A little math for ya: PHANTOM = CRAPTASTIC- Page 3

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 5:36pm

I was quite pleased that I saw the movie for free. I think that I would have been much more upset if I had paid to see it, although honestly I don't particuarly care for the stage version, either.

My main objection was how unoriginal everything was. If you're going to make a movie out of such an overblown musical, why not really go for it? It's already a musical, so why make it a movie? I don't think anyone involved with this production really answered this question, other than the obvious... to make money. But if you're not going to use the fact that it's a movie and not constrained by being on stage, why do it? Why not take it further instead of using very standard shots (except when we do a Batman-esque firestorm or have random Fosse dancers; the less I say about that, the better)?

And, well, casting people who can actually sing would help, too.

[beacon1]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 5:39pm

I'm seeing the film tonight...

And, robbiej, I did love your comments about Patrick Wilson. He is such a gifted and versatile actor. In his next film "Hard Candy" he plays a 32 yr old guy who takes home a 14 year old girl he's met on the internet--but it's got a bunch of twists and is supposed to be a real thriller since you aren't always sure of each other's motives. It's an independent film that is showing at the Sundance Festival at the end of January (Park City at Midnight Series.)

[Dawg]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 5:40pm

I like Phantom a lot. It is the musical that brought me to the world of musical theatre and a career in it as well. I am not a theatre snob...on the contrary, I enjoyed Bombay Dreams.

I could also say, "Hey, this milk is sour, it tastes awful and it's probably going to make me ill, but if you don't believe me, maybe you should try it for yourself."

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 5:42pm

"That's even more ignorant. It's like baptizing children before they're old enough to think for themselves."

This might be better suited to the "off-topic" board, but some Christian traditions feel that baptism is actually God's covenant with God's child, not the reverse. The vows that a person takes either for him/herself or on behalf of a child are the response to the gift of God's love and grace.

Baptism, at any age, is not ignorant.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 5:51pm

"some Christian traditions feel that baptism is actually God's covenant with God's child, not the reverse. The vows that a person takes either for him/herself or on behalf of a child are the response to the gift of God's love and grace.

Baptism, at any age, is not ignorant."


huh? Bottom line, it's doing more than sharing information and letting poeple make their own ratioanal judgements. It's a formal ceremony of putting engraving your opinions onto another person's life because you believe you're so right. No matter how much I don't believe a god is real, I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS reserve the possibilies that the other side is right. That's what Chirstians I know DON'T DO. Which is more ignorant? Sorry, move this to the off topic board if you want.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 6:03pm

My point, which I in no way made clear, was that I find your statement offensive. For someone who claims to "ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" reserve the possibility that the other side is right, you present yourself as rather judgmental.

If you truly reserved that possibility, you would stop to consider that the Christians who believe that without baptism an infant who dies is bound for hell might just be right and not make such a prejudicial statement. (For the record, I am not one of those Christians.)

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 6:20pm

Have you ever senn the Falun Gong people on the streets who cut themselves up because they BELIEVE it's right and then try to give us a pamphlet about it?

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 6:25pm

Woah, unless it turns out that the Phantom was haunted by an unwanted baptism and/or was Falun Gong (which honestly probably would have been more interesting than the movie as it is), could you please take this conversation elsewhere?

Updated On: 12/28/04 at 06:25 PM

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 7:04pm

My apologies to Shawk and others. As I typed my last response, I thought, "why do I bother?!?" From bronx's last message, it is very clear that no manner of logical thought could persuade him/her to actually see both sides.

Working for a liberal Christian church, one realizes early on that some discussions should not be taken up. It is usually an e-mail about the "scriptural" admonishments of homosexuality. Who would have thought that baptism could instill the same passion?!?

So, again, my apologies. Back to the business at hand...

Boy, did POTO suck or what?!?

