The character of Erik the phantom is like a diamond with many facets. Each actor who plays the role draws out the parts of Erik they can relate to. One isn't better than another just different. I love the book best of all.
No, in fact the majority (which includes me) seem to prefer the Phantom to Raoul. The Phantom is definitely sexier, especially with Gerard in the role.
I read a mag interview he did years ago just after the film came out &he said he hated not just having the makeup on because it was SO uncomfortable, but because when he was in full makeup shooting the scenes he was actually UPSET by the looks & reactions he received from those working on the set - even though it wasnt real. It made him realise I think how terrible it was for someone to have any kind of deformity, &he really got upset by it personally as well to be looked at like that.
I for one think (without seeing the whole movie or being a gerard butler fan) that making the scars much less frightfully in this movie showed the cruel nature of the people back then and their easy judgment made based on the pshysical appeareance. You don't have to be totally disfigured to be watched different in society, you just need to have sometimes a little scar an bang! Everything changes. For this adaptation they did well in my opinion. For THIS adaptation which is very good in it's way.
Personally I think the hair also de-tracks from what was actually done to his face I also think the deformity is simply too small and that also has to do with the fact that the mask was too small. I feel like if they had the mask go down to about his upper lip and around the upper part of his jaw, that would have given the makeup artist more room to work with on his face and maybe create something far more ghastly that what was put on screen. I also think they should have went with him being completely bald that way we could have gotten a real disgusting look not just on the one side of his face but on his head as well. The behind-the-scenes really do show the potential that this makeup had but again because of the way it was shot and the lighting it just looks more like a mild sunburn that can probably be covered up with some contour rather than a serious deformity.
People complain that the makeup wasn't gruesome enough or he wasn't "that disfigured", but you guys have to remember that this movie took place in the late 1800's. What may seem not that big of a deal to us may have been a HUGE deal to them.
Inora Faolan He has basically a really bad sun burn Would he be ostricized or joked at for that back in the 1800s? Depending on the area, and his backgrounds, yes Sent to a freak circus and make people faint because of his face? Fuck no
Counterpoint: In the book, erik is described as having no nose or lips, and having a skeletal face that was so horrifying to look at that even the daroga couldn’t bear to look at him. The phantom needs to look gruesome because it drives the plot. It is where his pain comes from - having a face so horrible that no one, not even his mother - could bear to look at him, let alone love him.
this disfigurement wasn't that bad!!!!! that man had so many emotions in his soul, and so much talent inside him...despite he'd faced so much misery in his life, and he'd never known how it feels someone to care about you, he was able to love and care...so for all that he deserved to be with Christine without a doubt!
If you read the novel, you'll see it's *much worse* than in the musical. His face looks like a skull, he has pale/yellow skin, deep eyes and skinny body. That's what makes him so beautiful and special.
@@mieshocked1450 true. this film was the one that introduced me to POTO, and i loved many moments from it, but his face... i was so disappointed even without reading a book yet. i understand how they maybe wanted him to look more attractive for female audience, but there is a way to make him attractive _and_ canonically accurate (and a lot if artists will tell you just exactly that lmao). and even with that, he doesn't have to be attractive. the whole point of the Phantom is that his voice and his personality are charming and his love is pure in the end, and this is why readers loved his character. Butler can play good, and i really loved him in this film (tho there were moments in his Phantom's behaviour i didn't agree with), but to hear someone say that he felt uncomfortable with this kind of a simple sun burn?.. am i not getting something, or i just have very low standarts for man's appearances? :D
to those who think they know the phantom, erik is not his real name. The name comes up in the book but that was a name the phantom chose for himself because he never had a name.
His name is Erik. When the book says "it's not his 'real' name", it's because he has no registred identidy and his abusive mother never named him. But his name was decided to be ERIK, by himself. If it's not registred in the law, then he doesn't exist? How people still misunderstand this and insist to call Erik "The Phantom" or a "nameless legend" is still unnerving and increible to me.
Yeah maybe the disfigurement could of been better but I don't really think the 25th anniversary is acted better, may be sung better on the Phantoms half but, Gerard's voice suits it more for me, its more mysterious and sexy, and easier to connect with him more than Ramin. I think, the overall emotional drive of the film is displayed better than that of the play. Both great, but the movie does it for me more.
Thank you. I so aggressive with you on this. Also I really like the pacing in the movie. In the stage musical everything seemed so fast, where as in the movie the characters had some time for their emotions to fully sink in and act accordingly to the situations they all were put in. It was just fantastic.
