I think I like the musical, the 2004 version, better than this one. I mean, I love bloody/gorry/just plain disgusting movies, but Andrew Llyod Webber's version of Erik had a better charecter. He was not a creature of horror and fear, but a tragic lover. I think that its important to have a main male charecter be more than one of those 'look out, I'm gonna kill you!' guys.
I'd rather be underground right now.
Then I take it you are not a fan of the source material?
JACK: Never let go, Rose
(she sneezes and drops him.)
ROSE: (after a pause) Oops.
The original book Erik was a much more tragic and less creepy figure than Andrew Lloyd Weber's. I find his to be somewhat... lecherous. Ew. The book Erik made me cry. I still love the ALW version, but not as much.
I am only pointing this out for comparison's sake, not to say the book is better. Each version of the story is its own entity and I don't feel comfortable comparing them with one another.
Well as this movie is based on the original book and not the musical then of course the Erik's are going to be different, not that that's a bad thing.
Yet...well I prefer this movie as I can see alot of faults with the 2004 movie, but I wont say them because i'm nice. :D
"With a pickle?!"
This movie didn't do a great job of being based on the book. I believe it was in the book that Christine said that Raoul and Erik made up equal halves of her heart... in this, she's terrified of Erik, and wants to destroy him. Hmm...
The Outsiders: Being Undeniably Cool Since 1969
I like the original novel, this film and the musical. The 2004, IMO was not even a decent adaptation of the musical. We get it, the novel is different from this movie and quite a few other movies based on the story. Who would enjoy seeing new Phantom movies or books if they were all completely faithful to the book? Why hold difference from the novel against a film when the novel has been adpated so many times? I embrace new Phantom concepts because the original story offers so much to work with and play off of that variations are still so intriguing.
We could get into acting, we could get into vocal performances, we could get into set design, we could get into the seemingly endless number of close-ups, we could get into acoustic guitars being added to songs that were once good and lines that actually sounded good sung getting turned into poorly acted spoken lines performed with a campiness that doesn't allow an audience to appreciate anything in the film seriously or we could just talk about the chosen differences with regard to the portrayal of The Phantom. This, I think is the worst adaptation of the musical. An element I enjoy so much in the show is that when performed well, the audience feels bad for The Phantom in the end. The Phantom in the 2004 film mostly acts like an angry teenager, threatening close-ups if he doesn't get his way. Was anyone else appalled by the edition of a swordfight in which Raul spares The Phantom? Does this not seem like a significant step away from the original musical where Raul wouldn't have even gotten a chance because of fire balls being hurled in his direction? I'm done. I can't say anything for those that haven't seen the stage show. If the 2004 was your only chance to see it thus far, enjoy what you can of it. I think Joel Schumacher has shown himself to be an awful director, incapable of respecting the original works his films are based on throughout his career.
I don't think the two versions are really worth being compared much. That's probably why this movie did so poorly when it came out. While I prefer a Phantom story more like the musical's, I think the film adaptation of it fails to offer whats so enjoyable about it and actually is one of teh worst Phantom movies I can think of.
Raoul could hardly have gotten fireballs thrown at him, as that wouldn't show up good on the screen, as far as lighting goes.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is the best adaptation?
Joanna likes it when people talk in the third person.
Tell you the truth, I don't look at it that way. I have yet to see a movie I thought really captured the novel. I actually get excited about any adaptation just to see something new with the story or another look at it.
shareThis movie IS NOT based on the original book. In the book, Erik does not sell his soul to the devil (he is also not deformed due to a fire or having acid thrown in his face as other films would show). In the book Christine does not travel back and forth through time, she is also NOT an American singing with the Paris (or London as in this case) opera company.It is true that in the book, Erik does try to make Christine choose to stay with him or Raoul and the Persian die, but he he doesnt do it. He lets them live and lets Christine go. This shows he has compassion, he is not a heartless killer as Robert England protrays him.
I would love to see a movie based on Susan Kay's book "Phantom". It delves deeper into the inner workings of Erik's mind.
Have you accepted Alan Rickman as your personal Saviour?
[deleted]
I agree. That was a better version. However, I am a sucker for tradition. I'd like to see a traditional remake/non-musical that stays as close to the original story as possible.
shareI'd love to see a movie that was Leroux word-for-word. Although I must admit, the 1925 version was quite close. And the cartoon was quite faithful as well.
And I also agree - a Susan Kay adaptation would be awesome! I'd cry tears of joy.
A grasshopper does not only turn, it hops! It hops! And it hops jolly high!