; )

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 7:33pm

Sorry I forgot to add something. The point is that Falun Gong people do it to themselves beause they believe in it even though it seems silly. BUT, children are a completely different thing. To do it to another person is ignorant. Not responding is smart. This is a Broadway forum and im sorry most here probably dont share how you feel about it. And, I see both sides of everything more than most here. I diss Phantom all the time. I praise it a lot too. After all, I'm the one who loves Dracula and goes to see it and laughs at it but still like it for other reasons.

Phantom I think is a recomendable movie for many reasons. Updated On: 12/28/04 at 07:33 PM

Posted: 12/28/04 at 7:59pm

RobbieJ, et. al.,

Perhaps I'm a loner among the gateratti, but I happened to have liked Phantom. I am still attempting to see it again to better assess my impression. So my opinion might change.

ALW had the success of the stage production, and caused to have the film version made and in his own way. Now, while huge number of folks may find many, many reaons to tear the film in shreds and to dismiss it for sundry reasons, it's stil his film and he was able to make it. Envy manifests itself in numerous ways.

So let's ask the rhtorical question, what have you accomplished.

No offense. It's just a question to ponder.

It's very easy to be overly critical (I should know), but it is harder to be open minded and to be accepting of others and their accomplishments.

As Namo pointed out, one of the most astute movie critics of her time, Pauline Kael lacerated THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and we all know what happened to that film. Now, I'm not equating POTO to TSOM. It's just that, as in love and passion, there's no accounting for personal taste.

Cheers!

Updated On: 12/28/04 at 07:59 PM

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 8:03pm

Yes, this is why as much as poeple may hate this movie you cannot say that it is against the author's intent because Phantom belongs to ALW and he made this movie all on his own and he is happy with it so there you go. Good for him.

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 8:17pm

Has anyone tried to say that the movie was against ALW's intent?

Look, not to be snippy, but the "What have you accomplished?" question always comes up when people don't like something, although I'm excited that so far, no one has brought up something along the lines of, "If you can't sing yourself, how dare you dislike Gerard Butler?!"

It leads me to wonder, just what pinnicle do people have to attain to criticize something? Do I have to have as much money as ALW or direct as many movies as Schumacher before I can say anything bad about Phantom? We all have our opinions, some better stated and some better informed than others, but they're all opinions in the end. Mine doesn't take anything away from anyone else's, and the reverse is true.

I'm not saying that everyone has to hate this film. I didn't hate it, actually, I just think it was a mess of a film and it's disappointing that it wasn't better. People have different tastes, and if this movie makes you happy, that's great. But some people don't like it, and they should be just as free to be able to talk about why they disliked it.

I'm going to stop now, because I have generally found that being in the middle of a gusher/basher conflict is a disaster. Plus, trying to change anyone's mind on the internet is just an excercise in futility.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 9:27pm

I agree with Jose, as I've said before - I really enjoyed this movie. Although Bronx's argument is extremely off-topic and random, I agree with what he's saying 100%. Don't tell someone NOT to see something because you didn't like it - well, not in EVERY case. If you tell someone not to bother wasting their money on movies like GIGLI or SURVIVING CHRISTMAS, that's very understandable - they're commonly understood to be horrible. But something like THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is in an entirely different league. This may sound corny, but everyone on this board as far as I'm concerned should be interested in theatre as an art form and advancing that art form. Right as movie musicals are making a comeback, to so quickly encourage people to not see them is, like bronx said, very ignorant. An art form as fleeting as theatre needs as many fans as it can get. And remember, the higher numbers this has, the more movie musicals there will be to follow. No, they all won't have the success of CHICAGO and some might even flop but to blatantly and ignorantly discourage people from supporting it, and therefore discourage the comeback and advancement of movie musicals is obvnoxious and uncalled for.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 9:28pm

Yeah

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 9:40pm

I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing the movie, myself, as I didn't think it was atrociously bad, but I also don't think that uncritically throwing whole-hearted support behind something just because it's in a genre one cares about, makes a lot of sense, either. I don't see how supporting what one sees as a sub-par product just because it is a musical is helping anyone. If your average film-goer sees the movie and is turned off, that doesn't really help the future of musical theatre coming to movies. I'm not saying that that is going to happen here because it's clearly to early to make conclusions like that, but it's possible.