I'm glad Gerry was such a good sport about the makeup. Most actors hate being made up! In fact the hatred felt between Lon Chaney Jr and makeup man Jack Pierce was LEGENDARY!
I'm sorry I know one side of his face looks scary from his past but that is what makes him so beautiful. The phantom is beautifully broken and needs beauty to heal him. If i were Christine I would of stayed with Phantom.
Honestly, whether its the stage plays horrific corpse face or the movies warped features, I think both work because they exemplify how, first of all, Erik allows himself to become as monsterous as he appears and secondly, it shows the cruelty of people. That no matter how talented and extrordinary Erik was, even half his face being warped was enough for people to scorn him and demonize him
True, in the 19th century, it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak. Every adaptation is different - that does not mean that it is bad. It is not important how disfigured he is, it is how disfigured he feels which is what leads him down a dark path. His own mother and society made him feel like an ugly, worthless person.
maybe they could have made it a little more gruesome, but I'm my opinion (and I'm sure not everyone will agree) I think that the disfigurement didn't need to be really terrible, it was also the fact that no matter what he looked like under the mask, people didn't want him and didn't like him, and so maybe that made him think his disfigurement is a lot worse than what it actually is.
Girls. I just want to tell you, that in the books he looks nothing like he does in the movie. He has like three hairs on his head, his face is unrecognizable... I mean, if you saw him on the street, you wouldn't automatically think, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL AND ARTSY PERSON!. no, truthfully, although I do like this version of phantom. Sincerely, to everyone who read the book
I hate how poor this "deformity" is, but bruh, Gerard Butler was so great as Erik! His acting and his voice fited completely to Erik, and he's such a good gentle fellow! The 2004 movie is magnificent, althought they missed the deformity.
It would have been interesting if they'd gone for a full face deformity for this movie, given that the half-mask is used in the musical only because a full mask wouldn't work with the stage microphones. It would tie in with the logo and make it something 'different' than what's seen on stage. Though given they went with the vague sunburn look here, I don't think they would be ballsy enough to go full-face ugly. It also suffers because Gerard's Phantom has the droopy eye socket with the mask off but in all the scenes where he's wearing a mask, his undereye area looks fine, and there's no hint the mask is anything more than a fashion accessory. At least during the stage version, you still see hints of the deformity with the mask on, especially with the mouth and bloated lips. It reminds you of what's under the mask, and ups the visual suspense until you see the full reveal.
People are saying this makeup doesn't look as "intense" as the stage versions. Well...yeah. Stage makeup HAS to be intense so that even people up in the nosebleed section can see it. In film that's not the case.
Watch the 25th Anniversary Concert with Ramin Karimloo! You won't be disappointed with the disfigurement ;) (plus it's sung/acted and generally better than the movie in every way)
Listen, why be so mean and shoot this person down for no reason. For thinking someone is attractive? I think the Phantom is hot! lol . His look, his voice his personality and the romance behind his character make him sexy. .and I dont have a twilight name. So I would keep your "facts" to yourself. Oh and thanx tips, we didn't realize he is disfigured. I dont care if he isn't meant to be hot, I find him attractive. :)
I wished that the make-up could have looked more gruesome too, it made Erik seem like a whiny bitch for blaming everything on his face when it really isn't that bad. However, I do like how that may be the tragedy in itself: He spent his life focusing on something that isn't that big of a deal and wasted his chance at happiness. It adds weight to Christine's line: "This haunted face Holds no horror for me now. It's in your soul That the true distortion lie" So in the movie, she's basically saying "You ain't that ugly, but you are pretty fucked up mane"
The original make-up for the 1925`s Lon Chaney Sr.`s "Phantom of The Opera"' will be always more haunting and heart-breaking nowadays than the make-up of the last version of the "Phantom of the Opera"' for me...If you could watch the original Unmasking Scene several times, you can feel the fear and the fierceness of those facial and body expressions saying everything that need to be said without using any words !
