M
Maxirad
Guest
- Yes
- No
Should Michael Crawford have played The Phantom in the 2004 feature film version of "The Phantom of the Opera"?
- Status
L
LittleWay84
Guest
I’ve voted no because at 62 in 2004 he was out of the right age range. Christine was supposed to be 18 and in the sequel Love Never Dies it becomes apparent that she and the Phantom conceived a child, Gustave, together. Emmy Rossum was very young when she played Christine. A grandfather aged Phantom would have been a bit creepier than is the norm for the character.
I do like Michael though, especially as Cornelius Hackl in Hello Dolly!
I do like Michael though, especially as Cornelius Hackl in Hello Dolly!
M
Maxirad
Guest
No offense, LittleWay84, but check out Roger Ebert’s review of the 2004 film.
L
LittleWay84
Guest
None taken. Average life expectancy in 1870, when Leroux wrote Phantom was 39 for a man. Aging back then didn’t mean late 60s, it meant 30s to 40s. The Phantom, living as he did, would be less likely to reach the age of 39 than others. The novel, which I studied as part of BA Hons Literature at university, makes no suggestion that the Phantom is elderly, just that he is older than Christine. I’ve always took that to mean 28-35.
I agree Gerard Butler was miscast and not decrepit enough haha but Michael Crawford was definitely too old to play Phantom in the movie version. Perfect for the original stage cast though.
I agree Gerard Butler was miscast and not decrepit enough haha but Michael Crawford was definitely too old to play Phantom in the movie version. Perfect for the original stage cast though.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
“Live this down?”
Yeah, those 5.6k people that liked that video are such know nothings, right?
I am really not sure what your point is. Is this thread merely to criticize someone you dislike?
Yeah, those 5.6k people that liked that video are such know nothings, right?
I am really not sure what your point is. Is this thread merely to criticize someone you dislike?
M
Maxirad
Guest
No, Irishmom2. When the feature film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera was released back in 2004, a significant number of people were not happy about the fact that the title character wasn’t played by Michael Crawford in the movie.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
You missed my point. Why did you say he will never live this down?
M
Maxirad
Guest
No offense, Irishmom2, but do you know what typecasting is? The Phantom wasn’t the only character that Michael Crawford played during his decades-long career in show business.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
So, she’s right then. You only made this thread to complain about an actor you don’t like…
Seriously, the movie is fifteen years old now, why are you complaining about it?
I rather like it.
Seriously, the movie is fifteen years old now, why are you complaining about it?
I rather like it.
M
Maxirad
Guest
To be honest, I have yet to really see the 2004 feature film version of The Phantom of the Opera for myself.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That makes your complaining even more baffling.ProdglArchitect:
To be honest, I have yet to really see the 2004 feature film version of The Phantom of the Opera for myself.
It’s beautifully shot and while their Phantom choice may not have been perfect he did a fine job.
Seriously, what is possessing you to waste your time getting upset about this? You could be doing literally almost anything else…
M
MrZoom
Guest
I like the 2004 film fine as it is. Granted the Phantom’s makeup could have been a little scarier, but I’m guessing they were contractually obligated to deliver a film rated no worse than PG-13. If they had made it too gory it might have gotten an R.
M
MrZoom
Guest
I will also add that the movie got me interested enough to see a live production of PotO when it came to Pittsburgh a year later.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status