a phantom of the opera forum
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
» Those Rosy Hours at Mazandaran
Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:25 am by Afsar

» SHADOW BENDER
Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:55 pm by PhantomnessFay

» BEHIND THE MIRROR NEW BOOK TITLE
Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:50 pm by PhantomnessFay

» THE PHANTOM OF MANHATTEN BY FREDRICK FORSYTHE
Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:01 am by PhantomnessFay

» Song Name Game
Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:30 pm by Heart_Rose1368

» Phantom by Susan Kay
Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:01 am by PhantomnessFay

» Love Never Dies
Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:52 am by PhantomnessFay

» If you could pick any actor....
Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:08 am by Heart_Rose1368

» The phantom of opera 25th anniversary
Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:25 am by PhantomnessFay

Elite Affiliates
Kay's PhantomLady Ghost's SitePhantom's Mask
Phantom GerryFantomeApply
Top Affiliates
Randomosity Forum
Rubigna Chastenay
Quiero Mas Shakira
Lessons From the Phantom of the Opera
Nichol's Bookshelf
>>More Affiliates<<
>>Apply<<

Share | 
 

 Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
AuthorMessage
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:08 am

My favorites are the first one as Erik eavesdrops on Raoul and Christine and the one just before the Red Death, where Christine is pleading with Erik to let her go.

Not that I don't like the others, but in the two I mentioned, gives us a glimpse of the what Erik looked like. Yikes!

******************************************************
The following trivia quiz is for the novel and 2004 film. I've indicated from which source the answer should come from. Let's see how you do.

1. In Gaston Leroux's classic, "The Phantom of the Opera", the Phantom's real name is...? (Novel)

a. Erik
b.Darren
c. Aloysius
d.Todd

2. How do Raoul and the Persian get over the bridge? (Novel)

a. They just walked over it normally
b. By swinging on the rope
c. they jumped across
d. What bridge? They went across the lake!

3. Which is the right rope? (Novel)

a. Theone with 2 knots
b. I'm telling you they walked over the bridge normally!
c. The one with one knot
d. I'm telling you that they went across the lake!

4. What are Christine and the Phantom singing when we see them in his lair for the second time? (Novel)

a. Don Juan
b. Faust
c. Hannibal
d. Othello

5. How does the Phantom make Christine choose between him and Raoul? (Novel)

a. He makes her turn the scorpion or the grasshopper.
b. He makes her choose by threatening to kill Raoul if she doesn't choose him (the Phantom).
c. He lets her choose between him and Raoul, like a gentleman.
d. He doesn't give her a choice; he kills Raoul and keeps her with him.

6. Who does Christine choose? (at the end of novel or 2004 film)

a.
Both
b. The Phantom
c. Raoul
d. Neither

7. What did the Persian whip out when confronted with the Phantom? (Novel)

a. A sword
b. Nothing
c. A lasso
d. Nothing, the Persian died a long time ago

8. Who is the Phantom pursuing after Christine leaves? (2004 film)

a. The Persian
b. Christine
c. A ballet girl
d. No one, he disappears into a secret passage.

9.Do Raoul and Christine kiss? Yes or No

10. How many times? (2004 film)

a.3
b.
0
c.
1
d. 2


11. Do Christine and the Phantom kiss? Yes or No (Novel)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:35 pm

Where did everbody go? No one interested in a discussion or take a quiz?

What a Face
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:15 pm

Ok, so sorry I've been absent...I didn't realize I'd been gone this long. Fay, I can't wait to take your test, however, I can honestly say that the questions from the novel are a complete mystery to me. I remember the larger themes and occurences, but as for details, I'm at a loss. I'm going to do my best, but you can't laugh Smile Give me until later this evening and I'll get back to you!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:20 am

No worries. This was a tough one for me.

Glad to see you Gabby81.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:09 pm

Ok....here it goes (remember...no laughing!)

1 -A - Erik
2 - I don't remember this at all, the only thing I found online was going across the bridge with their right arms raised as Erik had done, so I'll go with A
3 - B - since I have no idea
4 - D - Othello...dont' know this either
5 - A - turn the scorpion or the grasshopper
6 - B - she mouths I love you to Raoul, but then chooses the Phantom.
7 - B - nothing
8 - D -escapes through a secret passage
9 - yes
10 - D - I think it's 2 (3 if you count the flashback)
11 - no, unless you count when Erik kisses her on the forehead
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:55 am

This quiz was a mix of the 2004 film and the original novel. The clue was at the end of each question.