And can i say at first he killed to escape and then no one showed him compassion or love so he killed them like erick said" the world showed no compassion to me "
actually, the whole "burned as a child" thing depends on what version you go by. I've never read the book, but I don't think that's part of it. I still think they got cheap on the disfigurement. Probably because they went through all this trouble getting a "young, sexy" phantom and couldn't bear to ugly up that pretty face. Have you seen the original disfigurement from the play? Or Lon Chaney's face? THAT is something to hid in a mask
OMG I’m in love with the phantom the make up is cool and he still looks good if I seen him unmasked like that I’d give him a kiss on that side before kissing him on the mouth and say to me your just perfect
The book is the book, and will always be the original, nothing will change that. I don't know why people seek perfection. I for one love when they make some changes in on-screen adaptations. It shows a "what if..." side that you never thought about and explores new depths. Just sayin'!
The Phantom is ugly on the outside and the inside as Christine said; "This haunted face holds no horror for me now ... It's in your soul that the true distortion lies". As much as we love the Phantom, he is not a nice person and Christine is so much better off without him.
Who was your first to hear? If you don't mind me asking. And I agree on crawford, he is kind of sentimental for me, since he's an older phantom and everything.
Can I just point out to all the idiots that call themselves die hard fans of phantom but are saying how bad the make up is, if you were that die hard you'd have the collectors edition of phantom in which lloyd webber states clearly he didn't want it to be like the stage, he wanted a rocky toned voice.. And he wanted a different disfigurement. It's actually a horrible burn, not a born disfigurement he wanted different to the play! Accept that and stop comparing it, when the creator of the musica
@aniva26 It's a wig. You can see him adjusting it during "Seal my Fate" -- and a spare wig on a stand in the background, too -- and then Christine pulls it off during "The Point of No Return".
Sorry for the late reply, but I think I read that there was a hidden string that somehow attached to the lower part of his eye. Pulling down on the string made his eye do that weird thing he just demonstrated. (I even heard the other cast members would pick on him by coming up and pulling on the string - which was very uncomfortable!) Hope this helps!
There's a penny arcade comic about the movie Beastly that also applies to this, where the "deformed" guy says he's tormented, and she replies "I love you, even though you're so cool and rad."
That is a genius reworking of that song! Here's a cross country-themed version- As I run up that hill, this is what I see All the girls in spandex are strain' at me I got passion in my spikes and I ain't afraid to show it, show it, show it, show it I'm speedy and I know it
I have mixed feelings on Butler's Phantom, Sure the singing and acting was good, but yes the disfigurement could have been a lot more pronounced. The stage productions phantom looked miles better, but the Original Phantom makeup wouldn't have worked for the 2004 film, as it would be considered to gruesome for the purpose of the film, which was more romanticized than the 1989 version.
+ShiMorino I agree with you on the makeup and acting, although I personally was not a fan of Butler's voice. I thought they needed a stronger singer in the role. Just my opinion though...
I agree, the original version wouldn't be fitting for the romance theme the movie was going for. Besides if they, or any adaptation for that matter, really wanted a live action phantom they would have to starve the actor til the point he beats anorexic teenagers. That's what the phantom was described as, a living corpse. And that's just not on for any film production.
His disfigurement looks like he just had an allergic reaction to his mask! And in the final scenes, you can barely see it! They could have done a much better job making his disfigurement. Otherwise, I think he was a great phantom, and I like his voice better than the original London and Broadway cast recordings.
But here's the thing that was the 1800s, it may not seem like a big deal to us but it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak
Lets not forget also that the makers of the film wanted the Phantom's deformity as, and I quote from what Gerard said, 'repulsive yet human'. If they had a similar deformity from the musical.. which granted is more impressive.. then personaly I don't think it would of been as believable.
I love how Scottish he sounds in this! xD and the whole thing he says about id-ing with the phantom and then later: "the disfigurement is the most important part... But I hated it!" lolololol
Not sure if your reply is actually meant for me, because I never said ALW Phantom and Leroux Phantom are one and the same. It's the poster I replied to who's looking for an 'Erik' performance in this Phantom.
Only Gerard Butler could make a disfigurement look attractive. He's just gorgeous and played the part of the phantom well considering he wasn't an experienced singer.
No, I've not seen Hugh Panaro, unfortunately. Is his Phantom exactly as the one in the book? Unless it is, then it's not an Erik performance. A Phantom performance, sure. But an 'Erik' performance? As in, Leroux Erik? Lon Chaney comes closest, but even that version was somewhat lacking due to the crappy, totally out-of-character ending.
You know, we almost had the ending from the book in the silent film. Unfortunately, the people of the time thought that the ending wasn't extreme enough so they changed it to be more of a chase. If it hadn't been the first monster movie it may have been left alone but sadly that wasn't in the cards. There are still some stills of the original ending floating around if you're interested.
