

I can't help it, I doubt I'll ever like him. But Christine loved him, so c'est la vie *shrugs*

My love of Erik isn't at all the sort of love that I could (hypothetically speaking) have for a Phantom like Gerry- Oh! That makes me sound shallow, doesn't it? Oh me, let me explain myself. Gerry's Phantom was meant to be seductive, sensual; all those nice "s" words in place of the rather silly term "sexy" (ha). And he was *shrugs* nevertheless, love for him is more an issue of lust or infatuation.

Love for Erik (from the book), on the other hand, was more of a compassion situation. I want to hug him and make him eat better (ie not let him go for sometimes 19 days at a time living on music instead of food, romantic as that may be, in the real sense of "romantic") I want to have him put his mask on (for his sake more than mine) too keep him from unkind eyes, and pull him out of the hell he'd created for himself. Get him some vitamin D and sunlight and just love on him and show him that he is lovable, deformity or no.

And sure, his true distortion lies in his soul by the end of the play, but that's when I want to cry to him "Jesus loves you!" And that I love him! (though not in a romantic way, in the sense of "in love" blah blah) Not for his deformity or his brilliance, but simply because he's human and deserves to be loved, with no other reason necessary!

But then I stop and think... what Phantom's have I known that my pity did not acknowledge? When has my discust and selfishness overcome my compassion? THAT is when I start getting all ethical and theological and philisophical andall those odd "-ical" words. hehe.

Raoul and Erik could easily be compare to Christ and the devil, moreso with Gerry's Phantom than Erik. It's certainly not a fool-proof train of though (Erik and the Phantom are both so much more human and pitiful and beautiful than Satan, than goodness) but in the sense that Raoul loved Christine for Christine, regardless of her manipulation etc (more in the book, mind you) and Erik/Phantom loved her for selfish reasons (his music, to save him from his solitude, etc) Christine chose Raoul because their love was romantic love, not compassion and not lust (so to speak).

And so I step down from my soap box for now. My apologies to those who bothered to read all of that and think I'm full of crap. Perhaps I am, but I just thought I'd share *laughs* Tchao then!

In response to a presently anonymous pm:

Good point. As Dri said; note the difference between Raoul's "let me save you from your solitude" and the Phantom's "lead me, save me from my solitude." Raoul can be sweet, and a decent guy (even in my opinion ;)) I just find Erik to be far mor facinating, like I said *shrugs*

Feel free to disagree with me people; I certainly don't know everything about it. This is all just what I've gotten from it; what have you?

Tchao!

I have never read the book nor touched the musical, just the film and I thought it could have been better considering the props and storyline that was present from the beginning. However, the grandeur of the sets just fades and leaves you empty: How could such a grand place have such a poorly set-up stage?

There was potential in this film being successful but the excessive distraction caused by the less-than-fully-competent singers (people tend to compare if they have heard the original soundtrack) and sets just make this a bland film.

Christine's constant wide-eyed expression got to me as well, I don't know what she really felt for the Phantom at the end of the film, and the chemistry between Raoul and her was non-existent. The actor who played Raoul is probably the only one who could sing consistently well in the entire film.

That said, I had not gone into the cinema with high expectations because it's unrealistic. Musical-turned-films are usually average, but PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was a little unbearable for me.

And I thought to clear things up in case they were misunderstood :)

It is perfectly alright to discuss the film here, and integrate what one thinks of the book or musical into their posts because it gives those who had not had the chance to read the book or watch the musical a wider perspective of what it originally is. Or in this case, the difference in book and film characters as others perceive them to be.

Jewelz, thank you for that post about what you feel about the book characters. I could possibly check out the book at the library the next time I'm there :) To tell the truth, I had not known of the existence of the book before I saw this thread; thought it was just the musical which triggered the film!

My bad. I meant it both on a "if you were Christine" and as yourself level; but I didn't mean it as an issue of liking Gerry or whoever played Raoul better.

