ALW refuses to let Emmy see the stage POTO!

[MlleDaae]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 2:08am

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

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

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 2:24am

Why do Phantom Phreaks have sooo many idiotic issues??


"so Emmy won't relize the dramatic changes in the plot"

What, this girl holds such power that if she doesn't lie the script she can force Webber to alter it????


It is a film ADAPTION. If you want a reproduction of the stage version, sneak a video camera into the Majestic and get over it.

[lass]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 8:17am

Phantom Phans spell phunny too.

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

Posted: 7/30/03 at 9:06am

ALW is absolutley correct in this...

Is this girl going into the show or the film...?

The film...two very different mediums...(something some Broadway fans still don't get i.e. the hullabloo when "Chicago" first came out..a film is not a show a show is not a film...should be simple to understand, right...)

Yes, its wonderful to have some historical knowledge of a show but in this case they may want the girl to have her own vision for the role...without it being influenced by something else or someone else..

A Zeta-Jones could watch Chita or Bebe or whatever, on tape, or live, and use it... or not ...and not be overly influenced..if influenced at all...

She a woman in her late thirties whose been in showbiz since she was 12....

..but a 16 year old...without much past, probably can not...

[OzGirl]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 9:10am

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 9:43am

She can see the show as often as she wants. As long as she is working with the colossally untalented Joel Schumacher it will not matter what she does, as the film will be a catastrophe.

[MlleDaae]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 3:30pm

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

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 3:39pm

My gripe is that people are FREAKING about the changes being made and it seems that many of the phans are forgetting that film is a TOTALLY different medium than live theatre and what works in theatre may not work on film and that all of the changes being are being done, and approved by Webber, to make it tell better in a cinematic format.

[lass]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:08pm

TSMrW is Raoul.

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

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:31pm

exactly.

however good or bad this film turns out to be, I will spend my $8 to see Patrick. After all, $8 is more reasonable than paying $100 to see a wonderful actor in a crap show on Broadway, right?

[Phantess]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:41pm

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.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:45pm

Webber and designer Maria Bjornson, if you have read The Complete Phantom of The Opera, which I own, say that if they even make a slight attemp to mimic what is done in the stage version, a film version would fail because the stage version is so theatrical in design, writing, and presentation.

these changes are not last minute things. webber has been thinking about these things since the show first opened. Updated On: 7/30/03 at 04:45 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:47pm

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]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:48pm

No, it is not that movie tricks are better, it is just that they don't work in the same way in the differemnt medium.

[ChristineDaae]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:49pm

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

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:53pm

That's my point, stage tricks would look awful on film because movie special effects create a completely different effect than stage effects. No one's going to give a squirt about candles coming up through the floor in the movies, it's a first-grade special effect. That's not to say it can't be directed into an effective moment but, let's face it, the 'gosh and wow' elements of the 'Phantom' stage show were a major selling point. In film they won't have that. They need powerful visuals and a strong script, not effects and imagery to try and pass off.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:53pm

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.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 4:57pm

Changes in material from Broadway to screen aren't necessarily a bad thing. Major changes were made in bringing West Side Story to the screen, and it worked beautifully. Major changes were made in bringing Chicago to the screen, and it was a disaster, not so much because of the changes but because they were done by a pack of incompetent idiots lead by the unspeakable Rob Marshall.

The fact that Phantom is being directed by the equally unspeakable Joel Schumacher should signal that Phantom will suck even more than Chicago did.

Posted: 7/30/03 at 5:01pm

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

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 5:28pm

You 'Chicago' 'arguments' have no merit. The movie was an enormous success and a lot of people were fine with the changes. Simply bashing it, instead of accepting the reaction to the piece, both commercially and critically, is a flaccid attempt at commentary.

Don't confuse your opinion with the truth.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 5:33pm

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

[Phantom05]

Posted: 7/30/03 at 6:55pm

I agree, even though I love the musical, I will gladly welcome any changes to movie. I just decided to keep an open mind throughout the process of filming this movie, and HOPE FOR THE BEST. And hey, this is coming from one of POTO's BIGGEST fans!!! Keep an open mind, it might suprise you! I was weary of the changes that I heard were being mad and I still LOVED "Chicago".

See Ya!!!

Michael (Phantom05)

[MlleDaae]

Posted: 7/31/03 at 12:34am

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

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/31/03 at 9:45am

Interesting that you respond to my bashing of Chicago, and not to what I was saying about how changes to a musical in the transition from stage to screen are not necessarily a bad thing.

FYI, I would never mistake my opinions for the truth. That would be as downright stupid as suggesting that a film's financial success and Oscar tally are in any way indicative of the quality of the picture.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/31/03 at 9:54am

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.