I think she was being sarcastic when she said, "Thanks, we didn't realise he is disfigured." You know what angers me most? Stage fans who think all movie fans "just don't get the point of the story." You're basically saying, "If you like the movie, you're an idiot." Condescending much?
Its crazy how Gerard Butler in general & him as the phantom, there like 2 completely different people and looks, he played the phantom so well,you wouldin't even recognize that Gerry played the phantom,cuz Gerry is like this chill funny guy, and as the phantom he is like this evil,and mysterious man. I dont know why but he looks better as the phantom for some reason, too bad that phantom character isin't real, still Gerry is very handsome & good looking,but Gosh when he stransforms...HOT
i might be wrong but i thought that was the point, thats it is a disfigurement but its not really that bad and the phantom just builds it up in his head aswell that hes a monster, which he is but for physco issues not physical issues
My thoughts on Ramin is, He has a pretty face, and he sings okay, but I see the phantom singing more like Ben or deeper like Gerards. Ramin isn't a favorite, but he isn't bad.
The character of Erik the phantom is like a diamond with many facets. Each actor who plays the role draws out the parts of Erik they can relate to. One isn't better than another just different. I love the book best of all.
Nice way of putting it
100% true!
I agree ☝️
Which one?!? I have 'Phantom', by Susan Kay! It's EXCELLENT!
Well said!
Is it weird I find the Phantom insanely attractive?
Nope, well if it is, I'm standing right there with ya 😂
Sophaswim 0.o thank god for that.
Bella Rose no it's not weird he's extremely sexy and attractive 😁😁😁😁
No, in fact the majority (which includes me) seem to prefer the Phantom to Raoul. The Phantom is definitely sexier, especially with Gerard in the role.
Bella Rose he's not supposed to be, it's like Brad Pitt playing Quasimodo and getting rid of the hump for better posture.
I read a mag interview he did years ago just after the film came out &he said he hated not just having the makeup on because it was SO uncomfortable, but because when he was in full makeup shooting the scenes he was actually UPSET by the looks & reactions he received from those working on the set - even though it wasnt real. It made him realise I think how terrible it was for someone to have any kind of deformity, &he really got upset by it personally as well to be looked at like that.
What did they say?
1:33 Oh, he's so cute! Hahaha
Ikr i was expecting to see a clip of one of them forgeting a line
I for one think (without seeing the whole movie or being a gerard butler fan) that making the scars much less frightfully in this movie showed the cruel nature of the people back then and their easy judgment made based on the pshysical appeareance. You don't have to be totally disfigured to be watched different in society, you just need to have sometimes a little scar an bang! Everything changes. For this adaptation they did well in my opinion. For THIS adaptation which is very good in it's way.
Wow. Great job in pointing out how even a relatively minor distortion could result in fear, shame, and loathing for someone like the Phantom. ;)
People back then didn't have a "cruel nature"... There are good and bad people of every time period.
Now I'm wondering how well the movie would have worked out if the Phantom had had a _Scottish_ accent. :D
still would have been sexy lol
She'd definitely have kept the ring haha
Everyone alive have some kind of accent though.
I think that he had an accent accident
I would like to see that
Wow I can't believe I just realized that this is gerard butler just had to face palm my self really super hard. ♥
I think the deformity works better in some shots than others. I think it depends on the lighting, and how much the redness comes through.
Personally I think the hair also de-tracks from what was actually done to his face I also think the deformity is simply too small and that also has to do with the fact that the mask was too small. I feel like if they had the mask go down to about his upper lip and around the upper part of his jaw, that would have given the makeup artist more room to work with on his face and maybe create something far more ghastly that what was put on screen. I also think they should have went with him being completely bald that way we could have gotten a real disgusting look not just on the one side of his face but on his head as well. The behind-the-scenes really do show the potential that this makeup had but again because of the way it was shot and the lighting it just looks more like a mild sunburn that can probably be covered up with some contour rather than a serious deformity.
People complain that the makeup wasn't gruesome enough or he wasn't "that disfigured", but you guys have to remember that this movie took place in the late 1800's. What may seem not that big of a deal to us may have been a HUGE deal to them.
Let's remember the elephant man actually existed. And the movie make-up still wasn't quite enough to match.
Inora Faolan He has basically a really bad sun burn
Would he be ostricized or joked at for that back in the 1800s?