Here are the answers:

1. a
2. d
3. d
4. d
5. a
6. c
7. a
8. d
9. yes
10. a
11. yes (taken from the film)

You didn't do bad at all. Nice job!

*************************
Even though some may not have seen the 1943 film there has been enough talk about it. Let's see how you do.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA WITH CLAUDE RAINS 1943

1. What isthe name of the character played by Claude Rains?

a. Erique Claudin
b. Jacques Claudin
c. Francois Claudin
d. Charles Claudin

2. Who was the director of this film?

a. Todd Browning
b. Arthur Lubin
c. Karl Freund
d. James Whale

3. In the novel as well as the silent film version of this story, Christine's last name is Daae. For this film, they changed it for some reason. What was it changed to?

a. Garron
b. Dubois
c. Giry
d. Daubert

4. What form of music was Claudin writing?

a. an operetta
b. a lullaby
c. a play
d. a concerto

5. True or False: The music publishers that Claudin goes to see to try to get his work published were Playel and Desjardins.

6. What was it that disfigured Claudin's face?

a. acid
b. it was never known
c. fire
d. sulpher

7. Where does Claudin first "appear" to Christine?

a. her apartment
b. box five
c. backstage at the opera
d. her dressing room

8. Who did Claudin appear to next?

a. Madame Giry and her maid
b. Madame Biancaroli and her maid
c. Madame Lorenzi and her maid
d. Madame Andre and her maid

9. Yes or No: Does Claudin murder the madame and her maid?

10. What famous composer agrees to play Claudin's music at the opera?

a. Franz Lizst
b. Amadeus Mozart
c. Ludwig von Beethoven
d. Frederic Chopin

11. How does Claudin make his way to the stage?

a. steals a costume
b. pretends to be part of the cast
c. walks on nonchantly
d. kills an officer

12. What "shattering" thing does Claudin do during the opera?

a. sets off a bomb
b. makes the floor of the set rattle
c. makes the curtain come down
d. causes the chandelier to fall

13. After this, Claudin takes Christine to the catacombs under the opera house. What is the one thing that he wants her to do for him only?

____________________
(one word-she does this for a living)

14. When Christine pulls off Claudin's mask, which side of his face is ruined?

____________________________
(left or right--the side looking at the camera)

15. At the end of the film, who wind up going to dinner?

a. Anatole and Christine
b. Raoul and Anatole
c. Raoul and Christine
d. All Three of them go
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:22 am

I'm going to argue #6 of the last quiz. She technically chose the Phantom in the movie, then after she kisses him, he releases her to Raoul! Or am I completely off base? That's how I see it anyway Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:30 pm

You have a valid point, but the question is asking who did she really choose? In her heart, Christine picked Raoul not the Phantom. Duress doesn't count. 'Pick me or I blow up the opera house with everyone in it'-- really does not constitute a decision. Even in the movie, it's still duress. 'Pick me or I strangle Raoul'--is not a decision. See what I mean? Does that make sense? scratch
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:48 pm

In her heart, yes, Christine did pick Raoul in both situations. Under duress, she chose the Phantom, but she did choose him. I do see what you mean, I was just being difficult Smile

Now, how am I suppose to answer a quiz on something I've never seen? Lol. The last one I was able to find most of the info on the IMDB, but this one has much more specific questions. This could be interesting!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:41 pm

Ok, I did a lot (A LOT) of research on this, and I may actually have seen this one (the scene at the publishers sounds family, as does some of the rest, but I'm not sure). So here goes nothing.....

