A Sexy Phantom?

[Evaline Cuomo]

In the 2005 movie verion of PO, the Phantom is rather handsome and sexy but, in the book, stage production and other film version, he is protrayed as being a hideous creature.

So.... how do you feel about the decision to make the Phantom sexy?

[Ubaldo Piangi]

You're right about the previous movie incarnations of the Phantom. There wasn't really anything handsome about him. The earliest known movie Phantom, played by Lon Chaney in 1925, wore no mask except when he was dressed in the Red Death costume. He used makeup to transform his face, creating what appeared to be a skull with the flesh sagging off of it. This was how he wanted to portray the Phantom, as a hideous creature longing for the love of a beautiful singer.

I've read, though, that the story in the 1943 version is different. I looked over a synopsis of the film, and the "Phantom" in that version, played by Claude Rains, wasn't disfigured to begin with. He became that way when he got acid thrown on his face. Oddly enough, even though the acid would have burned the skin on his entire face, the mask he wears only covers from the forehead to his cheekbones and nose.

To be honest, I don't mind that they made the Phantom ever so gorgeous. I could definitely go for him if I wanted to. *starts drooling on her keyboard* However, I read in the newspaper, either right before or right after it was released in theaters, that "The Phantom of the Opera" has the potential to become an "institution", so to speak. The article said it could be compared to the many incarnations of Dracula over the years. First there was the movie "Nosferatu", in which the character was this absolutely horrid-looking bloodsucker. When Bela Lugosi did his portrayal of Dracula, he was far more polished in his appearance; on the other hand, he wasn't exactly Brad Pitt, either. With each movie made since then, the vampire's appearance has been made more and more handsome. In the later versions, he looked more like a male supermodel. That's kind of the same fear some critics may have about "The Phantom of the Opera", that the Phantom has lost his fearsome facial disfigurement and now has been transformed into serious eye candy.

[Sweet Intoxication]

I actually thought that was a wise decision, more or less. The phantom has to have a sort of mystic appeal to him, and being such a dramtically beautiful and visual movie I think his appearance worked well.

Though I think the appeal to the Phantomis supposed to be based in his amazing voice, which I didn't see as much. I think his voice could have been stronger, and I've heard better (some of it live, some of it not), but I still adored him as the phantom. Actually I didn't notice his weak voice until I listened to the Sound track.

But back on to the subject: I think the Phantom being "sexy" worked nicely. And he wasn't like Brad Pitt sexy, so it didn't Hollywood-ize it.

[Elladora]

I think it was a good decision to make him sexy. It worked for me! I can remember when Michael Crawford was cast as 'The Phantom' for the stage musical, he had previously been a comedy actor. But when everyone heard his voice it was amazing. He wasn't that good looking but he played an amazing Phantom. Sarah Brightman was cast beside him to play Christine, and they blended so well together. Sarah was married to Andrew Lloyd Webber at the time.

[Opera Ghost]

I think it works, having the Phantom played by a good looking actor. If he was made to look like a monster (as described in the book) then it would repel the audience too much, make them think of his deformaty rather than his lonliness and sadness. Gerry Butler did a wonderful job in the role of Phantom; he's perfect.

OG

[cinty]

Hmm.. I sort of have mixed opionions on that topic. According to the Leroux book, the Phantom is hideous. as in HIDEOUS!!! But, Gerard Butler is definitely very handsome, and I really like him that way. But the thing is, you are sort of sitting there thinking, "why on earth doesn't she love him? He is so darn hot!" lol. And when she kisses him at the end, it's like, "why did it take you so long?" But still, I think that I wouldn't change his looks. I think, people can love him more and feel more sympathy for him the way he looks. Gerard Butler played the rold brilliantly.