Depending on the area, and his backgrounds, yes
Sent to a freak circus and make people faint because of his face?
Fuck no
The makeup Ramin wore for the 25th anniversary was probably the most realistic, strangely enough
Counterpoint: In the book, erik is described as having no nose or lips, and having a skeletal face that was so horrifying to look at that even the daroga couldn’t bear to look at him. The phantom needs to look gruesome because it drives the plot. It is where his pain comes from - having a face so horrible that no one, not even his mother - could bear to look at him, let alone love him.
Lon Chaney's looked better
this disfigurement wasn't that bad!!!!! that man had so many emotions in his soul, and so much talent inside him...despite he'd faced so much misery in his life, and he'd never known how it feels someone to care about you, he was able to love and care...so for all that he deserved to be with Christine without a doubt!
If you read the novel, you'll see it's *much worse* than in the musical. His face looks like a skull, he has pale/yellow skin, deep eyes and skinny body. That's what makes him so beautiful and special.
@@mieshocked1450 true. this film was the one that introduced me to POTO, and i loved many moments from it, but his face... i was so disappointed even without reading a book yet. i understand how they maybe wanted him to look more attractive for female audience, but there is a way to make him attractive _and_ canonically accurate (and a lot if artists will tell you just exactly that lmao). and even with that, he doesn't have to be attractive. the whole point of the Phantom is that his voice and his personality are charming and his love is pure in the end, and this is why readers loved his character. Butler can play good, and i really loved him in this film (tho there were moments in his Phantom's behaviour i didn't agree with), but to hear someone say that he felt uncomfortable with this kind of a simple sun burn?.. am i not getting something, or i just have very low standarts for man's appearances? :D
to those who think they know the phantom, erik is not his real name. The name comes up in the book but that was a name the phantom chose for himself because he never had a name.
+Cory O'Donnell And he never had a name because in nineteenth-century France, babies born disfigured were not registered or given names.
True. No one ever loved Phantom enough to give him a name.
Well if the movie was made off the book and in the book he has a name, then he has a name.
@@alexmayard1511 damn thats so sad 😔😫
His name is Erik. When the book says "it's not his 'real' name", it's because he has no registred identidy and his abusive mother never named him. But his name was decided to be ERIK, by himself. If it's not registred in the law, then he doesn't exist? How people still misunderstand this and insist to call Erik "The Phantom" or a "nameless legend" is still unnerving and increible to me.
HOW IS HE CONSIDERED UGLY?!
he doesn't look ugly he still looks fine xD
well you in the book it wasn't just the side of his face.... it was the entire face.
Because you can't make gerard butler ugly it is practically impossible 😂
I dont think its that he's ugly. I think it is that he is disfigured.
Even with the deformity he still looks pretty handsome. He has NEVER looked ugly. And I'm not just saying that cause he's my favorite actor. XD
1:36
still hot
-douse a cute face- awhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The sexiest phantom!!!
He is supposed to be hideous!!
Yeah maybe the disfigurement could of been better but I don't really think the 25th anniversary is acted better, may be sung better on the Phantoms half but, Gerard's voice suits it more for me, its more mysterious and sexy, and easier to connect with him more than Ramin. I think, the overall emotional drive of the film is displayed better than that of the play. Both great, but the movie does it for me more.
Thank you. I so aggressive with you on this. Also I really like the pacing in the movie. In the stage musical everything seemed so fast, where as in the movie the characters had some time for their emotions to fully sink in and act accordingly to the situations they all were put in. It was just fantastic.
I'm glad Gerry was such a good sport about the makeup. Most actors hate being made up! In fact the hatred felt between Lon Chaney Jr and makeup man Jack Pierce was LEGENDARY!
I absolutely love ❤️❤️❤️ the phantom of the opera ❤️❤️❤️
me too, it's wonderful
it is my favorite movie I watch it every day
This makeup to me looks more believable than the stage makeup, but I love both :)
me too but it's less scary
Interesting, because the stage makeup was based off real medical cases where as the movie makeup was complete fantasy.
I Can Live Forever
I think they mean that the stage makeup looks cartoonish (which it does), whereas the movie makeup looks realistic
The stage make up has to be like it is. The disfigurement needs to be seen right at the back of the theatre.
I regard Gerard Butler's Phantom to be the sexiest thing there has ever been!
I'm sorry I know one side of his face looks scary from his past but that is what makes him so beautiful. The phantom is beautifully broken and needs beauty to heal him. If i were Christine I would of stayed with Phantom.