1 - A - Erique Claudin
2 - B - Arthur Lubin
3 - B - Dubois (reminds me of Blanche Dubois from Streetcar!)
4 - D - concerto
5 - true
6 - A - etching acid
7 - D - dressing room
8 - B - Mme Biancaroli and her maid
9 - yes
10 - A - Franz Lizst
11 - D - kills officer
12 - D - chandelier crash
13 - sing
14 - left
15 - B - Raoul and Anatole

In response to number 12, are there any versions in which the chandelier (or the counterweight) DO NOT fall? I can't remember any except for the 2004 version (guess I have some movie watching to do!). I apologize if I've asked questions before, the stupid memory loss really bothers me, and I don't mean to do it on purpose! drunken
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:06 am

Brava, my dear Gabby81! You got them all correct and you've never seen the movie. Another open book quiz. Well done! Now you really will have to see the movie.

Let's switch to some movie trivia. This is all based on the 2004 film.

The following are mistakes in the movie. Think and see if you saw the error to recognize it was one.

1. In the shot where Raoul and Christine are standing at the window of the shop the window shows the current Swarovski logo of a swan. In the time the movie is set, they still used the Eidelweiss as their symbol; it was not changed until the late 1980's. (I didn't know that.)

2.
During Don Juan, when the Phantom and Christine go up the scaffolding during the song "Point of No Return," round bolts are seen in the wood. It should have square nails holding it together because there were no round bolts in 1870. (Someone is nit-picking here. I was watching the actors not the bolts.)

3. During the graveyard sword fight, the Phantom's stuntman sometimes visibly replaces Gerard Butler. He has thin and very arched eyebrows and the mask doesn't fit properly around the nose. He is the same stuntman used when Raoul jumps down the hole after the Masquerade. (No! Is that true? I never noticed this.)

4. After Think of Me, when Christine is in the chapel, it shows her light a match on a candle, then use the lit match to light the candle next to it. In the following shot, the camera shows all of the candles on that stand-only one is lit. (I never noticed this. I must have been caught in the Phantom's thrall.)

5. When Raoul is tied to the gate, the ropes across his chest change frequently. Sometimes there are three running parallel to each other, from his shoulder to the waist. Other times there is a big knot in the top rope. Still others there appear to
be 2 ropes across with a third running straight down his chest between them. (I was listening to them sing and watching Gerry. Who cared about how he tied up Patrick?)

6. The second time we see the Christine mannequin, we can see it sway from right to left. The swaying can't be due to a draft, since any sort of wind would have made the candles flicker. (It's not a mannequin, it's an automaton. It's swaying? Never saw this. Besides this is Emmy playing both parts, Christine and the automaton. Swaying?)

7. In the gypsy fair scene the Phantom has a dirty back. In the next scene when he's running away with the Dancing Mistress to go under the Opera House, his back is clean. (I missed this one as well. Looks like nit-picking again.)

8. At the very beginning of the movie when Andre and Firmin first arrive in their coach in front of the opera house, you can see one footman (wearing red) running to meet them from some distance to escort them inside. The camera angle changes and now, that footman turned into two, standing and even waiting at the coach. (Missed again. I suppose I really should watch more carefully and I've seen the movie 165 times. Shocked )

9. When Christine is in her dressing room right after Hannibal, all of the candles are shown going out. The Phantom and Christine begin to sing. There are no windows in the room and the candles have all gone out, yet the room is still somehow lit. The light is not coming from the mirror where the phantom is yet. (They call this a deliberate mistake. Personally, I don't call this a mistake. This is the mystery and magic of the Phantom.)

10. Just before Raoul jumps down the hole after the Masquerade, Patrick Wilson is obviously replaced by a stuntman who's not even trying to hide his face. He is the same stuntman used for the Phantom in the graveyard sword fight. (Is this true? He looked like Patrick to me. My bad!)

***********
I put my two cents worth in italics at the end of each noted mistake. What do you say? Did you notice them? scratch


Last edited by PhantomnessFay on Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:21 pm

Some I've noticed, some I haven't. The one about Christine lighting the candle in the Chapel drives me nuts! I also noticed the one with the ropes around Raoul. I know some people often mention the hair and makeup changes in Christine when she decends into the Phantoms lair. I read that they did that on purpose to better show the darkness that she's decending into. Another one is when Raoul is trapped in the water trap, at one point the bubbles are going down, not up.

One thing that has been bugging me....Gaston Leroux stated in his book that the events occurred 30 years earlier, putting the dates around 1879-1880. Why is it that ALW made the films events occur in 1871?

