Michael Crawford compared to other Phantoms

[Born2cthelightsofbway]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 6:30pm

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has seen Michael Crawford in Phantom, and if so, how does he compare to other Phantoms? IMO, I think that the Part of the Phantom is a role that any good actor would have won the tony for, I don't mean to say Crawford didn't deserve it, what I mean is that it is such an amazing role, that if you are really good, you can make it work, so if Hugh Panaro had been the original, he probably would have one. I never saw Crawford, because I was being born at the time the show came out, but I would love to know how he is compared to others. Thanks so much!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 6:50pm

I haven't seen Michael Crawford on Broadway, but I don't like his voice. I think Hugh Panaro is a much stronger Phantom, and I wish that he had won a Tony for it, had he been the original Phantom.

[Jon]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:00pm

At times, Crawford sounds like a duck being strangled.

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:09pm

Michael should have never been cast. Michael has this almost winey voice. Hugh has depth and vibrancy that is so essential in making this scary man so mesmorizing. Sarah Brightman for some reason I never liked her, I always thought her voice was sounded funny. But I like her a hell alot better than Emmy Rossum, who sucked so bad I like to watch the movie on mute whe she sings.

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:09 PM

[Jon]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:14pm

Just so you know, there is no such word as "miscasted" or "casted". The past tense of "cast" is "casr"

"Have they cast the play yet?"
"Yes, they cast it yesterday. I was not cast in it."

[Jon]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:14pm

Just so you know, there is no such word as "miscasted" or "casted". The past tense of "cast" is "cast".

"Have they cast the play yet?"
"Yes, they cast it yesterday. I was not cast in it."
Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:14 PM

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:24pm

don't care, not the point of the post.

They shouldn't have been cast.

And that's funny because So many people say that. But thanks for the info.

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:24 PM

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:28pm

If you don't care why did you update your post? Good grammar isn't the subject of the post but it certainly is the point of the post. I feel grammar is very important and if you don't have excellent grammar then the point of the post is lost.

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:31pm

I updated to say thank you. You say thank you to people who give you information.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:36pm

Then I expect a thank you. "Good grammar isn't the subject of the post but it certainly is the point of the post." counts as information. You can either PM your thank you to me or do it right here darling.

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:40pm

Then thank you.

Then again you don't have to be so snooty about it. I made one mistake and I was corrected. Thats enough grammar drama for me. Maybe we should all be talking about Michael Crawford, don't you think?

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:40 PM

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:42pm

The word than should be then. Same situation involving the PM or the post in the thread.

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:42 PM

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:43pm

See that's why you need to get over it. I would have said thank you again if you you weren't being so rude about it.

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:43 PM

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:44pm

Thats should be That's so feel free to once again PM or post your thanks.

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:46pm

It IS that's. Please leave me alone. You're being very rude and I will not ever say thank you to you.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:49pm

It was thats then you made it that's but nice try.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:50pm

I saw Michael Crawford twice in the role of Phantom in the LA cast with Dale Kristen in the role of Christine. He was incredible! He played the role with such vulnerablity that was unlike I have seen others do. I remember when he performed Music of the Night, it was like no one was breathing. It felt as if everyone held their breathe out of awe. During the end, he singing seem reflect that of a broken soul. He was the best I have ever seen.

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:52pm

No! I edited it to say "I would have said thank you again if you you weren't being so rude about it."

Now you're just being catty. Try being nice for a change!

Edit:// I sent you a pm.

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 08:52 PM

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:55pm

okay, back on topic!
i think hugh was better than michael, but i actually liked emmy better as christine, i thougnt she brought a more youthful approach to her-shes not supposed to be a good singer, christine is really a singer in training, needing the phantom to help her more...just my opinion

[BroadwayBettini2]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:02pm

Really? You thought Emmy was better? I thought her her singing was weak. I didn't hear a true High Soprano. I'm sure she's a much better Mezzo or Alto.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:10pm

yeah, prob
i dunno, there was just something i liked better about emmy-but i never saw sarah brightman in the role so i wouldnt know whos better, but ive heard her
emmy is weak vocally, but shes hot physically (in my opinion) so no more questions asked :)

[Born2cthelightsofbway]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:15pm

How was he compared to Howard McGillin?

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:18pm

I didn't see Michael as the Phantom, but I don't like his voice on the cast recording of phantom. There's something about his voice on it that irritates me, and I can't put my finger on it.

[John4763]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:39pm

I saw Crawford in poto in 1988, and then Panaro in 2003.

Kind of hard to compare the two, since POTO in 1988 was THE big event of the decade and just being there at the Majestic was extremely exciting.

Crawford's voice was great for the role - it had a weird tinny sound to it that really carried and was always unmistakable. But he did seem too old on stage - and the fact that he was competing with Steve Barton (who was a terrific hero) for The Girl made it a little ridiculous to believe that Christine could for even one second think that maybe she loved the Phantom. (It wasn't Sara Brightman when I saw it - I don't remember who it was.)

Panaro was more believable as a "love interest". And the guy who was playing Raoul in 2003 was kind of fussy and priggish, which made the Phantom a lot more likable by comparison than he was in 1988.

[Born2cthelightsofbway]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:39pm

I think he has a nice voice, and was certainly good on the cast recording, but compared to other's he is not my favorite.