|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:24 pm
pale september fuokohopin Xalio I didn't hear the lisp, but I wouldn't put it past him. "Down Once More" to the end of the film and it's there... yeah i noticed that. but who really cares!! i'm sure the "real" phantom wasn't perfect either. rolleyes That all depends on what your definition of the "real Phantom" is.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:33 pm
fuokohopin pale september fuokohopin Xalio I didn't hear the lisp, but I wouldn't put it past him. "Down Once More" to the end of the film and it's there... yeah i noticed that. but who really cares!! i'm sure the "real" phantom wasn't perfect either. rolleyes That all depends on what your definition of the "real Phantom" is. exactly. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:10 pm
pale september fuokohopin pale september fuokohopin Xalio I didn't hear the lisp, but I wouldn't put it past him. "Down Once More" to the end of the film and it's there... yeah i noticed that. but who really cares!! i'm sure the "real" phantom wasn't perfect either. rolleyes That all depends on what your definition of the "real Phantom" is. exactly. 3nodding Well, as my definition of the "real Phantom" is the original canon Leroux Erik, then of course he wasn't perfect. He was a sociopathic killer and didn't have a nose. I think that excludes perfection, yes? But vocally, I would imagine he was far better than Butler...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:11 pm
fuokohopin pale september fuokohopin pale september fuokohopin Xalio I didn't hear the lisp, but I wouldn't put it past him. "Down Once More" to the end of the film and it's there... yeah i noticed that. but who really cares!! i'm sure the "real" phantom wasn't perfect either. rolleyes That all depends on what your definition of the "real Phantom" is. exactly. 3nodding Well, as my definition of the "real Phantom" is the original canon Leroux Erik, then of course he wasn't perfect. He was a sociopathic killer and didn't have a nose. I think that excludes perfection, yes? haha yeah...just a bit biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:25 pm
It depends, also, on the definition of perfect. The dictionary definition of perfect is "without fault", which is really very broad. Something could be absolutely perfect in one setting, and be terrible in another. So, if you follow my unspoken logic there, then the Laroux Erik is perfect, as he is the correct and original Erik. That's how Laroux wanted to display his villain, so that's how he was displayed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:43 am
Xalio It depends, also, on the definition of perfect. The dictionary definition of perfect is "without fault", which is really very broad. Something could be absolutely perfect in one setting, and be terrible in another. So, if you follow my unspoken logic there, then the Laroux Erik is perfect, as he is the correct and original Erik. That's how Laroux wanted to display his villain, so that's how he was displayed. oh yeah...i actually meant perfect as in the perfect phantom. like you say he is supposed to be scrawny and skeleton like and repulsively ugly with the perfect voice. Have you ever actually seen a phantom that met that descreption??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:04 am
pale september Xalio It depends, also, on the definition of perfect. The dictionary definition of perfect is "without fault", which is really very broad. Something could be absolutely perfect in one setting, and be terrible in another. So, if you follow my unspoken logic there, then the Laroux Erik is perfect, as he is the correct and original Erik. That's how Laroux wanted to display his villain, so that's how he was displayed. oh yeah...i actually meant perfect as in the perfect phantom. like you say he is supposed to be scrawny and skeleton like and repulsively ugly with the perfect voice. Have you ever actually seen a phantom that met that descreption?? Peter Karrie. XD No, I'm kidding. He isn't repulsive, but he is rather... lithe, I think is the word I am going for. And "perfect voice" is a somewhat ambiguous term than can be up to interpretation by the reader or the listener, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:10 pm
Basically rules out Gerard Butler for possible portrayal of the Phantom in any setting: He's pretty, his voice is terrible.. Doesn't it have to be the complete opposite for the Phantom?
The ugly to a certain degree must be done with makeup, which the makeup artists in the movie couldn't even do.. his face was different in every scene.. rather funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:13 pm
Xalio Basically rules out Gerard Butler for possible portrayal of the Phantom in any setting: He's pretty, his voice is terrible.. Doesn't it have to be the complete opposite for the Phantom? The ugly to a certain degree must be done with makeup, which the makeup artists in the movie couldn't even do.. his face was different in every scene.. rather funny. If we wanted it exactly perfect they'd need a walking, talking, singing skeleton. Who would they cast, Jack Skellington? xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:32 pm
It's an idea...
Actually, it truly is an idea. We've got the technology now to make a skeleton move in a convincing replica of a human person, and we could dub his voice with the best tenor we can find. (Josh Groban) Then we could have a real skeleton performing the Phantom. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:33 pm
If they ever make a movie that actually follows Leroux's book, they should do that. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:36 pm
I doubt they will. I think the last Phantom movie is the final installment in that series.. and a rather pitiful one at that. *Shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:39 pm
eh, ya never know. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm
Well, if they do make another one, it'll probably be based on the musical. Enough people were unhappy with this one that they may yet try again. I hope they do. *Shrug* Maybe someone worthwhile'll produce it.. like Disney. Wouldn't that be a scene!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:42 pm
gah o_o; I hate Disney... corporate Disney, anyway. I love classic Disney, but now... *shudder*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