Gerrad é lindo mesmo desfigurado!!! Adoro esse filme!!!
That sense always make cry when Christine brings back the phantom’s ring and then he sings Christine I love you
1:35 oh my gosh this smile is cute and weird! Weird because we see the phantom smiling happily! XD I love it! It is so cute!!!! XD
Honestly, whether its the stage plays horrific corpse face or the movies warped features, I think both work because they exemplify how, first of all, Erik allows himself to become as monsterous as he appears and secondly, it shows the cruelty of people. That no matter how talented and extrordinary Erik was, even half his face being warped was enough for people to scorn him and demonize him
True, in the 19th century, it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak. Every adaptation is different - that does not mean that it is bad. It is not important how disfigured he is, it is how disfigured he feels which is what leads him down a dark path. His own mother and society made him feel like an ugly, worthless person.
maybe they could have made it a little more gruesome, but I'm my opinion (and I'm sure not everyone will agree) I think that the disfigurement didn't need to be really terrible, it was also the fact that no matter what he looked like under the mask, people didn't want him and didn't like him, and so maybe that made him think his disfigurement is a lot worse than what it actually is.
at age 6 i feel in love with POTO and Gerard, 6 years later im here again and still love POTO...i need a life.....
man i love his voice just in general!!!!!!!
"the darkness of the music of the night"
phantom of the opera is my LIFEEEE
+My Idea Garden SAMEEEEEEE I LOVE IT
Girls. I just want to tell you, that in the books he looks nothing like he does in the movie. He has like three hairs on his head, his face is unrecognizable... I mean, if you saw him on the street, you wouldn't automatically think, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL AND ARTSY PERSON!. no, truthfully, although I do like this version of phantom.
Sincerely, to everyone who read the book
that pout at 1:33
jesus christine how could you be horrified of that face!? its gorgeous!
That was the script!
I hate how poor this "deformity" is, but bruh, Gerard Butler was so great as Erik! His acting and his voice fited completely to Erik, and he's such a good gentle fellow! The 2004 movie is magnificent, althought they missed the deformity.
I keep watching the movie over and over and I see that when Christine takes his mask off his whole face changes
i love him
It would have been interesting if they'd gone for a full face deformity for this movie, given that the half-mask is used in the musical only because a full mask wouldn't work with the stage microphones. It would tie in with the logo and make it something 'different' than what's seen on stage. Though given they went with the vague sunburn look here, I don't think they would be ballsy enough to go full-face ugly. It also suffers because Gerard's Phantom has the droopy eye socket with the mask off but in all the scenes where he's wearing a mask, his undereye area looks fine, and there's no hint the mask is anything more than a fashion accessory. At least during the stage version, you still see hints of the deformity with the mask on, especially with the mouth and bloated lips. It reminds you of what's under the mask, and ups the visual suspense until you see the full reveal.
I think when they do the eyebrow makeup, it makes him go from good looking to super hot. . .
My god he’s still so beautiful and handsome 1:36
People are saying this makeup doesn't look as "intense" as the stage versions. Well...yeah. Stage makeup HAS to be intense so that even people up in the nosebleed section can see it. In film that's not the case.
So much for the effort that you see him just about 30 minutes without a mask. So much effort every day!
pause at 1:32 and put your hand over the left part of his face. HES STARING INTO ME SOUL!
Watch the 25th Anniversary Concert with Ramin Karimloo! You won't be disappointed with the disfigurement ;) (plus it's sung/acted and generally better than the movie in every way)
Listen, why be so mean and shoot this person down for no reason. For thinking someone is attractive? I think the Phantom is hot! lol . His look, his voice his personality and the romance behind his character make him sexy. .and I dont have a twilight name. So I would keep your "facts" to yourself. Oh and thanx tips, we didn't realize he is disfigured. I dont care if he isn't meant to be hot, I find him attractive.
:)
It might be my dark side but I find the phantom insanely attractive, I could probably fall into his dark world
I wished that the make-up could have looked more gruesome too, it made Erik seem like a whiny bitch for blaming everything on his face when it really isn't that bad. However, I do like how that may be the tragedy in itself: He spent his life focusing on something that isn't that big of a deal and wasted his chance at happiness.
It adds weight to Christine's line:
"This haunted face
Holds no horror for me now.