*laughs* Man, how did I manage to make myself some sort of mock-authority/ person to respond to everything posted? I get myself in a lot of trouble this way (no doubt the people on the movie's site are mad at me for saying that them calling Butler a "god" really freaked me out heh) I really don't know a ton! Now I'm just waiting for someone who does to come in here and completely kick my butt! *laughs* Ya'll have to understand though, most of what I've posted, I've already discussed with a friend or two, so I'm really not...I don't know *whatever* hehe...

Tchao!

I agree that Christine at points seemed more enticed by the Phantom than by Raoul. Come to think of it, Christine and Raoul's chemistry was really only present when they sang "All I Ask of You" (and not a whole lot there, maybe because Raoul's character had a lot less emotion in his voice than the Phantom did). But thank you for saying Raoul sang well the whole movie, I really thought he had a nice voice and sounded a lot like the original Raoul.

My guess for the cruddiness of the stage sets would be that too. In 1881 they could build ornate buildings with chandeliers and nice seats or what have you, but their stage technology was pitiable. I think also though that the focus was on the characters and what they were singing rather than the setting of the stage.

Thanks for clearing that up. ;-) Because if that were the case I would have probably gone for the Phantom *laughs* (darn him and his Scottish accent, lol). I was thinking of this question in terms of if I were in Christine's shoes, so naturally I would pick Raoul because of the reasons I said before. I think I would want to keep Erik around too just to show him the compassion that was denied him by the world for the rest of his life before that. It would probably be something like I would be with Raoul but we would visit the Phantom...I don't know, just not completely leave him by himself for good.

I'm glad you now know about the book, Ryvyan. It is a very good book and it clears up a whole lot about all the characters, especially the Phantom, who is actually a bit different in the book (less of a sensual character, like Jewelz said about him in the movie, more despicable I think, he's described as a corpse and other not so pleasant attributes).

I'm not sure how I could define the film sets, but think more 'Moulin Rouge'. The setting of the film is afterall the Paris Opera House which should be very grand (from my knowledge, could be otherwise) from the exterior, on the ceilings, the sides, the seats... With such a chandelier alone, I doubt the place is as small as was depicted in the film!

Beneath the beauty exterior of the Opera House, the lair where the Phantom looms was not frightening or dark enough to tell of how he had lived (or maybe it's in the book?) in the past decades.

When I said the film had potential, I'm looking at it from the point of cinematography colours. It had potential in the beginning when they showed the cobwebs disappearing from the Opera House to depict the past before it was caught on fire. There was so much life, but it was all zapped out right after the disappearance of the cobwebs because there was no sufficient use of cameras.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but I came out of the cinema disappointed partly because of the sets.

Don't worry, that makes sense. :yes: They did focus a lot on the outside and then the grander parts at the beginning, but then after that it was hugely focused on what went on behind, above, or below stage. (And the opening behind stage part reminded me of Moulin Rouge a little too ;-)) It didn't seem that small to me through the few shots they had of the whole inside of the house (with the seats and the stage) in addition to the lobby-type grand staircase area (where they performed "Notes" and "Masquerade"), but it may have seemed that way since they did not show the audience the entire place at once most of the time.

*laughs* You know, I agree with you there. I thought the lair was kind of like a "Phantom of the Opera playset" in the movie because it was so small. This representation is nowhere near to his "lair" in the book. In the book, there is a massive underground lake, and in the middle of it sits the Phantom's "house", which contains a lot of rooms, including his organ room, his bedroom (where he sleeps, but the creepy thing is that he sleeps in a coffin...remind anyone of Dracula? lol), a torture chamber, and some other rooms. It seems much scarier and dark than the two candle-lit rooms in the movie.

One thing I took into consideration when I went to see the movie was that it was a musical in movie version. I thought it was very well done in comparison to the only other Andrew Lloyd Webber musical/movie I had seen, which was Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Which, if you have seen, most likely would never go for any Oscars. ;-)

Check this out (I found it on a thread at phantomoftheopera.com):

Phantom of the Opera in 15 minutes (parody)

It's friggin hilarious!....

Hi! Does anyone know where I can find HQ Phantom of the Opera Promo shots? Like...of christine and the phantom with the white background....does anyone know which ones I'm talking bout? I've looking for them EVERYWHERE.