Do you think the Phantom film should have been made earlier? - Page 3

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 5:41pm

Globefan said: "NameGreg said: "Really wish they got to make it with Crawford back in the day. For me, no one else touches his interpretation."

Sarah would've been Christine had it been made in 1990 with Crawford."

I’m sure she would’ve been. I believe the main reason why it wasn’t made back then was her and Lloyd Webber’s divorce. I’d have been fine with her reprising the role alongside Crawford, though I’m not really a fan. Not a detractor of her’s either, I think she works for the role, but there’s been others who are stronger fits.

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 9:14pm

NameGreg said: "Globefan said: "NameGreg said: "Really wish they got to make it with Crawford back in the day. For me, no one else touches his interpretation."

Sarah would've been Christine had it been made in 1990 with Crawford."

I’m sure she would’ve been. I believe the main reason why it wasn’t made back then was her and Lloyd Webber’s divorce. I’d have been fine with her reprising the role alongside Crawford, though I’m not really a fan. Not a detractor of her’s either, I think she works for the role, but there’s been others who are stronger fits."

Although I think Schumacher would've sabotaged Sarah. 

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 10:10pm

I don’t know how long Schumacher was attached, but he wasn’t the right choice for the project. His direction just didn’t gel.

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 10:22pm

Schumacher was attached since 1989 

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 12/31/20 at 6:12pm

The awful movie has do with the Director and Actors cast.   When they made it wouldn't have mattered if they had made the same artistic choices.   I agree with others that wish the Crawford and Brightman would have been filmed such as Hamilton or Newsies.  

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/31/20 at 6:35pm

Speaking of artistic choices, I’ve never truly understood why the movie chose the makeup that they did for the Phantom. The stage version is so wonderfully twisted and nightmarish. The movie version just looks like bad sun burn.

It just strikes me as odd that the version where the actor has to be in the makeup every day of production had a far more complicated looking makeup job rather than the film where you only need to shoot him a few times and time putting it on is far less of an issue.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/1/21 at 5:38am

NameGreg said: "Speaking of artistic choices, I’ve never truly understood why the movie chose the makeup that they did for the Phantom. The stage version is so wonderfully twisted and nightmarish. The movie version just looks like bad sun burn.

It just strikes me as odd that the version where the actor has to be in the makeup every day of production had a far more complicated looking makeup job rather than the film where you only need to shoot him a few times and time putting it on is far less of an issue."

It was stated in interviews at the time the of the film's release: they didn't want the phantom to be a supernatural entity, but rather a human grounded in the real world. So they gave him a realistic medical condition. Unfortunately they chose one that, while yes he would be stared at and maybe shunned to a small degree, wasn't a carnival-freak--showish-hide-your-women-and-children deformity.

I like the grounded in reality aspect,  but agree his deformity was weak. I didn't mind the cast too much, but Patrick Wilson was certainly too old to be a romantic interest for Emmy Rossum (although...irl the Paris Opera ballet girls were often "rented" to patrons). The biggest fault in the film is the design and cinematography: even the full theater they designed looked as stagebound as the "exterior" sets. It was certainly overlit, with the phantom's lair looking like the burning of Atlanta, and the one scene that should have been awash in colorful costumes was shot with black and white costumes. 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/1/21 at 4:36pm

i still think that Emmy Rossum was great casting. what other hollywood actress could even dream of singing that score even CLOSE to the keys she sang it in?

KrisChen could be a great Carlotta though, she would sing the crap out of Prima Donna

Updated On: 1/1/21 at 04:36 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/1/21 at 9:22pm

gypsy101 said: "i still think that Emmy Rossum was great casting. what other hollywood actress could even dream of singing that score even CLOSE to the keys she sang it in?

KrisChen could be a great Carlotta though, she would sing the crap out of Prima Donna"

I find Emmy's casting to be very weak. Her vowel sounds are very strange when singing. Her voice is small, thin, and generally underwhelming. She acts the role with one or two facial expressions through most of the film, and often seems confused by life in general. I don't blame her for the one note acting. I feel confident she was doing what she was directed to do. She certainly looked the part, and while she does have a few good moments, she was a rather bland miss for me.

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/5/21 at 2:29pm

jimmycurry01 said: "I find Emmy's casting to be very weak. Her vowel sounds are very strange when singing. Her voice is small, thin, and generally underwhelming."

Yep. She was the right age, but that's about it.