Phantom Movie Gross

I think the film has technically made back its investment in world wide distribution (to calculate total budget/advertising costs, typical Hollywood figure is twice the budget).

That said, I think the film has to be considered a huge financial disappointment. The play has grossed billions of dollars worldwide and the film barely squeezed out 140 million globally, less then the film of CHICAGO made in the United States!

Box --

Who's head would have rolled? Andrew Lloyd Webber's production company financed the film completely. Warner Brothers was only in charge of U.S. Distribution. Seeing as how Webber picked the director, and had a hand in picking the cast, I don't see how anyone's head could roll except for his own...

I wouldn't say a major flop. I think it did great for a sung through-musical with little to no advertising. Chicago had major star power and was more "accessible" to movie audiences. For the type of musical Phantom is, I thought the movie did great. Successful stage shows don't necessarily make successful movies, and vice-versa.....

True, true... I myself had hoped it would be a great success too, and while there were some things that I didn't care for about the film- I'm pleased with it's modest success and hopefuly it'll help pave the way for more movie musicals....

"The RUG has already shaken up it's in-house film division because of it, look for "Sunset Blvd." to be MUCH more faithful to the stage production."

one of the biggest complaints i read in reviews of phantom was that it was too much like the stage show. which is true. other then the sets, costumes etc. the movie is almsot exactly the same.

It was extremely faithful to the stage version. To me it's just a dull show. I used to work at the theatre when it first opened on Broadway, and only cared for a few scenes in that show.

---

Well some of what Schumacher was going for -- the horse, etc. are from the original book. I don't begrudge him that, but my complaint is that the film was not stylized or exciting enough visually. It was almost too faithful -- everything that makes the play exciting -- the labrynth, the masquerade, etc. seemed very flat and unimaginative on film.

The opening sequence was brilliant though.

Updated On: 3/23/05 at 01:31 PM

Exactly. Why select cities and why for that amount of time? I've heard of limited releases before but limited release for an entire month? What is THAT about? Plus, when it was in full release, I checked Yahoo movies out, which shows you the amount of theatres it's in, and it said something like 1660 theatres... I think a normal full release is in something like 3200 theatres.

I think they should record a show from the present broadway cast and put in on DVD and see how well it does.

<< Why did it open in select cities first and then roll out? >>

I'm guessing that they hoped word of mouth would build and that by the time it opened wide, people would be champing at the bit to see it. If so, it didn't work out as planned.

I have no idea about the select cities and the specific amount of time involved.

Some critics thought it was too close to the stage production and some thought there were too many changes. Some thought it should have been more like the Lon Chaney movie (I think that opinion is pretty clueless).

Some critics didn't like the stage musical and likewise disliked the film. Some hate anything ALW ever wrote.

I think that the film would have come in for criticism no matter what they did, but I agree with the other posters on this thread who said the film they did make seemed kind of flat. Also, it would have pleased me more if they had cast a Phantom who sang better than Gerard Butler. Angel of Music? Huh.

Also, they thought the title -- the Phantom "brand" -- would be enough, without stars. There's no getting around the fact that the absence of a single name hurt it.

And it didn't exactly aim high. Schumacher may have lifted sword fights and such from the novel, did little to enhance the original story, and filled few of the plot and character holes (like the fact that Raol, on film, comes off as the wimp of death. Not worthy of our investment in him.) The film had an odd sort of lack of rooting-for appeal. It left you neither stirred nor shaken. I agree, only the opening came close to realizing the possibilities.

---

We also need to keep in mind the future DVD release as well. They might make a few bucks there.

I think the big mistake was rolling out after opening in big cities. The critics killed the chances of big box office numbers. Had the movie opened in a wide release, I feel the numbers domestically would have been better.

Haha did anyone else hear this read in a valley girl voice "Phantom Movie! GROSS! Ew!" wow...I'm really tired.

---