It's in your soul
That the true distortion lie"
So in the movie, she's basically saying "You ain't that ugly, but you are pretty fucked up mane"
The original make-up for the 1925`s Lon Chaney Sr.`s "Phantom of The Opera"' will be always more haunting and heart-breaking nowadays than the make-up of the last version of the "Phantom of the Opera"' for me...If you could watch the original Unmasking Scene several times, you can feel the fear and the fierceness of those facial and body expressions saying everything that need to be said without using any words !
And can i say at first he killed to escape and then no one showed him compassion or love so he killed them like erick said" the world showed no compassion to me "
actually, the whole "burned as a child" thing depends on what version you go by. I've never read the book, but I don't think that's part of it. I still think they got cheap on the disfigurement. Probably because they went through all this trouble getting a "young, sexy" phantom and couldn't bear to ugly up that pretty face. Have you seen the original disfigurement from the play? Or Lon Chaney's face? THAT is something to hid in a mask
gerry you are my angel of music... i love youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
1:35 SO CUTE! ⏱⏰🕰⌚️
1:37 We hate it too man. We hate it too.
So he did have makeup on! (Like eyebrows, mascara, blush, contour, etc)
OMG I’m in love with the phantom the make up is cool and he still looks good if I seen him unmasked like that I’d give him a kiss on that side before kissing him on the mouth and say to me your just perfect
LOL, 1:36 cracks me up!!!
yes, im commenting on lots of you vids ~evil laugh~ i swear im not stalking....
thanks for posting these, your awsome
No Gerard Butler (the phantom) is actually attractive. He is scottish, YAY SO AM I!!!
The book is the book, and will always be the original, nothing will change that. I don't know why people seek perfection. I for one love when they make some changes in on-screen adaptations. It shows a "what if..." side that you never thought about and explores new depths.
Just sayin'!
The Phantom is ugly on the outside and the inside as Christine said; "This haunted face holds no horror for me now ... It's in your soul that the true distortion lies". As much as we love the Phantom, he is not a nice person and Christine is so much better off without him.
Who was your first to hear? If you don't mind me asking. And I agree on crawford, he is kind of sentimental for me, since he's an older phantom and everything.
Can I just point out to all the idiots that call themselves die hard fans of phantom but are saying how bad the make up is, if you were that die hard you'd have the collectors edition of phantom in which lloyd webber states clearly he didn't want it to be like the stage, he wanted a rocky toned voice.. And he wanted a different disfigurement. It's actually a horrible burn, not a born disfigurement he wanted different to the play! Accept that and stop comparing it, when the creator of the musica
OH MY GOSH. Love the songs that he sung
He’s so cute 😭😭😭😭
love this video! where did you get the behind the scenes video clip.
it's so cool how they technically change his whole face. so awesome.
THIS....IS....OPERA!!!!!
I LOVE gerard butler!!
ya and i recommend the play! i saw it last week and i cant begin to tell you how great it was!
God I think I just saw how amazing makeup can be. Watching the process, yup ,yup.
Le plus beau film que j'ai jamais vue. ❤️
@Airickk2021 that's him voicing hiccup's father as well lol
His EYES!!!
@aniva26 It's a wig. You can see him adjusting it during "Seal my Fate" -- and a spare wig on a stand in the background, too -- and then Christine pulls it off during "The Point of No Return".
Sorry for the late reply, but I think I read that there was a hidden string that somehow attached to the lower part of his eye. Pulling down on the string made his eye do that weird thing he just demonstrated. (I even heard the other cast members would pick on him by coming up and pulling on the string - which was very uncomfortable!) Hope this helps!
I'm surprised Joel Schumacher said that was disfigured enough, when he directed Batman Forever which gave us a cool looking Two-Face.
There's a penny arcade comic about the movie Beastly that also applies to this, where the "deformed" guy says he's tormented, and she replies "I love you, even though you're so cool and rad."
That is a genius reworking of that song! Here's a cross country-themed version-
As I run up that hill, this is what I see
All the girls in spandex are strain' at me
I got passion in my spikes and I ain't afraid to show it, show it, show it, show it
I'm speedy and I know it
well, Christine is lucky to have a phantom like him :">
Is it weird he sings like a English person and he really talks like a Scottish man. So hot😍😂
Gosh I have a crush on the phantom haha 😍😘
I find him more attractive with the mask...
