The Phantom of the Opera question

Gerard was definitely NOT disfigured enough in the movie. I mean, really, the Phantom was hyping it up to be something hideous beyond description, and all it was was a minor skin rash. Considering the fact that a major plot point in PotO was that the Phantom was hideous and ostracized because of it, making him a "pretty boy" completely defeated the point.

yes Of course, I mean look at Robert Englund. *shudders* sorry but that version gives me nightmares

I think gerard did well. He can eat crackers in my bed any day. The Argento version was a little weak. I love Julian Sands but he should have gotten burned up. Its part of the part. Plus the rats related inappropriate shots. Urgh

Anna wrote: "I have always wondered when I watched the movie with Patrick Wilson that couldn't the phantom be a little more ugly, you know sorta like the elephant man but not too ugly...explain and debate here." YES. the phantom, as described in the book (and surprisingly he is described the same way in Magical Lasso, which, let me see, IS included in the movie soundtrack). In past adaptations (such as the iconic Lon Chaney movie, he has a deformity, while Gerard Butler has a sunburn. They didn't have to make him so attractive. The original Erik is supposed to look like a skeleton. It ruins the purpose of the movie because the "ugly phantom" is actually the most handsome actor they could find. And the deformity was disappointing.

Yes he could have. The movie is very romanticized and in the book his appearance is described as that of a living corpse!

Ok, I'm not a fan of the 2004 movie or Gerald Butler, but yes he wasn't disfigured enough. They made him into some outrageous sexual symbol, which in my opinion wasn't what the Phantom is supposed to be at all. He was supposed to be horribly deformed and not attractive AT ALL!

Yeah... that kind of disappointed me. I saw it before I read the book, though, so I got to enjoy it and then be upset at it later. :) I also actually really enjoyed his singing (I appear to be the only one; I loved his voice).
Am I the only person who thought it was weird how he totally changed when he took his mask off? His hair changed color and style and he lost a bunch of it. It was quite strange.
I think they wanted the romance and that wouldn't work with him fully masked and with the all around ugliness that he has in the book. I mean, there is no romance in the book. But probably they needed it to make a movie.
I don't like that they didn't follow the book on principle, but it was a great movie.

In all honesty the Phantom has always been handsome in the musical. Even if he is a little bit more disfigured in the stage version. Besides it's the musical that made the world truly fall in love with the character to begin with.

I saw only the first movie and Joel Shumacher's one, and I love them both. Gerard is waaaay too handsome compared to the book's character, but I think he did a great job! Specially in the last scene, he really showed all the madness and the hunger that Erik had for Christine, he made me shiver...in the end, we all have this fancy for anti-heroes, and the movie played a lot with that, so they couldn't make him too ugly, didn't they?

Yeah, they could've made it a little worse in the movie.

Hmm, I didn't think much about him. I liked him a lot but i had read it so long ago that I don't remeber anything. Tenically I should say that I don't remeber that much.

Have any of you seen the original silent movie? I thought that they did a better job staying too the book and the Phantom looks more like the book description

In my opinion, I liked the movie better . . . It didn't make him into a monster, it made him into a disfigured, shunned human being. No matter how ugly/not ugly Gerard Butler got, I still gasped when his took his mask off. Personally, that made the whole story more enjoyable - the human being aspect, not the monster aspect.

:)

I love Gerard. Even with his face half messed up. He can talk to me anytime with that Scottish brogue of his. I just love him. I think I've seen almost every movie he's been in, but Phantom is one of my favs.

Actually, in the movie version with Gerard Butler, Joel Shumacher wanted a "young" cast and that was how Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum and Patrick Wilson were selected. Gerard actually had to learn how to sing because he couldn't. He was an up and coming actor who had minor roles prior to Phantom and Joel Shumacher thought he would make a great Phantom. After having seen many theater productions of Phantom, I have to say that the singing in the movie version isn't very good, by anyone! And like Laura says above, the movie is based on the play. But what I love about the book is that it tells more of the Phantom's (Erik's) past, how he became the Phantom and how he, in fact, helped to build the Opera house.

Erik had to hide because he was disfigured, and I figure that in that era, any facial disfigurement would make you a 'freak', think of circus freak shows.

However that particular movie was based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical/ stage play where the mask was like a half face mask 'cause the mask looked cool. And I guess because they wanted the movie to be popular they thought they should have someone 'hot' in it. Michael Crawford who played the original phantom was not as attractive, although still a normal looking person.

Interestingly in the Dario Argento movie the phantom is not disfigured at all. However he is totally messed up and was brought up by rats.

Well that movie is not like the book. They dont show the real relationship between the phantom and Christine. I guess that´s why he wasnt that ugly so she could be more kind and less scare of him.