Do you think the Phantom film should have been made earlier? — Page 2

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I don't know if it should have been made earlier, but if I had cast it and picked the creative team in 2004, it would've looked something like this:

Director - Baz Luhrmann(just imagine that "Masquerade"...)
Choreographer - Rob Marshall

Phantom - Hugh Jackman
Christine - Anne Hathaway
Raoul - Ewan McGregor
Carlotta - Kristin Chenoweth
M. Firmin - Nathan Lane
M. André - Matthew Broderick
Mme. Giry - Glenn Close
Meg Giry - Katie Holmes
Ubaldo Piangi - Frederic Heringes
M. Reyer - Jonathan Pryce
Joseph Buquet - Jim Broadbent
Don Attilio / Passarino - Shuler Hensley"

Luhrmann as director is an inspired choice, and the Lane + Broderick pairing would have been killer. It's not an opinion I expect anyone else to share, but I think either Ang Lee (based on Sense and Sensibility, the lushness of Life of Pi, and the thrill and beauty of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) OR Tim Burton would have done a terrific job. Phantom is so difficult because there's no little movement: it all takes place either in the opera house or the caverns beneath it. I think those directors would emphasize the extravagance and quieter moments while bringing some oomph to the few thrills the show offers. Burton at least would've made the Phantom's lair appropriately haunting and otherworldly (and just think about the crazed design he'd imagine for the Phantom himself).

Princeton2 wrote: I really disagree with the comment that Evita is awful, to me it's the best ALW movie adaptation and one of the best movie musicals of the last 30+ years. I'm no Madonna fan but I thought she nailed the role.

I totally agree...and I've never been a Madonna fan. I remember going to The Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles for the premiere. The Blu-ray is pretty great to watch and crank up the volume, too.

I think there's no time period Phantom could be made where it wouldn't come off hokey.

It's SUCH a melodrama that can be forgiven onstage if you've got great performances, but on film it all comes off campy cause it takes itself so damn seriously.

My opinion of the movie they made was-yep, that's the show. Schlocky melodrama. I didn't feel like any spirit of the show was missing or anything.

Elfuhbuh said: "I feel like the movie’s biggest flaw was that they got the Phantom’s character all wrong, from his appearance, to his age, to the very way they presented the divide between his “Opera Ghost” persona and the deeper, more human moments around Christine. They just didn’t make it work at all, and I think that could’ve been a problem no matter when the movie was made. Hopefully they’ll try a remake someday."

ALW's admitted having had requests from others suggesting a remake but says he's resisting. I think he doesn't want to finance it through Really Useful Films because of the 2004 mess.

Schumacher was originally attached to the project, so I'm actually glad he didn't make it when he planned to - otherwise he'd have no doubt made Crawford and Brightman's performances terrible.

Even casting aside, the look and feel of his film is all too wrong. Warm and garish colours, a weird timeline, a fictional opera house...no.

scripps said: "This film led to some really steamy Patrick Wilson/Gerard Butler fanfic on LiveJournal so I vote no."

I'd love to read this fanfic

I think James Marsters would've been a great Phantom.

Frumious Bandersnatch said: "My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney."

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not...maybe there's something I'm missing, and I appreciate many a Carrey role because I think he's better than most people think (dare I say his Scrooge is actually my favorite and super under appreciated...), but for this? Not that's it's happening of course but I can't picture it.

Back to the topic. I haven't watched this in quite some time, and I still have no wish to even thought I own it. Every time I watched it back when, it just got worse and worse. This could have been a masterpiece in every way, but it's mostly the casting and cinematography where it fails on a pretty abysmal scale. See Lindsay Ellis's video on the cinematography aspect. Design wise, it's pretty great. It LOOKS like the movie adaptation I always had in my head but that's where it ends. I consider Les Mis a better adaptation on film, and that's something I never thought I'd say.

And I was never mad about the older Raoul intercuts. Even the musical gives the impression the story is being told from his POV, even if the prologue is only 5 minutes. Of course the logic that Madame G is somehow still alive but Christine is dead kinda falls apart. Good in theory but not so much when you think about the logic.

And sidetone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't hate the Evita film. It's no masterpiece but I find it quite stomachable. The beginning is kinda brilliant actually, and I always thought Madonna while not an 'actress', always gave me the impression of 'gold digging/power hungry trophy wife' which is basically the point. My interpretation anyway.

JennH said: "Frumious Bandersnatch said: "My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney."

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not...maybe there's something I'm missing, and I appreciate many a Carrey role because I think he's better than most people think (dare I say his Scrooge is actually my favorite and super under appreciated...), but for this? Not that's it's happening of course but I can't picture it.

Back to the topic. I haven't watched this in quite some time, and I still have no wish toeven thought I own it. Every time I watched it back when, it just got worse and worse. This could have been a masterpiece in every way, but it's mostly the casting and cinematography where it failson a pretty abysmal scale. See Lindsay Ellis's video on the cinematography aspect. Design wise, it's pretty great. It LOOKS like the movie adaptation I always had in my head but that's where it ends. I consider Les Mis a better adaptation on film, and that's something I never thought I'd say.

And I was never mad about the older Raoul intercuts. Even themusical gives the impression the story is being told from his POV, even if the prologue is only 5 minutes. Of course the logic that Madame G is somehow still alive but Christine is dead kinda falls apart. Good in theory but not so much whenyou think about the logic.

And sidetone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't hate the Evita film. It's no masterpiece but I find it quite stomachable. The beginning is kinda brilliant actually, and I always thought Madonna while not an 'actress',always gave me theimpression of 'gold digging/power hungry trophy wife' which is basically the point. My interpretation anyway."

I read at the time that it’s supposed to be Meg not Madame Giry in the ‘old Raul’ sections. Which leads to even more head scratching. If it’s true that was the intention is it because she is a better actor than Jennifer Ellison, that ageing her up looked silly etc etc head-scratch

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.