I NEVER NEW HE WAS SCOTTISH ALL THESE YEARS AS I WATCHED THIS MOVIE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TIMES I NEVER NEW HE WAS BORN IN SCOTLAND
But Gerard Butler is soooo beautiful! He can't be considered ugly! Not even with a disfigurement!😍🥰
I have mixed feelings on Butler's Phantom, Sure the singing and acting was good, but yes the disfigurement could have been a lot more pronounced. The stage productions phantom looked miles better, but the Original Phantom makeup wouldn't have worked for the 2004 film, as it would be considered to gruesome for the purpose of the film, which was more romanticized than the 1989 version.
I have the same feelings. Just remember he didn't have a say in the makeup so you can't say his performance wasn't the best just because of that
+ShiMorino I agree with you on the makeup and acting, although I personally was not a fan of Butler's voice. I thought they needed a stronger singer in the role. Just my opinion though...
I agree, the original version wouldn't be fitting for the romance theme the movie was going for. Besides if they, or any adaptation for that matter, really wanted a live action phantom they would have to starve the actor til the point he beats anorexic teenagers. That's what the phantom was described as, a living corpse. And that's just not on for any film production.
His disfigurement looks like he just had an allergic reaction to his mask! And in the final scenes, you can barely see it! They could have done a much better job making his disfigurement. Otherwise, I think he was a great phantom, and I like his voice better than the original London and Broadway cast recordings.
But here's the thing that was the 1800s, it may not seem like a big deal to us but it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak
Lets not forget also that the makers of the film wanted the Phantom's deformity as, and I quote from what Gerard said, 'repulsive yet human'. If they had a similar deformity from the musical.. which granted is more impressive.. then personaly I don't think it would of been as believable.
I love how Scottish he sounds in this! xD and the whole thing he says about id-ing with the phantom and then later: "the disfigurement is the most important part... But I hated it!" lolololol
Best movie ever the phantom and Christine were soulmates
you are the best phantom played ever mr buttler, you make this character so.....
@The1990phantom His deformity doesn't go past his nose. The mask covered up the parts on his eye and nose and the wig covered up the side of his head.
Question: did Gerard have to wear that make-up under the mask for the entirety of the film, or just for the finale?
No, he didn't wear the make-up throughout the entire film. ;)
Not sure if your reply is actually meant for me, because I never said ALW Phantom and Leroux Phantom are one and the same. It's the poster I replied to who's looking for an 'Erik' performance in this Phantom.
“But I hated it.” Lol me too but he wore it greatly.
Only Gerard Butler could make a disfigurement look attractive. He's just gorgeous and played the part of the phantom well considering he wasn't an experienced singer.
Awesome Behind The Scenes Look About Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom Of The Opera The Movie. Thanks Mate. X
No, I've not seen Hugh Panaro, unfortunately. Is his Phantom exactly as the one in the book? Unless it is, then it's not an Erik performance. A Phantom performance, sure. But an 'Erik' performance? As in, Leroux Erik? Lon Chaney comes closest, but even that version was somewhat lacking due to the crappy, totally out-of-character ending.
You know, we almost had the ending from the book in the silent film. Unfortunately, the people of the time thought that the ending wasn't extreme enough so they changed it to be more of a chase. If it hadn't been the first monster movie it may have been left alone but sadly that wasn't in the cards. There are still some stills of the original ending floating around if you're interested.
I think she was being sarcastic when she said, "Thanks, we didn't realise he is disfigured."
You know what angers me most? Stage fans who think all movie fans "just don't get the point of the story." You're basically saying, "If you like the movie, you're an idiot." Condescending much?
Its crazy how Gerard Butler in general & him as the phantom, there like 2 completely different people and looks, he played the phantom so well,you wouldin't even recognize that Gerry played the phantom,cuz Gerry is like this chill funny guy, and as the phantom he is like this evil,and mysterious man. I dont know why but he looks better as the phantom for some reason, too bad that phantom character isin't real, still Gerry is very handsome & good looking,but Gosh when he stransforms...HOT
the fact that even though this is supposed to be fake, and yet happens in real life, is so... disturbing. ':(
i might be wrong but i thought that was the point, thats it is a disfigurement but its not really that bad and the phantom just builds it up in his head aswell that hes a monster, which he is but for physco issues not physical issues
I do love this movie
My thoughts on Ramin is, He has a pretty face, and he sings okay, but I see the phantom singing more like Ben or deeper like Gerards. Ramin isn't a favorite, but he isn't bad.
I can't understand what does he hate... can anyone explain?
Is that Raoul's wig at 1:17??? XD