Is there unecessary glee over the bad reviews of Phantom? Maybe. But if you enjoy it, then more power to you. And if the movie goes on to win lots of awards and make tons of money, more power to it. But to blindly support it just because it's a musical... I can't agree with that.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 10:05pm

I don't mean to blindly support it because it's a musical. That's not what I said. And obviously if a few people on here said "That movie sucks, don't see it," would that really make an impact on the success of the movie? Not one bit. I'm just talking about in the long run and on the grander scheme of things. I didn't think PHANTOM was amazing. I thought it was beautiful with a handful of flaws. Will it win awards this winter? Probably not. Maybe I'm not articulating what I'm getting at clearly enough, and I'm sorry if I'm not, but in my head it makes perfect sense.

To wrap it up, I'm not saying: If you hated PHANTOM, tell people to see it and that you liked it anyway because it's a musical. I'm saying that even if you didn't like something, don't tell others not to waste their money, it's a pet peeve of mine. What really sparked my earlier response was someone saying they hadn't even seen the movie - only a behind the scenes thing on HBO - then they went on to say they agree with someone's review that it's bad. Come on - that's ridiculous.

And i'm not being a PHANTOM shill - trust me.

[Shawk]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 10:14pm

Well, I'm a big fan of letting other people make up their own minds, so I am not the sort to tell people not to see something unless it's something that I severely disliked (and note that I am not someone who is saying that people shouldn't see the movie). And to pan something without having seen it is ridiculous, but I suppose in the end, if someone chooses not to spend his or her money to see Phantom because of bad reviews, that's what they choose. It happens all the time with all sorts of movies, when people pick up the morning paper and see how many stars something got.

[Dawg]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 10:58pm

I think the movie was awful and it ruined a lot of my fond memories of the stage version of it. This thread is not at all about discouraging the movie musical. On the contrary, it is a healthy discussion (with the exception of bronxbound's little religion tirade) of the state of this particular movie musical. And I think, if anything, we should be supporting the form by saying to the filmmakers and the general public "This is not representative."

Many feel that the success of the movie musical=the success of Broadway. Whether or not that's true, this film is quite clearly not what someone should expect from a Broadway show. It is poorly cast, poorly directed, very poorly adapted and quite clearly poorly performed.

I am absolutely jealous of Lord Lloyd Webber's success, but thrilled that much of his work has remained in the general public's eye for an entire generation. I alos realize that I'm not in the same field as he is...it would be like Brian Stokes Mitchell being jealous of Ted Turner...one has very little to do with the other. So my comments about the film have nothing to do with any jealousy.

And yes, it is absolutely my right to dissuade people from seeing a film I feel is a horrible representation of a good work. In my opinion, which is as worth as much weight as anyone will give it, the film is a bust. a waste of time. and a waste of money. But that's what critics do, they try to either encourage or discourage you to see a film based on their opinion. Take it or leave it...it so happens that many of the respected reviewers also disliked the Phantom film, but if you still want to go see it after all that, it's your $10.50.

[maggiwun]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 11:20pm

A friend of mine recently saw the movie and RAVED about how much she loved it. She is not an actor or a musician, but she is an intelligent person and someone I respect. I will see it tomorrow to make up my own mind. I am glad that we are exposing people who might not otherwise go to the theater and perhaps pique their interest in doing so. Denigrating someone's opinion is insulting and pointless.

[secret-soul]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 11:30pm

I never thought i would say this but....I agree with Jose (gasp!)

Oh, and Munk, I think I love you.

All that aside,
The Phantom of the Opera is my first and all-time favorite Broadway show. Part of that is loyalty and most of that is my deep and unending love for is beauty which some people call spectacle, but I don't see it as pure spectacle if it also has a strong emotional effect on you (I come out of that show sobbing like a baby every time...part of that, though, is just thinking about how I'll never marry Hugh Panaro...but that's a totally off-topic story.)

