ALW refuses to let Emmy see the stage POTO!

Ok... I can understand to a degree. Don't want to copy someone or anything?

---

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 02:08 AM

Phantom Phans spell phunny too.

MlleDaae, calm down until you see the phreakin' philm! I, phor one, have good pheelings about it.

Don't worry about it too much. She has already seen it a couple of times.

Broadwayguy2 you're right about the bootleg thing. I know it. I've actually said that say thing before. Sorry for trying to act like I care about something I use to love so much.

---

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 03:30 PM

TSMrW is Raoul.

That's enough reason for me to see a movie.

I have to agree with Broadwayguy2 on this one. Yea we do freak out for no reason usually.

I'm actually glad that she isn't going to try to mimick a stage version. That would be bad, and hell if you wanted to see that then go to the theater and see it. A movie with a little different changes might be ...a breath of fresh air.

In other words, stage tricks aren't as impressive as movie tricks.

Unfortunately, in both genres, the people with the most expensive toys tend to be seen as the best.

They need to care less about the tech and more about the script.

Broadwayguy2- If you have a problem with Phantom of the Opera and the fans why bother posting?

---

No, I love Phantom of the Opera. I want this film to be great. I REALLy do. I just don't understand why the die hrad Phans of the show must freak out about every alteration/change that is made. It seems like every person has forgotten that what works on a stage might not work in a film and that changes HAVE to be made to a show to make it suitable for film.
People trashed everything about Chicago from casting to director choice to alterations to the script and everything in between until the film opened..... and the film turned out great. The peoint is, if they had tried to do the stage version of Chicago on film, it would have failed miserably. It is the same way for Phantom.

You are correct BroadwayGuy2 - just look at A Chorus Line.

Exactly. Not matter what YOU thought of the film, it was a huge success with audiences AND critics -- Academy Awards anyone??

I know that we're in for a treat in the movie when it comes to crystal!!!

**********************

"The Phantom Press has uncovered the company who will be responsible for providing the crytal objects in the upcoming movie The Phantom of the Opera. They will also, supposedly, be creating and managing the famous chandelier which The Phantom (Gerard Butler) will be smashing! This company is one of the most famous crytal companies in the world and called: Swarovski Crystal owned by the billionaire Nadja Swarovski. The Phantom of the Opera movie is expected to feature up to 100 Swarovski creations."

**********************

---

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 12:34 AM

Here's the point: Not 'liking' an adaptation as not an analysis of the actual work, it's your opinion of the work. I may not 'like' 'A Chorus Line' but I understand its place in history and understand what it contributed to the canon of theater and what it meant at the time. In discussing a successful piece of theater, to say 'A Chorus Line is a waste and a failure because a hack like Michael Bennett directed it' would be stupid and basically nullify anything else I might have to say because anyone with even a basic knowledge of theater would know what successes 'A Chorus Line' had. So in trying to discuss the adaptation process saying one doesn't 'like' 'Chicago' is one thing, dismissing it as an obvious failure simply makes the rest of your points seem irrelevant because you're ignoring the successes of the work in favor of venting your opinions of the work. It's the difference between criticism and review. 'Chicago' is an example of an adaptation that, for all intents and purposes, succeeded, on a basic artistic level, in that, most people who enjoyed 'Chicago' the musical felt the adaptation successfully translated the work from stage to screen. The creators support the work, the critics support the work, audiences, as a whole, support the work. Simply dismissing it, based on nothing more than some snarky comments about those invovled, says nothing. When discussing creative *theory* your opinion of a specific work should be tempered with the reality of the work's place in the creative world. Disallowing that makes your opinion seem uneducated and uninformed.