CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

did any one see that movie? it was so good! lol i can't wait till it comes out of DVD!!!

what was your fav. part of the movie, or your favorite song?

srry
*Opera

I have not seen this movie yet but would like to. It is a movie version of the broadway show, right?

btw- shouldn't this be in the "In the spotlight section"

Haven't seen the movie...I started reading the book though.

I saw the movie I thought it was awesome!!!

It has its 'moments' but otherwise I thought it was really cool (especially the singer)!!!

My fav. song was the theme song or 'phantom of the opera' (or whatever its called..)

lol i liekd all the song...srry i didn't know which section to put it in, so if the ppl wanna move it they could. i just didn't know where to put it

The opening was good, I loved the transition from black and white to color.

Now I'm just waiting for "Cats" to make it's illustrious cinematic debut.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I read the book a few years ago. >X3 I liked it~

I read the book, a long time ago I it was a the newest version at the time. I think I was 9 or 10.
Now I want to see the movie sooo bad.

[quote="Kat Walker"]The opening was good, I loved the transition from black and white to color.

Now I'm just waiting for "Cats" to make it's illustrious cinematic debut. ]

Actually, it already did.

And there's already a PotO thread in the "In the Spotlight" section as well....

I thought the movie was well done and did the play justice. The cinematography was nice, nothing TOO special, but still nice. Transitions were ok, kept simple. Again, nothing special. The wardrobe and set design was probably this movie's best attributes.

I was happy to see that they didn't sway from the original story and kept the scenes intact (but I wasn't too afraid of that, 'cause Andrew Lloyd Webber was the producer)

However, the lip sync was horrid in many spots and was a major distraction for me.

I thought the movie STILL needed work. Some songs should have been cut and more dialogue added, and some characters needed better development.

Why AL Webber decided to hire Joel Schumacher to direct is a sign of desperation. Schumacher focuses on props and sight effects (which is good)and spends too little time on the story and characters (upon which the life and death of a movie can hang).

The Doctor wrote:Why AL Webber decided to hire Joel Schumacher to direct is a sign of desperation. Schumacher focuses on props and sight effects (which is good)and spends too little time on the story and characters (upon which the life and death of a movie can hang).

Have you seen the play?
The script and characters were already written. That's why he chose Joel Schumacher. The script and characters didn't need much tweeking; so then they COULD focus on the props and effects.
Webber wasn't about to give his masterpiece to a director who's gonna butcher it hollywood style.

not to be mean or anything, but I think it was...^^;;;
I mean, if the movie is going to be EXACTLY like the musical, why bother even making the movie?

[quote="SirThinks2Much"]not to be mean or anything, but I think it was...^^]

Because films offer us more than a play can. Such as Close Ups, different angles, more elaborate set design, etc.

When you watch a play, you're stuck watching it from a 2-D angle. And from a distance. Films get you right up and front to the actor's face. I love going to plays, but films can draw you in easier, imo.

When you watch a play, you're stuck watching it from a 2-D angle. And from a distance. Films get you right up and front to the actor's face. I love going to plays, but films can draw you in easier, imo.

Plus, there's never been a really decent version of PotO done except for the silent b/w version of it from the 1920s(?). Webber's musical version is actually the closest representation to the actual novel that there's ever been, and even that varied away from the novel at several points.

Imo, I thought it was good. The book was a bit darker, but I thought the film really captured the underlying romance of the entire thing, although Eric’s (the Phantom) character was changed vastly.

Orange Kitten wrote:When you watch a play, you're stuck watching it from a 2-D angle. And from a distance. Films get you right up and front to the actor's face. I love going to plays, but films can draw you in easier, imo.

When I saw the musical in LA, I couldn't tell that the Phantom had a problem (then again, we WERE sitting in the balcony and I didn't know at the time that I was nearsighted).

Then the musical must have been pretty confusing, Ingemar...

I haven't seen it and probably won't; but is there anything sexual?

I haven't seen it and probably won't; but is there anything sexual?

Christine wears some low-cut dresses, and shows some out of place thigh-age but nothing really obscene that will make you want to gouge out your eyes. The dresses are in the period style so of course they are that way, but the thigh-age only happens during one scene in the boat ride, and again towards the end, and that's only for a second because she's falling.

Other then that, nothing was really Hollywood-ized that wasn't (at least to my understanding) in the stage version of it. They still sing Don Juan, which is about a romantic tryst, but it's done metaphorically. And at the end of two songs, the Phantom holds Christine and does some stage motions that are... uh... questionable.... and are meant to symbolize making out.

But the movie is, what, PG-13, right? Nothing is ever shown. Talked/sung metaphorically about, but compared to prime time TV, it's extremely clean and tastefully.

I agree.. I mean personally I didint like the wardrobe, but thats what people would wear back then, and yeah... the whole 'Christine-Phantom 'scene isnt even that bad... I mean I dont like it, but its not even as bad as some of the scenes I have seen on movies rated PG.....

Well, I'm glad some people enjoyed it, but I thought that the story got little or no attention. Christine's conflict between the Phantom and her lover wasn't fleshed out well enough; sometimes it seemed to be TOO much singing; other stuff I can't remember right now.

I LOVED how the movie began, mind you, but as it dragged on it seemed to lose something, lacked depth.

lol some of my friends think that too. i liked the begining too though. i thought that it was so cool when the organ began to play and then all this wind blew away all the old cob webs and stuff.. and it went back in time! i thought that i was so cool

But the movie is, what, PG-13, right? Nothing is ever shown.

*coughTITANICcough* O_O;;;;;;;;; (Just because it's 13+ doesn't necessarily mean that it's not disgusting...)


If it's coming out on DVD soon, I'll probably see it. It doesn't exactly interest me, but I like to make fun of opera *realizes what she just said and runs away to hide in a hole before the PoO fans get her*

(Ooh wait...PoO...Poo...poo...poopies... )

ok the poopy thing was really random and weird. but the phantom of the opera was good so you really should watch it when it comes out on DVD

I loved it, though I thought they could have done a little better. Oh well! My fave song is the overture of the phantom of the opera, can't choose! My fave scene was the candelier raising, so awesome! Glad to meet another phan!