Was America ready for the Phantom movie?- Page 2

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:20am

"that astonishing, classically trained instrument of hers, is the film's emotional center, without which the campy elements that were so much fun onstage might have come off as hokey or ridiculous on-screen--like a really long karaoke video with a lavish budget."

Hmm. Seems some people, (the film reviewer in MY area, for one) feel this happened anyway.

And to go back to the thread topic for a moment... Was America ready for Phantom? I don't know if it was ever really accepted here as a STAGE show. Sure, it has fans and has been running on Broadway forever, but for every Phantom Phan I've met an equally passionate Phantom loather. This film really didn't do anything to change people's minds... but I don't think I ever expected it to.

It's not quite as across-the-boards appealing as "Chicago"... the narrative is different, the setting is WAAY different... "Phantom" and it's purely theater score isn't going to appeal to certain demographics the same way that lyrics like "He had it comin'" and "You put in for mama, she'll put out for you" do. It bugs me when people in the 'pop culture' world lump movie musicals together- even when it's like comparing apples and oranges. There are sub-divisions for straight movies, but the musicals become one big category in most people's minds. "Oh. It's a musical." "Comedy?? Drama??" "It's... a musical."

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:26am

Yes. And another thing is that Phantom is 98% sung through. Chicago had diaglogue and stuff to give you a breather from the songs. Phantom gives us song after song unaplogetically. Like you said, musicals are such a diverse art. Unlike certain movie genres (action, romance, horror, etc.) that follow a specific formula, musicals can go in all kind of different directions.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:34am

The 'gosh and wow' that fueled much of the interest in the stage show (ooohhhh, they drop a chandelier on the audience and the Phantom throws fireballs) is nothing on film where audiences have seen far more dramatic effects in movies a million times over. In many ways the movie stripped it right down to the material and revealed it for the campy schlock show the show really is.

For the record I liked the movie as an awesomely bad camp romp. I think Schumacher's only fault was that he wasn't able to elevate the material on film the way Prince was on stage.

[misterchoi]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:49am

Priest! That is exactly what I was telling my good friend yesterday!

[Sally]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:23am

I think that the film makers had an almost impossible task. If they didn't keep the film very close to the stage musical, they would have incurred the wrath of the people who love POTO, and there are many. By keeping the film close to the stage show, they get criticism from film critics who think that they should have changed it more, made it more cinematic (eliminated its sung through nature? Eliminated or added a substantial number of songs? or ?.

They tried to make it more appealing to a more "pop," less theater-oriented audience by hiring as the leads young, very pretty people, at least one of whom does not sing very well. According to some, one or both also are not very good actors. Opinions differ about their acting. Theater-oriented people and those with high expectations of the voices, don't like the leads,

They throw the money saved by hiring relative unknowns at lavish costumes and settings and are criticized for being over the top. If they hadn't had beautiful sets and costumes, they would have been criticized for being to minimal, sticking too closely to the black box of the stage production and not being cinematic enough.

Add into the mix the director, Schumacher, whom many seem to hate automatically and ALW's music, which others hate automatically,and you have another fairly large sub set of the prepared-to-be dissatisfied critics, amateur and professional.

Another subset would have been unhappy with any leads other than the orignal stars.

Those who hate ALW's music might have been satisfied if by some miracle Sondheim had been hired to re-do the music. Everybody else would have been horrified.

Oy! The film makers must be hoping that movie fans with no agenda will like the film.

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 12:49pm

ARE there any people seeing the Phantom movie who have no agenda?? Seriously?

[Plum]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 2:00pm

Look, other genre films based on source material with fanatic fans and detractors have managed to become hits, please most people, and be pretty good according to the critics, too. Chicago did it. And if you think Phantom Phans are scary, you've never seen comic book geeks, and most of them are quite satisfied with the X-Men and Spider-Man movies. Schumacher's task wasn't impossible; he just failed at it.

[Sally]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:44pm

<< ARE there any people seeing the Phantom movie who have no agenda?? Seriously? >>

Although finding people with no agenda who post on message boards can be pretty difficult, I think that there have to be a lot of other people who like to go to films who don't have an agenda. Seriously.

--and Plum,

<< if you think Phantom Phans are scary, you've never seen comic book geeks, and most of them are quite satisfied with the X-Men and Spider-Man movies. Schumacher's task wasn't impossible; he just failed at it.>>

Pleasing the Phans was just one of the elements in the mix, important but not the only thing.

Howsomever---you might well be right about Schumacher---he just failed at it. I'm not a Schumacher defender (I suppose there are some).

But out of curiosity, what do *you* think he might have done differently or better? I've read such contradictory reviews ("too much like the stage show"; "too many changes from the stage show"

"great visuals,costumes,etc.";"over-the-top visuals,costumes distract from the characters/story;"

"opened the show up too much"; "didn't open the show up enough"; etc. etc.


What's your take on how Schumacher screwed it up?

[Plum]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:58pm

I think the over-the-top visuals were actually appropriate, and gorgeous. The problem with asking me that question is that I failed to like the stage show. So maybe I'm not very well-qualified to say how its appeal was lost in the transition to film.