The movie...the movie....oh, the movie...
yes, it had it flaws (as all movies do) but i chose to see it from a theatre-lover's perspective...or as a phantom-lover's perspective. I was able to pick out all the things that had been taken from the novel and added to the movie to make the musical complete. Having heard the full soundtrack beforehand, i was already prepared for the hitched notes and problematic musical phrases, I was prepared for Gerard Butler's vocal inequalities to someone like Hugh Panaro...and yet, I came out of the movie sobbing...part of that had to do with connecting the symbolism of the ring at the very very end to part of the novel...but none of it had to do with any lack on the movie's part to portray what I had gone there to see.

Sure, it had a touch of the 80s to it. Let's face it: it's not a movie of the year by today's standards, but it would have won the Oscar in 1988. Sure, when I come home to New York from my winter break here in FL I'm going to drop 60 bucks on the show at TKTS for the 4th time in 7 months, but I'm also going to see this movie as much as I can to trully feel the full effect of it.

I would recommend the movie to anyone, but feel that the people who will appreciate it are the unbiased and open-minded phantom lovers and the theatre-lovers: this is a theatre-lover's film...with all the backstage and rehearsal sequences, what true open-minded theatre-lover wouldn't come to appreciate it for what it is. Even if you don't like ALW's "ostentatious" notes, then plug your ears and realize how visually stunning a movie made from the theatre can be.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/29/04 at 12:13am

I love you too - but you know that already.

Posted: 12/29/04 at 6:15am

"Anthony Lane in THE NEW YORKER this week has quite a juicy take on the film, where among other things, he describes this "bellowing beast of a movie (which) looks and sounds like the extended special-edition remix of a Duran Duran video"

See i think that's why I enjoyed it so much. *blush*

It's not Sondheim--it's not brilliant but it's craptastically fun!

E

[InTheMoney]

Posted: 12/29/04 at 10:26am

There is one big, BIG reason why I'm not going to see this movie - quite apart from the lack of attention to detail and the fact, though the 2 leads have an ok voice & a pretty voice respectively no way are those voices up to the standards the characters demand.

They forgot one of the most fundamental things about the female lead - she's a singer!!!!!

Ok, yes I know miming is standard. I have no problem with the actual miming. I have a MAJOR problem with how obvious it is from a physical pov. Can anyone say that they don't get a thrill from seeing the physical effort a performer puts into the climax of a song - into the volume, or the notes? Quite apart from the fact that losing that physicality makes the song seem about as emotional as Spock, certainly in at least 2 songs, Christine is ONSTAGE. Yup - PERFORMING. And singers change their posture & breathing to aid performance. Ms Rossum does not.

SHE IS PLAYING A SINGER BUT NEVER ONCE ADOPTS THE PHYSICAL POSTURE OR CONDITION OF A SINGER.

You'd have thought it was a pretty fundamental part of the acting.

I mean, heavens sakes! Madonna managed it. A bunch of unknowns in the 1970s managed it. Catherine Zeta Jones managed it. Hell, even Audrey Hepburn and Natalie Wood pulled 'singing' roles off & neither of them sang a note of their films! They ALL made the singing look completely realistic and natural, purely through ACTING as though they were singing. Emmy Rossum just looks like a goldfish.

And yes, I am basing my view on a half-hour "Making Of" programme. But if that's meant to showcase some of the "highlights" (The Phantom & Raoul auditioning for "Mask Of Zorro II" apparently being one of those highlights) I sure don't want to see what they would consider the low points of the movie!

(Though can I just say? They fork out for the biggest, most opulent chandelier ever then smash it up? What, they couldn't have used glass beads and prettied them up via computer?)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/29/04 at 10:43am

I was five or six when The Sound of Music film came out. Saw it many times at the theater. Loved it. But when I grew up and developed my critical faculties through years of exposure to art both good and bad, I stumbled over a copy of Kael's Sound of Music review. I agreed with her assessment totally. And still do.