I really do not like the movie. None of the stars do the score justice.
This is a sooooo much better way to see the show and from now on I will always recommend people to see this instead of the movie!
Couldn't agree more!
shareI agree! Even though I saw the movie some years back, there's nothing like watching it in it's 'stage form' like the 25th Anniversary. Apart from it visually feeling more superior, the vocals and performances were much better. I don't think I will be able to enjoy a Phantom's voice more than that of Ramin's. I even went so far as to watch the Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman performances on YouTube and they didn't match up in my opinion.
shareI think they each have strengths and weaknesses.
Sierra Boggess is much better acting through song, but Emmy Rossum doesn't get so shrill at times.
Ramin Karimloo is a better singer, but there are a few lines in the film that have more impact because Gerard Butler speaks them.
Some of the songs where several people sing over each other are easier to understand in the film,
The films have the luxury of space and sets and retakes, but stage has the intimacy and live performances always have an energy about them.
Overall I would say this is superior to the film, but probably not a thousand times better. I still like the film a lot.
God is a vindictive bastard.... He's always picking on me for being an Atheist!
I agree Mentrilo. I like them both for different reasons.
I always have both the Original London cast and the Movie cast on my ipod. It depends on my mood that day which one I want to listen to. I can't wait until I can add this cast to my ipod! They're all phenomenal.
Geronimo
It's a shame Sierra didn't get discovered early to play Christine in the movie!! If someone could digitally erase Emmy and put Sierra as Christine this would be it!
shareIt might be my bias because I adore Emmy, but I don't think she was the problem. Gerry just couldn't sing what was required of him. He should have switched roles with Ramin.
High summer holds the earth
On this shining night
I wonder why Ramin wasn't cast in the movie. He was playing the Phantom on stage at the time (or was it Raoul? I don't know the exact dates). It isn't as though they wanted a big name. People had hardly heard of Gerard Butler back then. Ramin is good-looking, and he has a good voice. I don't think the ladies would be complaining.
Geronimo
He wasn't yet playing the Phantom on stage. I believe he was first cast as the Phantom in 2008.
There were probably plenty of stage actors who would have done a better job than Butler. There are even plenty of movie and TV actors who would have done a better job (Hugh Jackman and Many Patinkin both come to mind as having great voices, and I'm sure there are others.) I'm not sure why GB was cast - as you point out he wasn't a household name and he wasn't a great singer.
With these movie adaptations, they seem to gravitate toward movie actors who can sing rather than stage actors who can REALLY sing. I'm not sure why.
As far as Ramin being attractive enough to play the Phantom - well, the Phantom isn't supposed to be attractive - he's horribly disfigured and frightening looking. I think they would want someone who was in reasonably good shape though. So the actor's appearance really shouldn't have been limiting.
“There were probably plenty of stage actors who would have done a better job than Butler.”
Not probably - Definitely.
Ramin did play Christine's father in the movie though..
shareWhat does being good looking have to do with playing the Phantom?
shareWell i don't expect much then actors or actress sings in moves so I liked the movie and the cast and I liked this one . Its nice to see the stage version too.
shareHonestly, I am not a fan of the movie. I would always prefer stage shows to movies if the stage shows are released earlier than the movie. Neither because of the actors (the actors were great and have actually all done a great job), but because of the changes they have to make in the movies, especially a musical like the POTO.
When I watched this version back in the theater, I was like "WOW!" as it really brings me back to the days I watched the stage version, though the stage setting is quite different from but resembles the original musical. And I couldn't help applauding with the audience!
I quite liked the film, but only as a second-best option as it's very expensive to travel and stay in London, never mind buying a ticket to the show! So being able to watch the film is a good way to indulge in my love of Phantom!
I wish all of the big musicals would do dvds of the whole show so we can watch whenever we want without having to pay a small fortune for theatre trips! Really enjoyed this dvd!
*
Caller ID shows you are calling from Silent Hill, I regret to inform you that you are beyond help.
I think it is a matter of personal preference, don't you think?
I watched my new dvd and then put in the blu-ray of the movie. There are some real benefits to recording the songs in a studio with a 100 piece orchestra.
Have any of you heard Steve Harley (the original choice of the stage phantom)sing POTO? The rocker sound was part of what ALW was going for.
Good god, the film adaptation was a disaster. Emmy Rossum sang the role quite well and is a great actress, so it certainly wasn't her fault. Butler is a decent actor but cannot sing; he sounded like a drunk college football player trying to croak out the score after having lost a bet with someone. Patrick WIlson couldn't act or sing; he was just all around horrible.
The worst part about the film (aside from the tacked on action scenes, e.g., the pointless sword fight in the graveyard) was the fact that AWL clearly wouldn't allow Shumacker to mess with his "baby." I mean, all the staging of the phantom's lair was nearly identical to the stage production, which was ridiculous. Canalabras popping up out of a lake? That was innovative and stunning when the stage show premiered in the 80s, but in the film it made absolutely no sense and looked ridiculous.
The best part of the film was Minnie Driver as Carlotta; she brought a comic over-the-top diva quality that I have never seen in any of the stage productions. Alas, she's not vocally up to the part and had to be dubbed (badly IMO). Nevertheless, her portrayal makes the film worth watching. Without her, I probably would have hung myself in the cinema.
Canalabras popping up out of a lake? That was innovative and stunning when the stage show premiered in the 80s, but in the film it made absolutely no sense and looked ridiculous.
In the stage show, are the candelabras *actually* popping out of the?
Okay, here me out.
Christine and the Phantom are in their boat. Does Christine see the candelabras coming out of the lake like the audience does, or are they stationary to her?
Is the audience seeing them come up because they cannot already be in place by the time Phantom and Christine are paddling through?
Geronimo
FletcherofLocksley wrote:
In the stage show, are the candelabras *actually* popping out of the?
Okay, here me out.
Christine and the Phantom are in their boat. Does Christine see the candelabras coming out of the lake like the audience does, or are they stationary to her?
Is the audience seeing them come up because they cannot already be in place by the time Phantom and Christine are paddling through?
Um. . . the key words here are "stage show". There are lots of things that can be done in films that give a look of reality to impossible settings; particularly these days with CGI.
The thing about the candelabras "popping out of the lake" is that. . . well. ..this is a stage. The candelabra business is actually part of a scene change (and a pretty amazing one at that).
First you see heavy "mist" (indicating a lake at midnight) with a "boat" "floating" through it, then the candelabras come up to indicate the arrival of the "boat" (which is actually on wheels, and pulled by a cable, not poled by the Phantom - the mist hides this) at the Phantoms underground lair. In other words, the candelabras are not coming out of the lake, but are there to indicate that the Phantom has arrived at the lair.
All of this happens on stage, within about 30 seconds or so. And, as theatrical special effects, they are pretty amazing when you see them for the first time.
This is theatre - not film, after all, so one must have a greater willingness to suspend disbelief and just go with it. Kind of difficult to explain - but, in actuality, in the environs of a theatrical production this sequence works - and works amazingly well.
It is eerie, evocative and beautiful.
No offence intended, but I think a person would need to see the show to understand what I am describing.
Urquharts