One more question about the book.....Erik shows regret over the death of Philippe, stating that it was an accident. Is it possible that had Erik known who it was, he may have spared him? The Persian mentions that Erik almost killed him, but thankfully recognized him first. This goes with the idea that Erik and Philippe had some sort of prior relationship.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
Angelsmasque
Newbie


Female
Number of posts : 98
Age : 55
Location : Writing in my creative corner
Points : 3116
Registration date : 2008-06-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:54 am

I think, Gabby81, that the dating of the film was one of ALW's/Schmacher's largest faux pas because there was a war going on. Even if they chose to place the timing towards the end of that year the Opera wasn't fit to have events. When it opened for its Gala on the night of January 5, 1875 it was still unfinished. Naughty them ...

The Swarovski swan from Eidelweiss is another historical detail. Did they care to know or did they not give it a second thought because they didn't know any better?

If one is looking for a connection between the Chagny's and Erik there will be ways to do it. I'm sure Erik would not have wished to purposely harm Philippe for several reasons: first, because he is the brother of someone Christine cares for; second, because they are related; or third, because he had given his word to the Persian that he would not kill. One always must remember the changeable frame of mind Erik was subject to. If he was in a foul mood there would be justification for whatever consequence occurred. Needless to say, he may have placed the blame on his 'other' self and been immediately absolved.

As for some of those many supposed errors in the film, I would have to say that someone has too much time on their hands if all they can do is -- like Fay said -- nit pick. There are a few mistakes that are obvious, like Meg's pants being wet in one scene and dry the next, but can you imagine the chaos involved in putting something like that together? Then all the worrying about what the editing has done to the scenes, whew! Those pointing the fingers with an 'ah ha!' should advertise to find the mistakes. Overall, I'm sure it would be a costly venture to do re-takes. Tedious, that. One should just enjoy it for what it is: entertainment! Fay has. Hug
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:40 am

It really does amaze me that people do nit pick these mistakes. Do they do it to every single movie they see, because every movie has errors in it. No ones perfect. I can't imagine what it's like to put a film together. Way beyond my scope of comprehension. It would be interesting to find out why that specific year was chosen for the film, what made them choose it? And I still don't think Erik meant to kill Philippe. When he is visiting with the Daroga, he seems very upset by it. I really do wonder if he had known it was Philippe, would he have spared him? Or would he be able to control himself to spare him?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:57 pm

Actually they nit-pick every movie like this. You just have to look for that online. When Titanic came out, there was a huge laundry list of mistakes. Somebody even knew the type of fish were wrong for the ocean they were supposed to be in. A poor layman like me wouldn't know that. I'm no marine biologist.

I will put up some good stuff later. But if anyone wants to add something, be my guest.

Love you all! I love you
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:39 pm

You are totally right....there are people that watch movies simply to point out the inconsistancies. I guess I tend to pay more attention to the story (and yum....Gerry). I will admit, yes, that from the start I noticed the candle in the chapel, and Meg's no longer wet pants, but I think that was it. And having watched the movie an obscene amount of times, some of the things you posted I had never noticed! I guess my idea of enjoying a movie differs from some people Smile

I'm still curious about the year and Philippes death. I am curious to see what others think of those questions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:29 am

People who look for flaws in a movie obviously don't have anything else to do and look for trouble. As both Angelsmasque and you have said, we should simply enjoy the film for what it is.

************************************

These are some interesting ones:

During the song "Prima Donna" where Charlotta is in her dressing room, the painting in the background is of her holding ALW's head on a platter:



[This one I missed, but who could see it with all the hub-bub?]


Remember the comment on the stunt double for both Raoul and the Phantom? Here one of the visible pics of the stunt double:




(This was another stupid thing to point out. With the fast nifty footwork and movements in the sword fight, and the Phantom has a half mask, how am I supposed to scrutinize that? That's like saying Friday the 13th's Jason has a stunt double...see, see, see! Good grief!)


After Christine removes the Phantom's mask for the first time, he looks at himself in a mirror: his 'bad side' (the right one) shows no sign of deformity. (Take a look. His face looks pretty wrecked to me. But this scene does go fast, unless you have no life and freeze frame every shot to nit-pick.)






When the Phantom in "Music of the Night" goes to show Christine the wax figure of herself there is a tall lit candle behind him. When she faints he moves in front of it to catch her and when he then moves away the candle is out - the only way the flame could of have been put out was if Christine's hair had smothered it (which would of course have set her hair alight). [I think not. Candles go out quickly when someone passes. It doesn't mean anything is set on fire. This was a stupid comment.]



Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:28 pm

The only one here I had noticed was the one about the Phantom's face not being deformed. The first time I watched the movie, I didn't know how much more we were going to see, so I did freeze frame it and go frame by frame. It is messed up, but obviously not like the ending. As we go through this movie over and over again, we're bound to pick up on little things like this. Personally, I think they did a phenomenal job with this movie, and there don't seem to be that many inconsistencies. I will say it again, the only 2 that bug me are the candle in the chapel and Megs pants at the end, but those were pretty obvious mistakes. The one with the bubbles floating down and not up took a long time before I saw it. Aside from that, most of the ones that have been mentioned recently in this thread were new to me! Who can take their eyes off Gerry for that long? (or even Patrick for goodness sake). I'm not staring at the background to notice that it's ALW's head on a platter!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:01 pm

I agree with you. The whole point is to enjoy the movie for what is was and the same with the stage production. All of these things are trivial to me. I really never paid attention to these things. I still enjoy the film and watching the two handsome hunks engage in a sexy sword fight in the cemetery. Whoo hoo!

Let's take a look at Meg's wet/dry pants.

At the end when Meg steps out of the water, her pants are wet. However, when she enters the bedroom and finds the Phantom's mask, her pants are perfectly dry. (I did see this after it was mentioned, but no big deal. It was a hot day.)



During the second kiss, you can see behind Gerard Butler's neck (going from under his hair down to his back) the wire of the apparatus used to keep his lower right eyelid pulled down. (Who is going to see that? Who would even know what that is? The person giving the comment must have worked on the set or knew someone who did.)





The aspect of the Phantom's deformity undergoes a major change between when Christine takes his mask off on stage and the later parts of the movie. (Honestly, the shadows stop me from seeing the details. Nit-pick much!)





When Christine takes off the Phantom's mask during Don Juan, the appearance of his face suddenly gets drastically CG enhanced. (This occurs AFTER Christine has already removed the mask, as the two screenshots show.)[Magic? The supernatural? Come on! Who is giving these comments? One of the irate production crew?]

Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:07 pm

I'd heard of the one with the wire, but seriously, when I watch it, it looks so much like hair I don't pay attention. The last one, the enhancement of his deformity, the whole mask hadn't been taken off, the wig was still on. This is done for dramatic effect. This is the climax of the movie. Of course they're going to do what they can to make it scary. But I've seen Gerard Butler getting his makeup done, and it's not CGI. But who, by the end (say when he's singing with the music box) does not forget about his deformity and want nothing more than to hold and soothe him? Lol
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:38 am

I hadn't heard of the wire, but you're right, I can't see the wire in this scene. Looks like someone on set is pointing this out.

I agree, I've seen where Gerry is getting the makeup applied and it's not CGI.

*************************************************

Let's see if we noticed the following:

Visible crew/equipment: As Raoul's car is leaving the Opera House, a crewmember is reflected in its windshield. [This scene went so fast, I would have to freeze frame. Someone as nothing better to do.]



Continuity: When Buquet hangs over the scene, you can see Meg screaming along with three other dancers. Four shots later, Meg is still screaming, but the two girls who were to her right (on the left of the screen) are still dancing, as if they haven't seen Buquet yet. [With all the caos going on how am I to notice this?]




Continuity: As Christine and Raoul race up the stairs of the Opera House, her hair is loose. By the time they come out onto the rooftop, it's partially pulled back in an elaborate fashion. She's never off screen long enough to have done that. [Maybe she pulled her hair back on the way up the stairs? Again, someone needs to get a life.]