[deleted]
I like the 2004 musical adaptation okay, but I actually prefer this movie. Mostly because when it comes to POTO movies, I prefer movies based on the book and not the musical. I enjoy the musical production greatly - when it's the actual stage production or recordings. I wasn't overly pleased with how Schumacher (or however it's spelled, I don't really care) translated the musical from the stage to the screen.
See No Evil - it's like King Kong meets Friday the 13th.
July 27 - Skinwalkers, finally.
I haven't even seen the 2004 version. This 1989 version was probably one of the first one's i had ever seen, and i did'nt read the book before(i figure i should soon). But, I love this(1989) one, simply because of the total horror aspect, and i agree with what was said eariler about it being gory, but still remaining to be classy. This movie rules. I love Robert Englund, and i wish they had done the sequel. (Robert is still pretty youthful, so come on guys, just make the sequel!!!)
Cheers.
Duo Prime.
Hmm which version is better...? To be honest I don't think it's really fair to compare these 2 different versions. Their target audiences were both vastly different and they both are nothing like the book. However their both still very good movies in their own way.
If you're in the mood for sweet lovey-dovey Erik, then watch the 2004 version.
If you're in the mood for creepy stalker-killer Erik, then watch the 1989 version.
So basically it IS like oranges and...satsumas(?)
And that sequal...I read an interview with Robert Englund and he gave a synopsis of what the sequal might've been...
"Well, the sequel took place in the buried train graveyards beneath the “Belle Époque” superstructure of the original subways that the sand hogs built many, many layers below the current subways of New York. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the urban legend of the “mole people”… You’ll see it occasionally on LAW AND ORDER or a NEW YORK CSI, but there are people that live beneath the warming grates and the subway vents of New York. There’s entire little societies down there. And in the sequel, they have me, the Phantom, having come from Europe and living down there, and composing down there in an old robber baron’s train car. And he’s served by all these homeless kids. Think “Fagin” in OLIVER TWIST. So, my children will go up and work this surface, and I would stay below, and occasionally foray into the Metropolitan Opera in Manhattan. And once, while I’m going up, I hear a voice in the subway. Where the street performer’s play on the subway platform, I hear this voice. And, here’s the hitch, it’s a blind girl. The new Christine is blind. She’s Italian. Her name is Christina. Her father, think Gepetto in PINOCHHIO, even though it’s contemporary, we make him a new Italian immigrant to Am erica, perhaps Siciliano, and he accompanies her on violin, which is echoes of Claude Rains. Her voice is the perfect instrument for the opera I’m working on. Plus she’s blind, she doesn’t know what I look like. She just hears my soothing voice. So I school her and coach her. Well, she still has to play on the subways to make ends meet. Her father is killed by skinheads. I avenge her father… There you go. There you get your splatter quotient there… And then, at a decadent opera party that uses the subway trains for an opening night gala, they pull her station and they hear her singing. They discover her. She’s brought into the professional world of opera, and so my opera will never be made. Also, concurrently, they discover a physician who can correct her sight with laser surgery, so now she can see again. So now the third act is, Will the Phantom kill her? Will he kill the surgeon who restored her sight? Will he thwart her debut at the New York City Opera? Or, as it turns out, you see me sitting there in my box seat, with my face sewn together, and I listen to her perform, and that’s enough for me. And the last image is me walking down 5th Avenue in the snow with my footprints trailing. And I lift a manhole cover and go back underneath."
This is verbatum. Anywho just thought I'd add my piece. Go to www.upcominghorrormovies.com/shock/c13.php if youwant to read the rest of the interview.
Erik aka The Phantom is meant to be completely distorted. Once Christine rips his mask off (in the book) he loses all sense of musical superiority and confidence and becomes a pitiful, pathetic creature who begs christine for mercy and love. That goes to show that he is meant to be a character who is not confident in love or sensuality, his only release from his physical ugliness is the beauty of music, and the beauty of Christine. He feels euphoric to find that Christine sees him as an 'angel', when in reality he is a physical monster who has never been showed love by other human beings.
Thusly, he becomes obsessed with Christine and kills/hopes to kill anybody who stands between himself and her. He is not an altogether pitiful, tragic character, for he is also a madman and a murderer.
The film got the Phantom all wrong. I appreciate where their coming from, but Leroux's character is not meant to be a symbol of desire and sexual awakening for Christine, he is meant to be her source of musical inspiration and also of complete terror. In the book, she is clearly terrified by the Phantom once she understands his villainous nature, and has no sexual feelings for him. She trusts him because she beleives he is an angel sent to watch over her by her father, and in a way he manipulates that trust.
Although its not without its faults, the phantom in this film is better because he is actually distorted, and has a two-sided personality which is evident in the book.