[ SECRET POST #5784 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5784 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #828.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

09. https://i.imgur.com/BgtUaa4.png

[(Anonymous)]

Butler is a so-so singer, but he absolutely nailed the acting part of it. If it had been an adaptation of the novel, played for drama, then he'd have been great for the part.

[(Anonymous)]

I found his acting rather mediocre in it.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course you did.

[(Anonymous)]

It was, admittedly, better than his singing though.

[(Anonymous)]

At least the Phantom's suit didn't have rubber nipples and butt cheeks.

[(Anonymous)]

... but now I want to see that.

[(Anonymous)]

My understanding is that the Phantom was, in fact, wearing butt padding.

[(Anonymous)]

That just made me imagine a Phantom of the Opera version of those Batman movies where there were close up of his nipples and ass after getting into costume.
The cape would certainly make it extra dramatic.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen the musical and I still like the 2004 movie.
It's just one of the many adaptions of the book that have been made.

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP, but those are my thoughts too.

[(Anonymous)]

I really liked the liveliness of the sets and minor characters.

The book had this huge sense of the Palace Garnier as an entity in its own right, a bustling world, and the movie brought that out really well.

I will also admit that I'm in love with Carlotta's Bad Singing. (It takes skill to mess up a song in precisely that way.) In love, I tell you!

[(Anonymous)]

I hated it, but you're allowed to enjoy whatever you enjoy, OP.

[(Anonymous)]

There were good things about it! Unfortunately they could not commit to an actually ugly Phantom, so the poor guy ended up with like mild sunburn on a small patch of his face.

[(Anonymous)]

When I finally saw the musical recently, the 2004 movie did not prepare me for what I was suppyri expect. Lmao it was truly a shock.

[(Anonymous)]

I fucking loathe a lot of the choices made for the film, including Butler's casting. But Butler is on the record that he refused to perform the final lair shirtless because the focus shouldn't be on how "sexy" he is during his total breakdown, so I have to thank him for that.

Despite his sounding like inexplicably Scottish Bullwinkle the Moose.

[(Anonymous)]

Same here OP - I'm too broke to see the live stage musical and I haven't had time to watch a bootleg version either; but I enjoyed the movie all the same (and teen me geeked out seeing the woman who played Queen Elizabeth from Blackadder II in it so lol that was my high point back then. That and shipping Christine with her bestie).

[(Anonymous)]

I loved it! Just one of the fun ways the musical has been adapted. I’ve seen it on stage and I saw the Vegas spectacular, too. I rate West End as the best (any casting), 2004 movie next, Vegas Spectacular much lower, and the 2012 casting of Broadway (the only time I saw it on Broadway) as the worst of the versions I’ve seen. And all were enjoyable in different ways. The movie had great atmosphere and a lot more freedom to act out the story. The singing wasn’t bad but it gets a bad rap because it’s on film and because it wasn’t musical stage performers starring in it. They did better than some of the others I’ve seen (the Vegas Eric I saw was terrible and the Broadway one wasn’t much better, Gerard Butler was better than both of them).
I think most of the criticism I’ve seen stems from theatre snobs, a group that frankly does more harm than good to continuing musical theatre. And I think most of them are limited in their experience to only the most popular bootlegs and are unaware that plenty of stage productions cast less than perfect singers all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

“And I think most of them are limited in their experience to only the most popular bootlegs and are unaware that plenty of stage productions cast less than perfect singers all the time.”


Limited to the most popular bootlegs, sure. But where on earth are you getting the assumption that musical fans who don’t like the 2004 Phantom movie are unaware that stage productions sometimes have less than perfect singers?? I don’t understand your reasoning for this at all, and I would bet good money you’re wrong about that. Especially because most people even outside of the musical fandoms are more than aware of the hit and miss nature of smaller and/or local theater productions.

The fact is, most fans of theater want the best possible adaptation if Hollywood is going to do it anyways. And that includes the best possible casts. So when someone who’s singing is mediocre at best like Butler gets cast as a character who’s singing talent is a major character trait, there will be disappointment. And that’s on top of many other choices for this movie that make sense as to why the Phandom weren’t pleased. Some of them might be snobs. But many are just fans of the musical, and the wider canon created by the original novel, who wanted a major adaptation like this to be better.

That doesn’t mean everyone should hate the movie, including fans of the musical, and it’s great that people do enjoy it. In general, I don’t think fans of the movie should be disparaged, and neither should fans of the musical who didn’t like it.

[(Anonymous)]

This.

[(Anonymous)]

I used to think that, and I also don't consider myself a big musical person, but then someone dragged me to see Phantom on West End and... wow, good singing really makes a difference. Maybe because the story is so melodramatic, you really want the EMOTIONS to come through. So weirdly I'm with the elitists on this one.

[(Anonymous)]

The 2004 movie was my introduction to the story and will always be my favorite adaptation. Gerard wasn’t perfect but I don’t think he was terrible. At least he wasn’t Russell Crowe lol

[(Anonymous)]

I have to admit, I love that movie. Sure, Gerard hits some notes that make my brain go "bad noise," but I don't care. It's my trash fire comfort movie. I have the soundtrack on my playlist and listen to it fairly frequently.

[(Anonymous)]

What I hate about it the most is the changes it made to the backstories of the characters, turning the Phantom into a man who's been creepily watching Christine since she was 7 years old. That's majorly different to the novel, and the stage show. Euuuuggghhh.

[meadowphoenix]

i loved this movie and this soundtrack and I've loved the musical for forever. i do think butler's bad singing makes christine calling him her angel hilarious though. I think mimi driver as the diva was inspired.