Continuity: While running to the rooftop, Christine always leads Raoul. She is the first to get up the stairs, and there's no room for him to pass her without her stopping her frantic pace (which she shows no sign of doing), yet somehow ends up only rushing out the door after Raoul does. [Maybe there was room to pass her. Maybe he tried to stop her. Nit-picking again.]




Deliberate "mistake": On the rooftop scene after Raoul and Christine have left the Phantom, he bends down to pick up a rose, then runs to the statue and climbs up, and finishes his song. There are footprints in the snow all the way to the base of the statue. The footprints are a definite error, as they are next to each other instead of spaced apart which would have occurred if a person was running. And the footprints were not made by Christine and Raoul, they are in the wrong place for where they were standing. [After all the pains the crew went to make the footprints in an effort to make the scene look real, some goof shoots down their efforts in two seconds. Did it ever occur to the critic that perhaps these are the Phantom's footprints and that he walks like that. Pleaseeeee! Does nothing please the ciritic? If these footprints had not been there, something would have been said about that. Can't win for loosing!]



Last edited by PhantomnessFay on Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:27 pm

Ok, out of all those, I had noticed 2. The one where Christine leads Raoul all the way to the roof, yet he exits the door first, and the one with the footprints. I had read somewhere that this part of the set was actually a miniature (save for Gerard and the statue) and that they made little footprints in the snow for "continuity". But you're right....if they hadn't done that, someone would have mentioned it, so you can't win for losing Smile

There is another one that I have heard of, that of course I notice now that it's been pointed out (I wish I could do like you Fay and get the pics up). It's towards the beginning when the managers introduce Raoul.....we see Christine and Meg come up the stairs, then in the next scene we see them coming back up the stairs, where Christine says "It's Raoul". It probably doesn't make any sense when I try to explain it, Fay, maybe you can find the pics for these? cat
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
Angelsmasque
Newbie


Female
Number of posts : 98
Age : 55
Location : Writing in my creative corner
Points : 3116
Registration date : 2008-06-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:04 am

The photo where the Phantom's deformity is drastically enhanced ... let's just say ... perhaps because of the pressure of exposure and the fact that his blood was up, that this is the reason why it is different. Not to mention the ripping away of the hairpiece which would displace whatever it is held in place with; the irritation of it all.

I'm finding justification for it. A bit of fun. They should have hired Howard McGillian's makeup artist, she's been doing the Phantom's deformity for eighteen years and is remarkable consistent.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
PhantomnessFay
Moderator


Female
Number of posts : 2388
Age : 42
Location : England
Points : 3846
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:37 pm

True your justifications make sense.

Since we just had Easter, here are some Easter Eggs to look for in Phantom:

1. On the Special Features Disc, in "The Movie" menu under
"Features," at the bottom, on the left, click on the curly part of the decoration so it's highlighted. It shows a cast/crew sing-a-long for the song "The Phantom of the Opera."

2. On the Bonus Features DVD, disc 2, in "Under the Movie" there are two Easter eggs. One is located on the bottom left hand side, click on the small curly square of decoration that illuminates -the Phantom sings a solo "Learn to be Lonely." The second is above this one (top left) which consists of Emmy Rossums' screen test. (Region 2 DVD)

3. On the Bonus Features DVD, disc 2, on the main menu just under "The Show," there is a small curly square of decoration that illuminates when you click it. It shows the trailer of the film.

I never knew about these. So I need to look for them as well. See if you can find them and post your findings.

Good luck!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://novelsandotherwritingsbyfaysimon.homestead.com/Home.html
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3069
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:52 pm

I agree that the reveal of the Phantom's face is enhanced at the initial reveal, but the basis behind it is mostly makeup, I think it's on the 2nd dvd that it shows the makeup being done. Simple tricks with light and camera could make a huge difference too. I honestly have no idea if they would have used CGI to alter it or not.

As for all the fun easter eggs....I'll be checking those out tonight! I knew nothing about them!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Today at 11:18 am

Back to top Go down
 
Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 10 of 12Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 Similar topics
-
» The 2004 movie (ALW version)
» WHO WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OR HANDSOME MOVIE STAR 20TH
» Aishwarya Rai: New Movie
» Name That Movie/Scene!
» Movie car database

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Erik Of Music :: English :: Phantom Books-
Jump to: