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 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
AuthorMessage
Mav
Newbie


Female
Number of posts : 22
Points : 3130
Registration date : 2008-05-22

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:30 pm

I just read through these 'bloopers'.... I really enjoyed it. I do know those footprints were miniatures placed on there by a model. I believe this was in a documentary.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.jenniferlinforth.com
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:57 am

I don't think it matter what movie you look at, there are going to be bloopers, inconsistencies. I think the fact that the Phantom is a huge phan favorite and watched repeatedly by people is why they are able to point them all out. That, and they are a little fussy!
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:45 am

Correct. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to make a film and try to get everything right. Nowadays, people pick a movie to pieces for the lack of something to do.

For now, let turn the subject from mistakes and bloopers and talk about some things in the movie which are not in the novel and what they mean.


1. Why is there always a midget version of Piangi's character in the operas?

2. During the "The Point of No Return”, when do Christine and Raoul realize that it's the Phantom onstage, instead of the actor?

3. In the Prima Dona song the lyrics say something like "a chorus girl who’s gone and slept with her patron". Are they just making an assumption that they slept together or did they actually do it?

4. Many posters that have the tagline for the film say "Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit". What does this mean?

5. There is a reference to “Cats” in "Masquerade." Can someone be more specific about where it is, or perhaps include a time code? And are the actors really dressed like cats from the show, or do they only show a vague resemblance?

6. During Il Muto, we see the story of a count and countess. But when we are taken to the ballet from act three, the ballet doesn't seem to go along with the opera. Is this common in opera and why, or was it a director's decision?

7. In the opening scene with Raoul and Madame Giry at the auction. Which one is it? Meg or Madame Giry?

8. In the scene before the ballet (the one where Christine acted as a page) how did Phantom manage to make Charlotte croak?

9. There have been references made to Christine's "sexual awakening". Did she actually sleep with the Phantom or did she just spend the night there?

10. Why does Madame Giry have a French accent and her daughter Meg has an English one? Considering they live in France shouldn't Meg's accent have been French too?

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

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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:45 pm

Ok, here goes nothing Smile

1. We had talked about this once before, I believe, and I think it was said that little people were often considered good luck. Also, at least in the 2004 version, he added comic relief, always copying Piangi's moves and trying to look up women's skirts

2. I think Christine knew it was the Phantom when he started to sing. As for Raoul, officially he alerted the guards once Christine looked up to him, but I think he knew when the Phantom grabbed Christine and held her.

3. I think they were making an assumption here. Christine is still very young and innocent. In "All I Ask of You" it looks very fresh and new, and they only get engaged 3 months later around "Masquerade". I could be totally wrong, but that's just what I think

4. This I have no idea about. I tried to do some research, and the only thing I kept coming across was something to do with font

5. I just finished watching POTO, and the Masquerade scene twice, and I didn't see any cats

6. This is another I don't know about. The only opera I've ever seen is POTO, so I have nothing to go by.

7. I believe that this is Mme Giry, not Meg. Going by the dates, it would put her probably in her mid to late 80's. Being a ballerina then a ballet mistress for so many years would have kept her in wonderful shape, and added years to her life. In the second black and white scene, where Raoul tips his hat at her, we see that Mme Giry is walking very slow and deliberately. I'm also pretty sure that it's Miranda Richardson playing old Mme Giry. If it were supposed to be Meg, it would have been Jennifer Ellison. Also, in the final lair scene, when Meg finds the mask, she doesn't even so much as glance at the music box, so it probably wouldn't have meant anything to her.

8. He switched her regular throat spray

9. We have talked about this one too. In the companion book, in the original screen play, we see the Phantom getting in the bed with Christine. In the final version however, he places her in the bed, then closes the curtains around the bed. I think this is done to show that the Phantom respected her as she was passed out and left her alone

10. This has always bothered me. Most of the accents in the movie are english, not french. Maybe it's because many came from England, working in Paris. If Meg had been around them her whole life, it's possible that she picked up on their accent.

I look forward to more discussion on these questions Smile

**************************************
Now, here are a few of my own....

A. Mme Giry has clearly been married, or else she would have been Mlle Giry. Yet we hear nothing of a husband, Meg's father, nothing. Why? (Aside from it not being central to the story)

B. Why does Christine's headstone say Countess de Chagny, when Raoul is a Vicompte?

C. Where does the path beyond the mirror go?

D. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the novel, Christine's father is not a wealthy man. Yet in the movie, he has a large, elegant vault. Am I missing something?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com; search Gabrielle Jaillet and send me a
Mav
Newbie


Female
Number of posts : 22
Points : 3130
Registration date : 2008-05-22

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:32 pm

Gabby,

That headstone in the movie drives me straight to my cognac! All I can say is that was a mistake. Webber never touches on Philippe de Chagny and does mention in the beginning that Raoul's parents were still alive. Come the end of the film we must assume that he has an older brother since he was thanked as the Vicomte de Chagny.

In France you kept your maiden name yet took your husband's title. Therefore she would be Christine Daae, Vicomtess de Changy.

As for the vault--Christine was an accomplished opera singer. They did at times make enough to own furs and maintain a gracious life... however this is Webber and he did not portray her as successful enough to do this--therefore perhaps again Webber adjusted this element of the movie to suit his needs. Yet to have a vault that significant is a stretch...

As for the accents--opera houses were melting pots. And Madame Giry was married in Leroux's novel to Jules Giry. If his character is not needed... why bother? He will not progress the story...

Great thread!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.jenniferlinforth.com
Gabby81
Senior


Female
Number of posts : 398
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Points : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:00 pm

Here's a thought Mav....perhaps there actually is a Compte Philippe de Chagny, we just don't hear about him. If he were to die, then Raoul would become Compte, which would make Christine Comptesse. I hadn't thought of that until just now.

As for the maiden name comment, I'm going to play devil's advocate a moment...in the novel (chapter 2) we learn of the "Countess de Chagny - nee de Moerogis de la Martyniere. To me this says that she took Compte Philibert de Chagny's last name.

I know Christine and her father were quite good, but I thought I had read somewhere that they often did not accept money for their performances. In both the book and the novel, Christine's success begins with the story. Now, maybe Prof Valerius could have paid for the vault?

And thank you for reminding me of Jules Giry. I had totally forgotten, and as you said, he is not crutial to the 2004 movie, so no point in trying to throw him in there.
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:24 am

You did quite well on this one. The reason some of the questions contained subjects we've discussed, because the answers were never clear or actually given.

Here are the answers:

1. Why is there always a midget version of Piangi's character in the operas?

Answer: Midgets were common at the time in that type of shows, where they were used as a comic relief.

2. During the "The Point of No Return”, when do Christine and Raoul realize that it's the Phantom onstage, instead of the actor?

Answer: Christine recognizes him as soon as he opens his mouth–you see her being slightly shocked. Raoul takes a bit more time, and it's not as obvious. When you see him getting half up, that's when it dawns on him.


3. In the Prima Dona song the lyrics say something like "a chorus girl who’s gone and slept with her patron". Are they just making an assumption that they slept together or did they actually do it?

Answer: They assumed Christine spent the night with Raoul. After all, they'd left him in her dressing room right before she disappeared.

4. Many posters that have the tagline for the film say "Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit". What does this mean?

Answer: "Lorem Ipsum Dolor..." is the beginning of a piece of nonsense text that typesetters often use to hold the place where the actual text will be when it is written. These are on pre-production posters which POTO would have had.

5. There is a reference to “Cats” in "Masquerade." Can someone be more specific about where it is, or perhaps include a time code? And are the actors really dressed like cats from the show, or do they only show a vague resemblance?

Answer: They are difficult to spot. The scene is at about 01:18:44. It's when they sing "FACES! Drink it up, drink it in..." They are dressed like cats, but not the cats from the show, and they merely strike a pose similar to a promotional poster of the show. This was a tribute to ALW's long running "Cats".

6. During Il Muto, we see the story of a count and countess. But when we are taken to the ballet from act three, the ballet doesn't seem to go along with the opera. Is this common in opera and why, or was it a director's decision?

Answer: You don't have to have seen the opera. Just think about what was said and what you saw. What we see of Il Muto is the very beginning of Act 1. After they switch to is somewhere in Act 3, it's clear that a lot of stuff happened in between that we don't know about.

7. In the opening scene with Raoul and Madame Giry at the auction. Which one is it? Meg or Madame Giry?

Answer: There has been many comments on this, but I am sure it's Meg and not her mother. If she never married, she would keep her maiden name and would be addressed as 'Madame' Giry when she got older. The elder Madam Giry is at least 20 years older than Raoul, and the woman at the auction does not look like a 95-year old.

8. In the scene before the ballet (the one where Christine acted as a page) how did Phantom manage to make Charlotte croak?

Answer: He switched her throat spray.

9. There have been references made to Christine's "sexual awakening". Did she actually sleep with the Phantom or did she just spend the night there?

Answer: She just spent the night. While she slept the Phantom was composing and playing the organ.


10. Why does Madame Giry have a French accent and her daughter Meg has an English one? Considering they live in France shouldn't Meg's accent have been French too?


Answer: One thought is that Mme Giry's accent is not meant to be "French" per se. The various accents used in the movie can be thought of as reflecting of the various accents one would encounter in such a cosmopolitan place as a late-1800s Paris Opera house, with people coming from all over France. Mme Giry and Meg’s accents being different only show that Mme Giry didn't grow up in the same place where she raised Meg.

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

Comments to your questions.

A. Mme Giry has clearly been married, or else she would have been Mlle Giry. Yet we hear nothing of a husband, Meg's father, nothing. Why? (Aside from it not being central to the story)

Answer: His character was not needed to develop characters and plot. As for the name Jules Giry, wasn't this Mme. Giry's name? Read the following excerp and tell me what you think:

The eyes of the two managers traveled from Mme. Giry to the inspector, who, standing behind the box-keeper, was waving his arms to attract their attention. He tapped his forehead with a distressful forefinger, to convey his opinion that the widow Jules Giry was most certainly mad, a piece of pantomime which confirmed M. Richard in his determination to get rid of an inspector who kept a lunatic in his service.


B. Why does Christine's headstone say Countess de Chagny, when Raoul is a Vicomte?

Answer: This was one of the mistakes of the film. They called Raoul Viscount and Christine Countess. If he were still a Viscount then she should have been a Vicomtesse, if he were a Count, then Countess would be correct.

C. Where does the path beyond the mirror go?

Answer: It leads to the underground lake and then to the Phantom's lair.


D. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the novel, Christine's father is not a wealthy man. Yet in the movie, he has a large, elegant vault. Am I missing something?


Answer: This is another mistake of the film. In truth, there should have been a simple grave and not a vault. You are correct, Christine's father left her in poverty, so a crypt would not be possible.


Last edited by PhantomnessFay on Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:39 am; 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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:38 am

Sounds good to me, although there are some points we will simply have to agree to disagree
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:40 am

Not sure what you mean. I was not finished posting. Please explain. Room for more discussion.
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:54 am

Ok, we're never going to come to a concensus about old Mme Giry at the start of the film. My main thought is that Patrick Wilson played old Raoul, and if they wanted it to be Meg, they would have used Jennifer Ellison, not Miranda Richardson. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Interesting exert...it definately sounds like Mme Giry's first name is Jules, not her husbands. Very interesting.

With C I should have been more clear. I was talking about the mirror in the final scene, that the Phantom breaks and walks through. We know he couldn't have gone too far, as he knew of Christine's death and even placed the ring and rose at her grave.

As for the vault, it makes more sense that it was a simple mistake. LIke I mentioned, in the book, perhaps Prof Valerius may have paid for the burial, but I still don't see it as a massive vault like that. But, the Phantom had to hide in something I suppose. Would have been hard just to crouch down behind a tombstone Smile

Sorry about posting before you were done....I got the email saying there was a new posting, so I came right over 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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:30 am

True, there have been debates on whether old Mme. Giry is Meg or her mother, however, look at her and then at Raoul. Logically speaking, would she look that good at 90-something?

Last mirror broken in the lair near the end of the film was possibly the Phantom secret passage to escape. Remember the Opera House was riddled with them and trap doors leading to escape routes. When the Phantom broke the other mirrors first, it was to throw the mob off track. Should they see the broken glass from the one he went through, they would only think it was glass from the other mirrors.

Now you can post. I'm done. cat fight
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:58 am

Like I said above....being a ballerina and a ballet mistress her whole life would have kept her in phenomenal shape and health. Raoul is in poor health, so he does look older than she does, but the way she walks, very slow and deliberate, there's no reason she couldn't be an 85+ year old woman.

I'm always wondering where that passage goes to. Maybe you're right, just to another part under the opera house, since his home has now been comprimised. He has so few options, at least in his mind, that he doesn't really have anywhere to go. I never realized that he broke those first two mirrors as a ruse to others coming in. I thought he was just pissed off!
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:22 pm

For now we'll drop the reason the old Mme Giry is Meg or her mother.

Here are some more things to think about from the 2004 film:

1. What does the Phantom eat and what does he spend his salary on?

2. If the Phantom doesn't leave the opera house where does he learn his skills like driving a carriage?

3. Who does the Phantom practice sword fighting with?

4. How old is Raoul? In the film, they mention that he and Christine were childhood friends, but at the auction in the beginning he looks the same age as Madame Giry who is old enough to be Christine's mother.

5. At the beginning of the movie, during the auction, when the chandelier rises, the seats in the opera house are dusty. At the end of the movie, it is seen that the seats burn when the chandelier falls. Is this a mistake, or did they rebuild the opera house after the accident?

6. Why do they sometimes put "La" in front of Carlotta's name? I'm sure it's something to do with the Italian/Spanish language but I took the class a long time ago.

7. During the Think of Me sequence when the camera goes down through the grate to get to the phantom below the stage, it is on the floor right next to the grate what is the round thing?

8. In the speech of Joseph Buquet to the dancers he describes a magical lasso. What was it in the book?

9. In the same speech of Buquet, he describes the Phantom but it doesn't seem to be what we see in the movie, why?

10. Regarding the pronunciation of Raoul's name; based on the spelling, we would have thought it would be pronounced "Ra-ool", but for the most part in the movie, it's pronounced "Ral" (like 'Ralph' without the 'ph'). Which way is correct?

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

Your answers and thoughts? 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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Tue May 26, 2009 10:33 am

I know, I know, I've been away far too long, but I shall try not to let it happen again Smile

These questions cannot have concrete answers. They would have to be the opinion of who is answering them, correct? Leroux or ALW don't go into detail about these things, but on we go!

1 - I assume the Phantom steals from the kitchens in the Opera House. I mean, there has to be a kitchen, there are people living there. Or perhaps Mme Giry takes food for him. As for his salary, I'm not sure. We know he doesn't leave the Opera House much, or he would have gone and bought Christine another engagement ring. This one is a mystery to me.

2 - Maybe he does leave from time to time. I mean, he left in the carriage. It could be more like Leroux's version where he has masks that make him look "normal" and is able to mingle among society. And I suppose he's probably learned what he could from books. I mean, I know you can't get everything from books, but he'd have a good baseline.

3 - Perhaps the Phantom has an automaton that swordfights with him.

4 - I'd say Raoul is in his early 20's in the movie. At the auction, he looks quite old, but he is obviously not well, which could age him considerably.

5 - This could be a mistake, but if I'm not mistaken, the Opera House still stands, and therefore they would have to have rebuilt it if there was a fire. I also think it was for effect in the beginning, to show it's grandeur

6 - I think La in from of Carlotta is just a symbol of her "greatness". I'm trying to think of an english equivalent, but all I can think of is sir and dame, but that's after being knighted by the Queen. It must be just to show how important she is, something we don't use in today's vocabulary.

7 - The larger one looks like an ashtray. I paused it, and it looks like there are cigarette butts in it. But there's like a shiny ball beside it, and that I have no idea about Sad

8 - Punjab Lasso

9 - Likely because what Buquet is relaying for information is not first hand knowledge. His story is one that was probably passed down for years and through many different people, so by the time it got to Buquet, it was completely messed up.

10 - I went to a few sites, and both the french and italian versions pronouce "Raoul" as "Ra-ool". Unsure of why Christine calls him Ral, nickname from childhood perhaps?

These are my somewhat educated guesses. Anxious to see others!
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:30 am

1. You might be right. To me, Mme Giry may have brought him food until he was of a certain age and then he figured out how to blackmail the mangers. Clothes and perhaps other things that he wanted is what he might have spent his money on.

As for the ring, the idea was that the Phantom was saying 'the ring should have come from me'. It was more symbolic, especially at the end of the film when he returns the ring to Christine.

2. Since there were many age groups living at the opera house, tutors must have been supplied for the younger performers. A library must have been there as well, therefore, he must have eavesdropped on the lessons and perhaps stole into the library for books.

3. The automaton is a possibility. Being an adult when he fights Raoul, there could have been others he had fought and learned from before terminating them.

4. From the film, it is difficult to tell the ages, but you are probably correct in saying Raoul was in his early 20's.

5. Again, you are probably right on this one. The opera house must have been rebuilt at one point and then later grew dusty from non-use.

6. If I'm not mistaken, "La" in front of the person's name was sort of a title given to divas at that time.

7. Now I have to look up the answer. It's been so long, I've forgotten. Yikes! Shocked

8. Punjab lasso is correct.

9. That could be true, but actually this is a tribute to the novel, which gives such a description of the Phantom.

10. I have to check to make sure, but it's a matter of choice and from where you hail to determine the pronunciation.

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

Sorry I've taken so long to reply. Looking for work takes a lot of hours. I will post more shortly.
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:38 pm

No worries about taking so long. We've all seemed to be busy lately. I guess that just a part of life. I have, and always have had a problem with the Phantom giving Christine the ring Raoul gave her. I see what you said about "this should have come from me", but I still think he would rather have given her something from him, so that it doesn't remind her of Raoul. That's just my opinion. I know it plays a lot of symbolism in the story, so I have to live with it, but that's just my opinion 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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:21 pm

If I can straighten out unemployment, I am scheduled to be in Vegas June 17, 18 and returning the 19. I am planning to see The Phantom of the Opera there. Whoo hoo!

Perhaps I can find some more trivia there.
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:31 pm

At one point we spoke of movies or other stories similiar to Phantom. I now recall another one. Cheesy as it may be, I liked this old 1956 B-movie starring Chester Morris famed for his character Boston Blackie, Marla English and Tom Conway.

Take a look:




The ending was very Phantomy when the Dr. Lombardi who does the hypnotizing of his lovely assistant with whom he's fallen love, releases her and the man she loves. *long sigh* So like Erik. affraid


Last edited by PhantomnessFay on Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:52 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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:53 pm

It's so funny, there are so many movies that are based on that similar love triangle. So many works of art are based on this, and people love it. It keeps you interested and wondering how it will end. That clip was fun. I haven't seen many movies from that time period, so its interesting to watch!
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:05 pm

You really haven't seen movies from the 1950's? You are missing a lot. I've watched movies from all periods of time. My mother was a big movie buff. In fact The She Creature was one of her favorites. As I said, I know it's cheesy and perdictable, but it was scary at the time.

I don't know who recalls these funny little robot guys giving a commentary as they watched Sci Fi movies, but here a clip with this little dudes putting in their two cents worth. I believe the show was called Science Theatre 2000.

In this video we see the sea creature from which the young woman evolved from in a past life. That is if you believe in past life regression. Shocked

Here's the clip:

I hated these dudes' commentary. Mad
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:48 pm

Ok, the robot things are a little annoying. And true, I haven't seen a lot of movies from the 50's. I'm a bit of a movie buff, but mainly from the 80's on 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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:13 am

Here is an unlikely version of Phantom performed by the cast of Married with Children.




This is hilarious!
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:34 pm

OMG this was too funny! When his pants came down and you could see the furry suit, I thought I would die laughing!
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 : 3844
Registration date : 2008-05-19

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:10 pm

And I hope you enjoyed the Larry Storch presentation of The Phantom of the Opera with Al Bundy as the Phantom, the beaten down, broken old man... Laughing

Wasn't this a riot? When I saw this again I laughed my head off. I didn't remember they did this. Kelly as Christine? lol! Wasn't that too funny? At least she is blond like the real Christine. Shocked
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 : 3067
Registration date : 2008-08-30

PostSubject: Re: Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie   Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:35 am

I don't think I have ever seen this, unless it was when I was really young. Kelly trying to deliver her lines was a stitch. And Al checking the cue cards. But the pants-ing was the best. What a riot! lol!
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 3:12 pm

Back to top Go down
 
Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 11 of 12Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 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: