Brilliant review! It’s nice for someone to notice for once that Roul wasn’t exactly perfect in the novel either. I remember just thinking he was so winey, like there’s one scene we’re he’s like “she shouldn’t cry for him she should cry for me” and he does intrude on her life despite her telling him to go and it does get creepy. The only argument I have for him is that the Phantom does sound older than Christine cause well he is, and considering what ballerinas and singers had to do to get a fair living in those days he probably thought someone (at first at least) was using Christine by tricking her with empty promises.
I read the French book and it is not that creepy but of course, it is creepier than the 2004 movie with Gerald Butler so maybe the English book is creepier than the French, I don't know. Maybe it is just because I am touched with his 180 degree change in the book as well as in the 2004 movie, which would explain why I stayed with the latest impression of Erik. It is as if Christine woke him up from somewhat a Zombie Apocalypse. Raoul is also a wimp in the French book, even wimpier than the 2004 movie, a real nuisance to the Daroga's operations. Also, Wimpy-Raoul forgot her since after childhood to when she performs at the Opera so for 10 years, Mr. Gigolo went for multiple girls - which is better expressed in the Charles Dance 1991 movie. Yeah, a gigolo-wimp that is. My understanding of Mr. Stalker-Gigolo-Wimp in the book must be stalking her because Mr. is a Vicomte so he thinks he owns her. Oh yeah Raoul is really mean in the book and the 2004 movie because ''she is just making things up after the death of Joseph Bouquet, it is all in her feeble mind'' and he jumps on this opportunity to get her engaged to him. I think Erik was seeing more his game than her and that's why there was a fight at the cemetery and I could say more but I don't want to write an essay in the comments section.
Thank you so much. This was certainly an insightful comparison between the book and movie. You really honestly should do a review on Susan Kay's Phantom.
To be completely honest, when I first read the book, I really didn't read that the Phantom was all that selfish. I just saw a man who had all these horrible things happen throughout the course of his youth. (And I actually think he is supposed to be either 29 or 30 years old, and Christine is actually 20 years old in the book, so that means that there might have been some hope for him to see the error of his ways..... I think.) And only really knowing how to take all of the anger at the world and society at that time, for him, was by hurting people, but only killing if he needed to when he was in Paris. It made me feel a bit sorry for the guy, even though I don't like how he dealt with it. And I think that, since Christine did so much for the Phantom more than Raoul in the book, that if she stayed with the Phantom, she could have helped him become a better man and he could be accepted into society by, oh I don't know, being a music teacher not only for Christine, but for all the aspiring singers in Paris. It would have been a bit dysfunctional, I'll admit, but it would be more toxic if she stayed with the stalker Vicomte. This is just my own personal opinion, though.
I think that you're wrong assuming that Christine could "fix" Erik Starting with his age, OK, if he really was in his 30's then he MAYBE could have change of heart and accept society, because he'd be still young and could learn again how to live among humans. But, i actually think that he is in his 50's, or even 60's because A:he was there when the Opera was built in the 15 years between 1860 and 1875, and the book takes place somewhere between 1880 and 1890. And B: he was also in the traveling circus, Russia, Persia and God knows where before settling in the opera house and I doubt that he was building torture chambers and palaces for the sultan at the age of 15 So, we have on our hands a 50 to 60 years old man, with a lifetime of crap behind his back, who after all these years of shunning became so distant from any societal norms, he won't even call himself a part of humankind anymore. Plus, with a psyche so broken that he often talks about himself in third person, almost like he wants to distant himself even more from his misery and/or bad deeds. I am really sorry for my poor English lol, but I really don't think anybody could fix him Maybe modern psychiatry could help, but not some singer with Stockholm syndrome. And only if he himself was willing to cooperate... and I doubt that he would.
I like both stories equally for different reasons. I will always love the movie and will be team Erik, in terms of the ALW musical. The book was amazing. I’ve read it twice, and I plan to read it again. The one thing I wished was different for the book was if Gaston wrote the novel in Christine’s point of view instead of his own. Cause if you haven’t noticed, it’s written how Gaston is seeing it. But other than that, I adore the scary atmosphere and everything else about it. I really can’t choose one over the other, cause I love the story and the characters and the plot regardless. Also I really recommend for you to watch the non musical play of phantom. It’s a play that’s based on the book for the vast majority of the time, other moments were original from the play writer.
I have never read the book but i plan to eventually i never knew that the book existed untill a few years ago i grew up watching the 2004 gerard butler film that i love and i need to read the book since im a big fan of horror movies and ive always sympathized with the phantom in the 04 film of feelling rejected
hi sorry to bother you but i was wondering if you could show me what is the actual copy of the phantom of the opera, i am trying tog get it for my girlfriend as a birthday gift!
I was thinking in the 2004 movie he wouldn’t harm Christine but in other movies or even 25th anniversary the phantom did try to harm her in some ways. I believe in one version he just slapped her lol
I don’t think Erik loved her in the book as much as he was obsessed with her. I think it was less of a true pure love and more of an obsession. I think he might have possibly had a little more of a pure true love for her in the musical and movie but I still think it very much was centered in this obsession he had with her.
If he didn't feel bad for what he'd done, why did he play the funeral mass for Phillipe after he murdered him? He must've had some remorse for what he'd done, though it doesn't excuse what he did because he still had the intent to kill people. He did eventually let Christine go too because he loved her. He told the daroga that he was dying from love. Perhaps she did redeem him and made him feel sorrow for what he'd done and actually change. I mean it is possible for people to change. I've read of stories where people who had done unspeakable horrible things, who had changed. They were saved and came forward and confessed what they'd done and went to jail and/or were executed. Or when they got out of prison became ministers. Whether you can believe it or not, God does make miracles. Remember, Paul was a Christian killer before Jesus chose him and took him out of darkness?
Amy, Altho Gaston Leroux meant it as a Detective/Mystery story, the novel was basically like a horror story. As was the 1925 film version w/Lon Chaney. I liked the book, 1925, 1943, 1962 & the 1993 made for TV version W/ Charles Dance and the Broadway Musical & the 2004 film version based on the musical. But, Amy, the Phantom, in the book, 1925 film, & musical, didn't trick Christine into believing he was her father, but an Angel of Music, that her father promised to send her after he died.
Thanks!! Now I know the reason behind the "Keep your hands at th elevel of your eyes!". :) I wanted to know more about Carlota in the book. Anything about her? Same as in the movie(or the musical)?
Also, Amy, The Persian didn't help the Phantom build the Opera House. He just helped him escape from India. It was Charles Granier. And the Phantom, without anyone's knowledge, built his own underground home.
You're criticism of Raoul was pretty great! But, I think he's very much the stereotype of the 'hero' of the time: not really regarding women but unbelievably brave. I was rather rooting for him (I considered Erik horribly abusive). So it was: Raoul, for all his flaws, was at least honest.
Ah yes, I think most of the reason why he was upset at Christine for not telling him much was because he was being honest to her and she wasn't? Not exactly sure, but yeah, at least the guy was honest and all that XD
I'll take the book over the movie any day. And I'll say this in defence of the stage version, while it was heavily romanticised it handled a lot of things better than the movie did.
Honestly, I really enjoyed the book better because I like the scarier aspect of it, but somehow I enjoyed the movie too. As for which of the performances (movie or stage) I liked better? Well, maybe I'll make a whole other video about that ;) Thanks for watching though!
I loved the book! The movie I felt was complete trash. Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum did not play phantom and Christine at all correctly. Michael Crawford however played a phantom much closer to the book. He has a very soothing voice with a ghastly feel and is a high tenor, which is what is described in the book. Especially in that scene where Erik takes Christine into the mirror. And for me, Sarah Brightman played the perfect Christine. Christine is supposed to be a beautiful opera singer or a prima Donna.
What I still don't understand from the book is how did the Phantom of the opera take those 20 000 francs from the managers when they were keeping an eye on it the whole time
The phantom is a master of manipulation. All good showmen are so I think it really was a matter of drawing all eyes to whatever he wanted them to be looking at while ignoring the obvious. But, wondering how he did some of the things is part of the magic!
Gotta be honest, not quite sure how he did it...maybe that's a mistake that the author needs to fix! Sometimes in trying to find the perfect way to make their main character seem so 'cool' they forget that these characters are still bound by the laws of reality.
Strong opinion. I havent seen it, but I have a feeling that I will like it cause I like everything phantom. (Except that dang bad staller ending.) I just know the popular opinion is that its it's bad.
![[ 🔴LIVE ] Minecraft : Day5 บ้านหรู หนูอยู่สบายย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q3e6qfwDwFs/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนดัดสันดาน นักเรียนเถื่อน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vRKPeXn4Fl4/mqdefault.jpg)
It was mentioned somewhere in the book that Raoul was kinda spoiled by his big brother so that sorta explains his uh... "Whiney" personality XD
i think both versions are valid because they are so different we can categorize them in different genres
Oh! I agree with you Amy! Book Raoul is such a creep! And Raoul’s creepiness carries over into all the adaptations that I have seen, in some way.
Brilliant review! It’s nice for someone to notice for once that Roul wasn’t exactly perfect in the novel either. I remember just thinking he was so winey, like there’s one scene we’re he’s like “she shouldn’t cry for him she should cry for me” and he does intrude on her life despite her telling him to go and it does get creepy. The only argument I have for him is that the Phantom does sound older than Christine cause well he is, and considering what ballerinas and singers had to do to get a fair living in those days he probably thought someone (at first at least) was using Christine by tricking her with empty promises.
I read the French book and it is not that creepy but of course, it is creepier than the 2004 movie with Gerald Butler so maybe the English book is creepier than the French, I don't know. Maybe it is just because I am touched with his 180 degree change in the book as well as in the 2004 movie, which would explain why I stayed with the latest impression of Erik. It is as if Christine woke him up from somewhat a Zombie Apocalypse. Raoul is also a wimp in the French book, even wimpier than the 2004 movie, a real nuisance to the Daroga's operations. Also, Wimpy-Raoul forgot her since after childhood to when she performs at the Opera so for 10 years, Mr. Gigolo went for multiple girls - which is better expressed in the Charles Dance 1991 movie. Yeah, a gigolo-wimp that is. My understanding of Mr. Stalker-Gigolo-Wimp in the book must be stalking her because Mr. is a Vicomte so he thinks he owns her. Oh yeah Raoul is really mean in the book and the 2004 movie because ''she is just making things up after the death of Joseph Bouquet, it is all in her feeble mind'' and he jumps on this opportunity to get her engaged to him. I think Erik was seeing more his game than her and that's why there was a fight at the cemetery and I could say more but I don't want to write an essay in the comments section.
Thank you so much. This was certainly an insightful comparison between the book and movie. You really honestly should do a review on Susan Kay's Phantom.
To be completely honest, when I first read the book, I really didn't read that the Phantom was all that selfish.
I just saw a man who had all these horrible things happen throughout the course of his youth. (And I actually think he is supposed to be either 29 or 30 years old, and Christine is actually 20 years old in the book, so that means that there might have been some hope for him to see the error of his ways..... I think.) And only really knowing how to take all of the anger at the world and society at that time, for him, was by hurting people, but only killing if he needed to when he was in Paris. It made me feel a bit sorry for the guy, even though I don't like how he dealt with it. And I think that, since Christine did so much for the Phantom more than Raoul in the book, that if she stayed with the Phantom, she could have helped him become a better man and he could be accepted into society by, oh I don't know, being a music teacher not only for Christine, but for all the aspiring singers in Paris. It would have been a bit dysfunctional, I'll admit, but it would be more toxic if she stayed with the stalker Vicomte. This is just my own personal opinion, though.
I think that you're wrong assuming that Christine could "fix" Erik
Starting with his age, OK, if he really was in his 30's then he MAYBE could have change of heart and accept society, because he'd be still young and could learn again how to live among humans.
But, i actually think that he is in his 50's, or even 60's because
A:he was there when the Opera was built in the 15 years between 1860 and 1875, and the book takes place somewhere between 1880 and 1890.
And B: he was also in the traveling circus, Russia, Persia and God knows where before settling in the opera house and I doubt that he was building torture chambers and palaces for the sultan at the age of 15
So, we have on our hands a 50 to 60 years old man, with a lifetime of crap behind his back, who after all these years of shunning became so distant from any societal norms, he won't even call himself a part of humankind anymore.
Plus, with a psyche so broken that he often talks about himself in third person, almost like he wants to distant himself even more from his misery and/or bad deeds.
I am really sorry for my poor English lol, but I really don't think anybody could fix him
Maybe modern psychiatry could help, but not some singer with Stockholm syndrome.
And only if he himself was willing to cooperate... and I doubt that he would.
I like both stories equally for different reasons. I will always love the movie and will be team Erik, in terms of the ALW musical. The book was amazing. I’ve read it twice, and I plan to read it again. The one thing I wished was different for the book was if Gaston wrote the novel in Christine’s point of view instead of his own. Cause if you haven’t noticed, it’s written how Gaston is seeing it. But other than that, I adore the scary atmosphere and everything else about it. I really can’t choose one over the other, cause I love the story and the characters and the plot regardless. Also I really recommend for you to watch the non musical play of phantom. It’s a play that’s based on the book for the vast majority of the time, other moments were original from the play writer.
Boy, Christine must have been a goddess to attract all those creeps
I have never read the book but i plan to eventually i never knew that the book existed untill a few years ago i grew up watching the 2004 gerard butler film that i love and i need to read the book since im a big fan of horror movies and ive always sympathized with the phantom in the 04 film of feelling rejected
hi sorry to bother you but i was wondering if you could show me what is the actual copy of the phantom of the opera, i am trying tog get it for my girlfriend as a birthday gift!
I was thinking in the 2004 movie he wouldn’t harm Christine but in other movies or even 25th anniversary the phantom did try to harm her in some ways. I believe in one version he just slapped her lol
Yeah in the 25th anniversary he literally almost chokes her during the final lair
scene.
I don’t think Erik loved her in the book as much as he was obsessed with her. I think it was less of a true pure love and more of an obsession. I think he might have possibly had a little more of a pure true love for her in the musical and movie but I still think it very much was centered in this obsession he had with her.
If he didn't feel bad for what he'd done, why did he play the funeral mass for Phillipe after he murdered him? He must've had some remorse for what he'd done, though it doesn't excuse what he did because he still had the intent to kill people. He did eventually let Christine go too because he loved her.
He told the daroga that he was dying from love. Perhaps she did redeem him and made him feel sorrow for what he'd done and actually change. I mean it is possible for people to change.
I've read of stories where people who had done unspeakable horrible things, who had changed. They were saved and came forward and confessed what they'd done and went to jail and/or were executed. Or when they got out of prison became ministers. Whether you can believe it or not, God does make miracles. Remember, Paul was a Christian killer before Jesus chose him and took him out of darkness?
Amy, Altho Gaston Leroux meant it as a Detective/Mystery story, the novel was basically like a horror story. As was the 1925 film version w/Lon Chaney. I liked the book, 1925, 1943, 1962 & the 1993 made for TV version W/ Charles Dance and the Broadway Musical & the 2004 film version based on the musical. But, Amy, the Phantom, in the book, 1925 film, & musical, didn't trick Christine into believing he was her father, but an Angel of Music, that her father promised to send her after he died.
Thanks!! Now I know the reason behind the "Keep your hands at th elevel of your eyes!". :) I wanted to know more about Carlota in the book. Anything about her? Same as in the movie(or the musical)?
My favourite movie of all time
Also, Amy, The Persian didn't help the Phantom build the Opera House. He just helped him escape from India. It was Charles Granier. And the Phantom, without anyone's knowledge, built his own underground home.
Can you compare the phantom book and the 1925 phantom movie please
2004 movie is way better than this
@@daynacooper1163 I like it a tad better but my favorite is the 25th anniversary of the show
I really enjoyed this video! Great job comparing and contrasting!
Thanks! I have a ton more book reviews coming! I really appreciate your support!
Can u please do the hunchback of Notre dame
You're criticism of Raoul was pretty great! But, I think he's very much the stereotype of the 'hero' of the time: not really regarding women but unbelievably brave. I was rather rooting for him (I considered Erik horribly abusive). So it was: Raoul, for all his flaws, was at least honest.
Ah yes, I think most of the reason why he was upset at Christine for not telling him much was because he was being honest to her and she wasn't?
Not exactly sure, but yeah, at least the guy was honest and all that XD
No competition. Book's better.
I'll take the book over the movie any day. And I'll say this in defence of the stage version, while it was heavily romanticised it handled a lot of things better than the movie did.
Honestly, I really enjoyed the book better because I like the scarier aspect of it, but somehow I enjoyed the movie too. As for which of the performances (movie or stage) I liked better? Well, maybe I'll make a whole other video about that ;) Thanks for watching though!
I loved the book! The movie I felt was complete trash. Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum did not play phantom and Christine at all correctly. Michael Crawford however played a phantom much closer to the book. He has a very soothing voice with a ghastly feel and is a high tenor, which is what is described in the book. Especially in that scene where Erik takes Christine into the mirror. And for me, Sarah Brightman played the perfect Christine. Christine is supposed to be a beautiful opera singer or a prima Donna.
To me Raul doesn't sound that bad he kind of sounds like James Bond
This was great haha keep it up
Thanks so much! I have a bunch of videos planned so stay tuned! More reviews are on the way!
So. Being petty about this, I must ask. Which movie? (I know you mean 2004. But I like to be petty about this. And so I must ask.)
Haha you’re correct, the 2004. Pettiness appreciate 😉
I 100% with her.
What I still don't understand from the book is how did the Phantom of the opera take those 20 000 francs from the managers when they were keeping an eye on it the whole time
The phantom is a master of manipulation. All good showmen are so I think it really was a matter of drawing all eyes to whatever he wanted them to be looking at while ignoring the obvious. But, wondering how he did some of the things is part of the magic!
Amy OfAllTrades yeah I understand that, but they put a pin there so Richard would feel any movement in that pocket
Gotta be honest, not quite sure how he did it...maybe that's a mistake that the author needs to fix! Sometimes in trying to find the perfect way to make their main character seem so 'cool' they forget that these characters are still bound by the laws of reality.
@@amylouise3315...the book clearly explains that Erik took the money through a hidden opening in the floorboards.
I prefer 1989 ver movie
Strong opinion. I havent seen it, but I have a feeling that I will like it cause I like everything phantom. (Except that dang bad staller ending.) I just know the popular opinion is that its it's bad.
She was 20 there was a mistranslation
He was also in his fifty's
It wasn't India it was Persia
There's more than one book