Do you think the Phantom film should have been made earlier? - Page 2

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 7/24/20 at 11:03am

When the film was originally announced, Crawford and Brightman were bithbattached. There was a double page announcement published in Variety circa 1990. I believe that had that film come into fruition, it would have further highlighted Brightman's shortcomings as an actress. Additionally, Schumacher was still attached, even back then. The direction of the 2004 film is the weakest link in a very weak chain. Hiring Schumacher was Webber's biggest mistake.

[bawoman]

Posted: 7/24/20 at 11:30am

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "bawoman said: "Not a bad list maybe 10 years ago or 15, when the film was made, but now? Most of those people are way too old now for their parts/"

Good thing I said "if I had cast it and picked the creative team in 2004" then. Try reading a little more closely next time."

I apologize then, you are right.Should have read that better.

[jesse benet]

Posted: 7/24/20 at 9:46pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I don't know if it should have been made earlier, but if I had cast it and picked the creative team in 2004, it would've looked something like this:

Director - Baz Luhrmann(just imagine that "Masquerade"...)
Choreographer - Rob Marshall

Phantom - Hugh Jackman
Christine - Anne Hathaway
Raoul - Ewan McGregor
Carlotta - Kristin Chenoweth
M. Firmin - Nathan Lane
M. André - Matthew Broderick
Mme. Giry - Glenn Close
Meg Giry - Katie Holmes
Ubaldo Piangi - Frederic Heringes
M. Reyer - Jonathan Pryce
Joseph Buquet - Jim Broadbent
Don Attilio / Passarino - Shuler Hensley"

Luhrmann as director is an inspired choice, and the Lane + Broderick pairing would have been killer. It's not an opinion I expect anyone else to share, but I think either Ang Lee (based on Sense and Sensibility, the lushness of Life of Pi, and the thrill and beauty of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) OR Tim Burton would have done a terrific job. Phantom is so difficult because there's no little movement: it all takes place either in the opera house or the caverns beneath it. I think those directors would emphasize the extravagance and quieter moments while bringing some oomph to the few thrills the show offers. Burton at least would've made the Phantom's lair appropriately haunting and otherworldly (and just think about the crazed design he'd imagine for the Phantom himself). 

[bawoman]

Posted: 7/25/20 at 2:08am

jesse benet said: "g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I don't know if it should have been made earlier, but if I had cast it and picked the creative team in 2004, it would've looked something like this:

Director - Baz Luhrmann(just imagine that "Masquerade"...)
Choreographer - Rob Marshall

Phantom - Hugh Jackman
Christine - Anne Hathaway
Raoul - Ewan McGregor
Carlotta - Kristin Chenoweth
M. Firmin - Nathan Lane
M. André - Matthew Broderick
Mme. Giry - Glenn Close
Meg Giry - Katie Holmes
Ubaldo Piangi - Frederic Heringes
M. Reyer - Jonathan Pryce
Joseph Buquet - Jim Broadbent
Don Attilio / Passarino - Shuler Hensley"

Luhrmann as director is an inspired choice, and the Lane + Broderick pairing would have been killer. It's not an opinion I expect anyone else to share, but I think either Ang Lee(based on Sense and Sensibility, the lushness of Life of Pi, and the thrill and beauty of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) OR Tim Burton wouldhave done a terrific job. Phantomis so difficult because there's no little movement: it all takes place either in the opera house or the caverns beneath it. I think those directors would emphasizethe extravagance and quieter moments while bringing some oomphto the few thrills the show offers.Burton at least would've made the Phantom's lair appropriatelyhaunting and otherworldly (and just think about the crazed design he'd imagine for the Phantom himself)."

Ang Lee is a good choice. He can do big spectacle but keep the focus on the actual story and characters.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 7/25/20 at 5:45pm

Princeton2 wrote: I really disagree with the comment that Evita is awful, to me it's the best ALW movie adaptation and one of the best movie musicals of the last 30+ years. I'm no Madonna fan but I thought she nailed the role.

I totally agree...and I've never been a Madonna fan. I remember going to The Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles for the premiere. The Blu-ray is pretty great to watch and crank up the volume, too.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 7/25/20 at 6:01pm

The more time goes on the more I realise that the Phantom film isn’t all that awful. There’s worse adaptions out there. 

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 7/30/20 at 12:39pm

I think there's no time period Phantom could be made where it wouldn't come off hokey.

It's SUCH a melodrama that can be forgiven onstage if you've got great performances, but on film it all comes off campy cause it takes itself so damn seriously.

My opinion of the movie they made was-yep, that's the show. Schlocky melodrama. I didn't feel like any spirit of the show was missing or anything. 

 

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 7/30/20 at 4:30pm

I feel like the movie’s biggest flaw was that they got the Phantom’s character all wrong, from his appearance, to his age, to the very way they presented the divide between his “Opera Ghost” persona and the deeper, more human moments around Christine. They just didn’t make it work at all, and I think that could’ve been a problem no matter when the movie was made. Hopefully they’ll try a remake someday.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 7/30/20 at 5:00pm

Elfuhbuh said: "I feel like the movie’s biggest flaw was that they got the Phantom’s character all wrong, from his appearance, to his age, to the very way they presented the divide between his “Opera Ghost” persona and the deeper, more human moments around Christine. They just didn’t make it work at all, and I think that could’ve been a problem no matter when the movie was made. Hopefully they’ll try a remake someday."

ALW's admitted having had requests from others suggesting a remake but says he's resisting. I think he doesn't want to finance it through Really Useful Films because of the 2004 mess. 

Schumacher was originally attached to the project, so I'm actually glad he didn't make it when he planned to - otherwise he'd have no doubt made Crawford and Brightman's performances terrible. 

Even casting aside, the look and feel of his film is all too wrong. Warm and garish colours, a weird timeline, a fictional opera house...no.

[sparksatmidnight]

Posted: 7/30/20 at 6:55pm

To be fair, I'm always more interested in seeing a different adaptation than a literal translation from stage to screen. Even if the final product isn't always all that good, it's still more interesting for me to see a fresh take than a rehash afraid of offending the fans.

[Globefan]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 12:16am

scripps said: "This film led to some really steamy Patrick Wilson/Gerard Butler fanfic on LiveJournal so I vote no."

I'd love to read this fanfic 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 12:57am

My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney.

[Globefan]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 1:21am

I think James Marsters would've been a great Phantom. 

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 12:14pm

I‘ve recently rewatched the movie and didn’t find it to be so bad. The sets were gorgeous. While I really didn’t mind Gerard Butler’s singing that much, his casting was the biggest directorial flaw IMO. Since the character was masked or in make up all the time, they could have cast someone unknown but with the appropriate vocal chops for the role. Schumacher’s insistence that the Phantom should be young and sexy was unnecessary. The adherence to the shape of his mask from the Broadway show was disappointing. This could have been the opportunity to make him more deformed and hideous, enough to scare a 19th century audience. Instead, we got what looked like a really bad sunburn. They should have played up the mystery and horror. 
 

If they wanted young and sexy (and Persian), they should have used Ramin Karimloo, who was ironically in the movie years before he played Phantom on stage. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 1:32pm

I would love to see Jim Carrey do a great movie musical, especially after the premature cancellation of his musical dramedy “Kidding.” But he’s more a Dan in Next to Normal than a Phantom.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 9/10/20 at 3:46pm

darquegk said: "I would love to see Jim Carrey do a great movie musical, especially after the premature cancellation of his musical dramedy “Kidding.” But he’s more a Dan in Next to Normal than a Phantom."

At one point wasn't he supposed to be Applegate in the rumored Jake Gyllenhaal remake of Damn Yankees? This was over a decade ago in that post Chicago-rush of announcements of movie musicals. I actually think he'd be great in that role.

[JennH]

Posted: 9/11/20 at 9:44am

Frumious Bandersnatch said: "My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney."

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not...maybe there's something I'm missing, and I appreciate many a Carrey role because I think he's better than most people think (dare I say his Scrooge is actually my favorite and super under appreciated...), but for this? Not that's it's happening of course but I can't picture it. 

Back to the topic. I haven't watched this in quite some time, and I still have no wish to even thought I own it.  Every time I watched it back when, it just got worse and worse. This could have been a masterpiece in every way, but it's mostly the casting and cinematography where it fails on a pretty abysmal scale. See Lindsay Ellis's video on the cinematography aspect. Design wise, it's pretty great. It LOOKS like the movie adaptation I always had in my head but that's where it ends. I consider Les Mis a better adaptation on film, and that's something I never thought I'd say. 

And I was never mad about the older Raoul intercuts. Even the musical gives the impression the story is being told from his POV, even if the prologue is only 5 minutes. Of course the logic that Madame G is somehow still alive but Christine is dead kinda falls apart. Good in theory but not so much when you think about the logic. 

And sidetone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't hate the Evita film. It's no masterpiece but I find it quite stomachable. The beginning is kinda brilliant actually, and I always thought Madonna while not an 'actress', always gave me the impression of 'gold digging/power hungry trophy wife' which is basically the point. My interpretation anyway. 

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/27/20 at 10:56pm

I love that Minnie Driver knew exactly what kind of movie she was in. She knew it was a Schumacher film, and played the camp to the hilt. 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/27/20 at 11:40pm

There's always at least one actor in a Schumacher film who recognizes the opportunity to chew the scenery to shreds and deliver a camp performance of a lifetime (i.e. Uma Thurman's Mae West take on Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin)

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/27/20 at 11:48pm

AEA AGMA SM said: "There's always at least one actor in a Schumacher film who recognizes the opportunity to chew the scenery to shreds and deliver a camp performance of a lifetime (i.e. Uma Thurman's Mae West take on Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin)"

No other actress could've played Carlotta on film the way Minnie did. 

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 8:04am

JennH said: "Frumious Bandersnatch said: "My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney."

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not...maybe there's something I'm missing, and I appreciate many a Carrey role because I think he's better than most people think (dare I say his Scrooge is actually my favorite and super under appreciated...), but for this? Not that's it's happening of course but I can't picture it.

Back to the topic. I haven't watched this in quite some time, and I still have no wish toeven thought I own it. Every time I watched it back when, it just got worse and worse. This could have been a masterpiece in every way, but it's mostly the casting and cinematography where it failson a pretty abysmal scale. See Lindsay Ellis's video on the cinematography aspect. Design wise, it's pretty great. It LOOKS like the movie adaptation I always had in my head but that's where it ends. I consider Les Mis a better adaptation on film, and that's something I never thought I'd say.

And I was never mad about the older Raoul intercuts. Even themusical gives the impression the story is being told from his POV, even if the prologue is only 5 minutes. Of course the logic that Madame G is somehow still alive but Christine is dead kinda falls apart. Good in theory but not so much whenyou think about the logic.

And sidetone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't hate the Evita film. It's no masterpiece but I find it quite stomachable. The beginning is kinda brilliant actually, and I always thought Madonna while not an 'actress',always gave me theimpression of 'gold digging/power hungry trophy wife' which is basically the point. My interpretation anyway."

I read at the time that it’s supposed to be Meg not Madame Giry in the ‘old Raul’ sections. Which leads to even more head scratching. If it’s true that was the intention is it because she is a better actor than Jennifer Ellison, that ageing her up looked silly etc etc head-scratch 

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 8:04am

JennH said: "Frumious Bandersnatch said: "My dream casting for a film Phantom always was (and probably still could be) Jim Carrey. He can handle the emotional dexterity of the role, he’s got a strong enough instrument to do the score justice, and he brings a body of physical cinematic work that could stand up to Lon Chaney."

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not...maybe there's something I'm missing, and I appreciate many a Carrey role because I think he's better than most people think (dare I say his Scrooge is actually my favorite and super under appreciated...), but for this? Not that's it's happening of course but I can't picture it.

Back to the topic. I haven't watched this in quite some time, and I still have no wish toeven thought I own it. Every time I watched it back when, it just got worse and worse. This could have been a masterpiece in every way, but it's mostly the casting and cinematography where it failson a pretty abysmal scale. See Lindsay Ellis's video on the cinematography aspect. Design wise, it's pretty great. It LOOKS like the movie adaptation I always had in my head but that's where it ends. I consider Les Mis a better adaptation on film, and that's something I never thought I'd say.

And I was never mad about the older Raoul intercuts. Even themusical gives the impression the story is being told from his POV, even if the prologue is only 5 minutes. Of course the logic that Madame G is somehow still alive but Christine is dead kinda falls apart. Good in theory but not so much whenyou think about the logic.

And sidetone, I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't hate the Evita film. It's no masterpiece but I find it quite stomachable. The beginning is kinda brilliant actually, and I always thought Madonna while not an 'actress',always gave me theimpression of 'gold digging/power hungry trophy wife' which is basically the point. My interpretation anyway."

I read at the time that it’s supposed to be Meg not Madame Giry in the ‘old Raul’ sections. Which leads to even more head scratching. If it’s true that was the intention is it because she is a better actor than Jennifer Ellison, that ageing her up looked silly etc etc head-scratch 

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 11:51am

Really wish they got to make it with Crawford back in the day. For me, no one else touches his interpretation.

[greensgreens]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 4:41pm

Should’ve filmed at Ahmanson in LA or soundstage. Could’ve used Crawford & Dale Kristien, both with stage & screen credentials. Or Robert Guillame or Paul Stanley, both with legit cred, but also somewhat names. I will never understand why Jackee Harry wasn’t in the running for Carlotta. Hilarious, legit opera voice, something of a name.

Stunt cast Mme. Giry, managers, Buquet, even Raul. I think it could’ve been something early 90s.

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/28/20 at 5:30pm

NameGreg said: "Really wish they got to make it with Crawford back in the day. For me, no one else touches his interpretation."

Sarah would've been Christine had it been made in 1990 with Crawford.