[The Khanum]

I loved him in it...Gerry is a completely amazing actor. The fact that he's downright gorgeous made for an interesting twist... Since all the other versions had him looking like a living corpse, I enjoyed Gerry!Erik's alluring personality and appearance. It allowed me to pity him less and look right down into the personalities of both Erik and Raoul to find which I liked better. Obviously, if you refer to my username, I pick Erik. ;)

~The_Phantom_is_Sexy

[Masked Shadows]

Well personally i LOVE Gerry! -drools- but when I first saw the movie it was wiht my mom and dad (both previous Broadway stagehands to various shows including Phantom) and since Phantom the musical was in town for the month we went with one of the Stage Managers from the tour who we knew from when my family used to tour with phantom. ANYWAY back on subject, My mom and dad and our friend spent all dinner afterwords talking about how he was way to hansome to be the Phantom and that his deformity was nothing compared to the Musical. So yea, well I liked it but Phantom crew dosn't agree. :-P

[Always_Erik_Fan]

I love Gerard Butler, don't get me wrong here, but he is just NOT the Phantom to me! The true Phantom was supposed to be so horribly disfigured that to look on him was to look on death! (That was kind of a qoute, but I'm not sure if it's right so...) Just my little rant that got started on www.phantomoftheopera.com!

[cinty]

Originally posted by Always_Erik_Fan
I love Gerard Butler, don't get me wrong here, but he is just NOT the Phantom to me! The true Phantom was supposed to be so horribly disfigured that to look on him was to look on death! (That was kind of a qoute, but I'm not sure if it's right so...) Just my little rant that got started on www.phantomoftheopera.com!
I see how you mean. I really like Gerards' portrayal but the makeup wasn't nearly intense enough. They should have made it much worse. Than, at least when his mask was off, he would reallyh look hideous. But anyway, good looking sells cinema tickets.

[IamErik771]

I loved Gerry's portrayal, but thought he should have been made a little uglier for the story to make more sense. They could have made him at least as ugly as the stage version; people still found the stage phantom sexy despite the more severe disfigurement. And regarding Victoria Greneaux's post, Lon Chaney did have a mask to cover his disfigurement, and so when the film was first shown, there were reports of people actually fainting when Christine (played by Mary Philbin) removed his mask. :)

[Requiem]

I thought Gerry looked great, but, like Always_Erik_Fan, I don't see him as the Phantom. I think that making Erik handsome was a clever idea from the film-makers designed to give the movie more wide-spread appeal. For example, younger people who could never be stuffed going to see an Opera film might think twice about it if it has a hot guy in it. With me? It's a little bit like the Orlando Bloom Complex... make a fantastic quality old-age action movie so that the die-hard fans will see it, then throw Orlando Bloom in the lead so that everyone will see it.

I do think that Gerard was really good, though. He certainly pulled off the acting, even if he didn't quite pull off the singing side of it. However, I just thought his looks kind of detracted from the movie for me... even without his mask, he still didn't look that bad. Making him handsome made me think that Chirstine wasn't falling for his musical abilities - rather that she was falling for his beauty. Erik wasn't supposed to lure Christine with his sexy good-looks - it was meant to be with his hauntingly beautiful singing, which she loved even despite his serious disfigurement.

[IamErik771]

Well-said, Requiem. I loved the film (saw it again today... in band class! :D) and I loved Gerard's performance, but thought, "If only they had made him uglier, the story would make so much more sense." I mean, why would he be treated as a freak and exhibited in a cage when even a survivor of smallpox would look worse than that? :mask:

[cinty]

Originally posted by IamErik771
Well-said, Requiem. I loved the film (saw it again today... in band class! :D) and I loved Gerard's performance, but thought, "If only they had made him uglier, the story would make so much more sense." I mean, why would he be treated as a freak and exhibited in a cage when even a survivor of smallpox would look worse than that? :mask:
That is such a good point. why would they treat someone with a mild radiation sunburn that way? And does anyhone notice that his makeup really isn't consistent? In some scenes.. like this one
http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/%21don%20juan/normal_poto-1466.jpg
he looks pretty bad. But it's not consistent. Here (http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/down%20once%20more/normal_poto-1561.jpg) it does not look nearly as bad. I just think they should have kept up the consistency of the makeup.

[BlondeAngel]

the first thing I noticed about Gerry is that he was a very talented man, then how handsome he really is !! yes, in the books, he is a "monster" but you should think that a lot of things were changed !! like Christine and Meg changed hair colours in between ... and inocent Christine hangs out her boobs in her fathers cemetery ... "little Meg" is very happy with Mother Nature for giving her such a nice cleavege ... even Mme Giry flips her hair in one scene ... then it is clear that they changed Erik too !! the only one who respects the book is Raoul de Chagny and that aout sums it up

[IamErik771]

And even then, they cut the fact that Raoul was orphaned, that he had an older brother named Philippe, and that he had a mustache. I guess it made sense for the film though.
And regarding Cinty's post, I think the consistency of the makeup would depend on the lighting conditions. At the end of PONR, the light came mostly from below them, which probably would have made him look worse than usual. In "Down Once More," the light comes from candles all around them, which would illuminate different areas of his face and make him look better in some shots and worse in others. But for some reason, in Stranger Than You Dreamt It, you can clearly see his face for about 2 seconds, and there is no disfigurement! What is with that? I think they should have picked camera angles a bit more carefully for that scene.

[Christine Daaé]

Personally, I think he was way too sexy. My mother has a great big crush on Gerik now, which, in my opinion, was not supposed to happen. Even in the stage musical, he was hideous -- not nearly as much as in the book, but still enough to be a real eyesore. I've seen worse rashes on a person. Honestly, it would not have hurt to make him uglier; we as audiences are jaded now to appearences, as the blood and gore in all the other Hollywood movies have made us so.

Ah, well, I suppose Gerik is better than Jerik -- Julian Sands/Erik in the Dario Argento film. In that one, he didn't even wear a mask! He had long, platinum-blonde hair and the biggest nose I've ever seen. Worst of all, he wasn't disfigured! At all! What's wrong with this picture?

~ Zelda de le Fantôme

[IamErik771]

I haven't seen that film, but from what I've heard, Jerik's (snicker) "deformity" is more psychological than physical. (a.k.a. playing with rats, brutally mutilating his victims, and all manner of other nasty things.) Apparently, the reason why they did that was because Julian Sands refused to wear a mask and disfiguring makeup for the film, and so Dario Argento (foolishly) caved to his request. Argento should have gone with his original plan of having a physically disfigured Erik played by John Malkovich. I would have loved to see him as the Phantom. :D

[Countess Cain]

I didn't mind it, to tell you the truth. Can you blame me? XD

However, I do wish they would have done something more to make it so he wasn't quite as appealing.

In the most recent movie, I found many 'awkward' moments. For example, when Christine is singing about his 'face that his hardly a face'. I can't think of anyone in real life that would say something like that about his disfiguration. XP

But I do think I would prefer Gerik to Jerik. Meep. Rat men are just sickening...

[IamErik771]

Yes, that scene was quite awkward. So was the "He kills withought a thought, he murders all that's good..." line. Prior to that scene, Christine had only seen Erik kill a lecherous, drunken, dirty old man who probably deserved it. Oh, but then again, he had attacked and wounded Raoul in the previous scene. OK, I get it. :mask:

[Claidissa]

Personally I think it was a good choice to make him "sexy." If he had been as disfigured as stated in the book(s), it would have repelled the audience and no one but hard core Phans would have liked it. You gotta think of the box office, here, people! XD

I also think it helped in the seducing scenes. It was good to have the audience be able to see him as Christine saw him, a handsome, entrancing, mysterious man with a beautiful voice. If he had been extremely ugly even with the mask on, people would have been confused.
...
It's also a plus for me. *Phangirls on Gerry* :D

[The_Persian]

I think the Phantom in the movie was a bit too sexy... i mean, he was outcast all his life because he was ugly. That means he would have to be uglier or less sexy then he was portrayed the movie. Thats one of the reasons that Christine was scared of him wasnt it? "Angel of music, you decieved me. I gave you my mind blindy" doesnt that mean she didnt know he was so ugly?

dont get me wrong, i still think gerry made an excellent phantom, and, since he's not the real phantom anyway, theres nothing wrong with him being hot:)!!

[IamErik771]

I think the "you deceived me" line was because he "tricked" her into thinking he was the spirit of her father. After all, she found out about his physical ugliness pretty early on in the film, and then it was 3 months between that and the Masquerade scene. And then, after "Point of No Return," she seemed pretty calm when taking off his mask for a second time, in front of everyone.

I think that while the book's description of the disfigurement would have been too much, the one in the stage version (or something similar) would have been perfect. After all, the stage phantom is much uglier, and he isn't perfect even on the "good side" of his face, but most female audience members still seem to think he's sexy.

[phantomphreak]

I think the main reason they picked a 'sexy' Phantom is because they wanted more women to come see it and raise money at the box office. But also, I think it is symbolism. Erik is very sexy, just not in his looks. The sexy look is a way of symbolising his genius and intelligence.

[The_Persian]

Yeah, that makes sense phantomphreak! I guess the producers decided to make him more mysterious then ugly...

[phantomphreak]

I forgot to add that the sexy look also symbolises his voice. And thanks The_Persian!!

[Luciana]

I think that they should have made the makeup more intense, but I can't fight with their decision to make a good-looking Erik. I think that it lowered the pity people felt for him and allowed more room for the observation of his acts.

It did, however, bring about a lot of hatred towards Christine for leaving him. In some situations, I appreciate it, but in others... well, I guess I should just see a play to compare it better.

[composer15]

I think that having the phantom be handsom and sexy for the movie was a very smart decision because it makes good movies and sells to people.Although that is not how the book and musical phantoms were I believe it worked well for this senario. I love how Gerard Butler portrayed the character and really enjoyed listening to his voice. All in all I really like the movie version and thought it was a great idea to make the Phantom so good looking.

Much Love:mask:

[Why So Silent]

I think that it was a good idea to put a sexy Erik (apart from the obvious reasons) because it always kinda hints in the book (especially in the Susan Kay version) that Erik had a strange sort of sex appeal and was very graceful and....arg, I can't think of the word, and my mom is making fun of me for moving my arms in strange ways, but ya'll get the point, no? Gerry portrayed the Phantom's je ne ce qoi very well. I haven't seen the stage production, so I can't really comment on Michael Crawford's performance. My mom says that he was fat.
Toodles
Why So Silent

[phantoms_nemo]

I am 200% ok with who they picked. For once, the Phantom (Gerry Butler) is all that I have on my mind!
My friends make fun me but the Phantom is cool.

[toxic fruit]

Originally posted by cinty
That is such a good point. why would they treat someone with a mild radiation sunburn that way? And does anyhone notice that his makeup really isn't consistent? In some scenes.. like this one
http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/%21don%20juan/normal_poto-1466.jpg
he looks pretty bad. But it's not consistent. Here (http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/down%20once%20more/normal_poto-1561.jpg) it does not look nearly as bad. I just think they should have kept up the consistency of the makeup.

Yeah, in that last (picture) scene I was thinking "that's not bad at all...either he could put on a little make up (if the phantom were real...not meaning the actor) to cover up the blemish or he could wear that half of a mask thing and that's be great!)

But really I loved the whole thing. I don't think I'd have liked it as much if he had been hideous. Honestly, I haven't read any of the phantom books nor seen the play (though I'm hoping to when it comes to my city in December) but what I am going to try to do is take them all seperately and try to enjoy them as seperate works of art.

And about the fact that he might not have the best singing voice...I honestly don't mind. I still enjoy it verrrrry much! I can't imagine any other voice as of the moment being the phantom's.

[bltibbs]

I agree with the majority. If he had been ugly I doubt that it would have been considered the romance it is now by the millions that haven't been to the theaters. However, I too would have stayed with the phantom and was heartbroken and confused when she left him. And that was absolutly due to his looks because he was crazy. If they were trying to go with the "He's to ugly to love so you fell for the voice" they certianly missed. However, it was still very moving for what it was.
"Sir I bid you welcome, did you think that I would harm her. Why would I make her pay for the sins which are YOURS!" .................................................. ...............................................
"Do you spend your days with me, or do you send him to his GRAVE!"
"Why make her lie to you to save me????"

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Miss Daae]

I'm on the fence with this one. Yes, Gerry was soo sexy, I totally feel in love with the Phantom when I saw who it was, and then his shirt all open all hot. Ok? Please, young girls prey to see that. Hot men in the water wanting to sing songs to you and worship you. Yes, it may have brought more people into the Phantom of the Opera, make people know of it and get interested.

But isn't that a stupid way to get interested in Phantom? I'm going to say, I was not impressed with Gerry's voice, I guess it's the hearing the OC recording, so Michael Crawford is the voice of the Phantom. Yes, the Phantom was not beautiful, he hide behind his mask because he believed he was ugly. He was not given the chance to be who would be. I would have loved make-up to cake some more onto him, just like the stage production, a true disfigurment and not a slight burn.

I would have to say, I don't feel sorry for Gerik, well maybe for being turned down by his only love, but I felt something for the stage version when they were only at "Stranger Than You Dreamt" which is one of my favorite scenes. And at the end, I felt like bawling. Gerik is a great actor don't get me wrong, but Sexy is not how the Phantom should be portrayed. Phantom entrances Christine with his voice, not his looks.

And why would Gerik be ashamed of his face, it was quite hot, and the whole time the Phantom hides from people because he believes people fear him for his face when it really is that people fear him of what he does. But yeah, Phantom should be disfigured, and that's all I'll say. I bet I was repetitive.

[Reza Khan]

I do wish they would have stayed more true to the book and even the ALW version with a more serious deformity, but the masses don't go to see movies with ugly people in them. That's all there is to it. Anyone involved with this movie knew they could have stayed true to the original versions and had the die-hard PotO fans going to see it, but if they wanted a box office mega-hit, they had to 'sex it up' a bit more than the play.

[phantom_phan8]

Originally posted by Victoria Greneaux
You're right about the previous movie incarnations of the Phantom. There wasn't really anything handsome about him. The earliest known movie Phantom, played by Lon Chaney in 1925, wore no mask except when he was dressed in the Red Death costume. He used makeup to transform his face, creating what appeared to be a skull with the flesh sagging off of it. This was how he wanted to portray the Phantom, as a hideous creature longing for the love of a beautiful singer.

I've read, though, that the story in the 1943 version is different. I looked over a synopsis of the film, and the "Phantom" in that version, played by Claude Rains, wasn't disfigured to begin with. He became that way when he got acid thrown on his face. Oddly enough, even though the acid would have burned the skin on his entire face, the mask he wears only covers from the forehead to his cheekbones and nose.

To be honest, I don't mind that they made the Phantom ever so gorgeous. I could definitely go for him if I wanted to. *starts drooling on her keyboard* However, I read in the newspaper, either right before or right after it was released in theaters, that "The Phantom of the Opera" has the potential to become an "institution", so to speak. The article said it could be compared to the many incarnations of Dracula over the years. First there was the movie "Nosferatu", in which the character was this absolutely horrid-looking bloodsucker. When Bela Lugosi did his portrayal of Dracula, he was far more polished in his appearance; on the other hand, he wasn't exactly Brad Pitt, either. With each movie made since then, the vampire's appearance has been made more and more handsome. In the later versions, he looked more like a male supermodel. That's kind of the same fear some critics may have about "The Phantom of the Opera", that the Phantom has lost his fearsome facial disfigurement and now has been transformed into serious eye candy.

Amen to that. I didn't even know that they were coming out with a new movie till my friend got the cd and let me listen to this "sexy voice" so she let me look at some pics and I fell in love with it. and to now that it is doing the same thing as persay a Dracula film...not only with the reruns type intrest. and the Draculas also got better looking..i.e. the latest Dracula film is Dracula 2000... starring Gerry Butler and hes good looking but you go back to Nosferato and you get some horrid creature. I follow you entirely...bravo.:phanc1:

[Pandora]

oh my lord...gerard wz the sexies and hottest of phantoms of all phantom of the operas...even with that scar...HE WZ SIZZLIN HOT!

Man i wz like forget emmy...am better lookin! lol

LOL!

[CountessDaae]

Ok, i have been hearing alot about Gerald Butler being a good and very bad phantom. One of my co-workers does not like him as the phantom because he can't sing. i think, personally, he did a really good job. I seen him in Tomb raider and he did a really good job acting. As the Phantom, he did a really good job singing. I liked him as the phantom. lol.

[operafreak84]

This is one of the many areas where I felt Schumacher did not understand the heart of the story. The Phantom is NOT supposed to be hot! He is supposed to have one beauty and that is his voice. Honestly, when I first saw the third-degree sunburn that they called a deformity, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry. I mean, really, if you read any interview with Schumacher, he's always saying "sexy this" and "sexy that." The man did not understand what this story was about at all and his direction nearly ruined the movie for me.

[Luciana]

I mean, I can't complain about him being hott, but for some people, that's the only reason they see the movie. Yeah, it's a big plus, but it's not all there is to the story.

I loved his voice though. It was coaxing and beautiful and deep. I've heard mixed reviews of his voice, but frankly, I thought it was perfect. It would have drawn me in, and I get scared when I hear voices in my head. :D. I don't actually hear voices in my head though.

[Phantompherak12]

I think that making the phantom cute/ sexy was such a good idea. I mean they did change it from the book. I mean Gerard Butler is a HOTTTTTIE. If you don't believe me ask "the phantom's girl". Bye

[YoungGiry]

The idea that I quote below has been repeated by several people, but I'm just putting one quote.

Originally posted by cinty
But still, I think that I wouldn't change his looks. I think, people can love him more and feel more sympathy for him the way he looks. Gerard Butler played the rold brilliantly.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose, though? If people are able to feel more sympathy for him because he is played by someone who is more physically attrative, doesn't that destory the point of the story? If the audience can only be reached by using the very prejudice that so affects Erik, then why do we want the audience? If won't come to see the story the way it was meant to be, if they're hypocritical enough to not want to see a movie alot about looking past deformity with a character that actually looks deformed, who wants the audience?

[IamErik771]

Well-said, Rachel. I think having a handsome Phantom, while it may get more people into the theater, sort of destroys the essence of the story. The purpose of him having a deformity is so that he is physically ugly, and yet strangely attractive anyway. (I know it's weird to hear a male Phan say that, but anyway...) The idea behind the book seemed to be that he had a brilliant mind and an angelic voice to compensate for his ugliness. As I said before, I thought Gerry was an excellent actor and he played the role very well, but I was a tad disappointed when the mask came off, and I kept thinking, "That's it?" :mask:

[metafizzypop]

I think that as time goes by, the actors who play the Phantom will get better and better looking.

Originally the Phantom wore a full mask, and his whole face was a wreck. Then it went to the half mask, and only a half-wrecked face with the other side normal. Then it went to a half-wrecked face with the other side wow!

I predict that ten or fifteen years from now, there will be yet another version of the Phantom's story on film, played by Hollywood's hottest current hunk. And in this version the Phantom will not wear a mask at all. He will wear only a band-aid, on his right cheek. Christine, wondering what horrors the band-aid is hiding, rips it off. And she finds .... she finds .... ohmygod, it's a PIMPLE!!!!!!

She screams in horror, and tries to run away. But the Phantom takes her arm and says, "Oh, Christine, my darling, I did all I could. I tried squeezing it, and it was gone for a couple of days, but it grew back. I squeezed it again but it came back again. Oh, Christine, can you love me, in spite of this horrible deformity? In spite of this......zit?"

I bet that movie makes a fortune. Unfortunately, I predict a decrease in sales for acne products.

[Tullier]

lol - that was just priceless metafizzypop!!! :D

As for the original question, I don't really have a problem with having a phantom who is good looking on one half as long as the other half is sufficiently messed up - which it really wasn't in the movie. (I was so disappointed with them that I drew my own version. And if I were the movie makers I would have gone to the designers for the Lord of the Rings, and said "make me a cross between an Urak-hai and Gollum." But I digress...)

Having a good looking/ugly split would be an interesting mirror to the two sides of the phantom's soul/psyche - the insane side versus the side that loves beauty animals, etc (according to Kay's book anyway).


tullier :duck:

[erik's_admirer]

I think that they should have made Erik a LOT worse. I mean, in the movie he looks bad, but not so bad that everyone hated him for his disgusting looks. Not that any of us girls mind Gerry Butler looking like he did. *swoon, swoon*
But I think his deformities could have been a lot worse. And what happened to him not having a nose? If they had somehow been able to make Gerry Butler be noseless, I think I would have been able to understand why Christine didn't choose Erik.
As it is...I would have stuck with the sexy beast that lives in a sewer.

[MissDay7000]

I went into the movie thinking that I would be watching a regular middle aged guy fall for a teenager just like most adapions have portrayed, but seeing Gerry was like a splash of cold water in the face. I mean I was speechless, I just couldn't get over how fine he was! But all in all, I think that it was a good decision on Joel Schumacher's part to make the Phantom somewhat attractive. It shows a little bit of symbolism when it comes to the half mask. It's like the deformity is the Phantom's only weakness, but unfortunately it's really the one of the only things that matter.

MissDay

[AAW0487]

I think it was a wise decision, because otherwise I think more people would have been afraid of the movie and wouldn't have been interested in seeing the real show on broadway. They might think the broadway shows Phantom might be even scarier. I loved Gerry being the Phantom. It really brings out a whole new side to the Phantom. I actually think people felt worse for the Phantom, because he portrayed the role so well. His voice was also beautiful..::sigh::

[THeFaCeiNTHeMaSK]

As said with the majority, Gerard Butler was a superb Phantom. I also think that if they want a HOT phantom, his disfigurement should have looked bad enough to make me want to run off screaming, but sadly it didn't. The only thing I can say is now that Christine left him, maybe I have a shot!!!
I also felt that Gerry's voice was beautiful, considerong he wasn't a proffesional. The only singing he'd ever done was with his band, so props to him. I still get chills when he sings Music of the Night...*sighs with delight*

[ForbiddenRomance]

Originally posted by cinty
That is such a good point. why would they treat someone with a mild radiation sunburn that way? And does anyhone notice that his makeup really isn't consistent? In some scenes.. like this one
http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/%21don%20juan/normal_poto-1466.jpg
he looks pretty bad. But it's not consistent. Here (http://www.thephantom.org/gallery/albums/down%20once%20more/normal_poto-1561.jpg) it does not look nearly as bad. I just think they should have kept up the consistency of the makeup.

that's true...plus his hair in those pictures goes from white to a light brown/blonde...which is kind of odd

[Minoru Inoue]

Regarding more than half the peoples' posts here:

The phantom wasn't young, nor was he handsome. He was an older gentleman with a hideous disfigurement, who lusted after a young and attrative singer. He practically "fathered" her (mostly her voice) before attempting to seduce her. However, we learn that he is a hurt and yearning creature who is dying for affection. That is why so many people find him attractive; girls like a man they can take care of who only wants their love and adoration.

If they keep making Erik hadsomer, I'm gonna be sick. Then again, Lon Chaney's mask to cover his deformity was scarier than the deformity itself. XDD Okay, maybe not scarier -- that man made me jump with the way he got himself to look. And, yes, people fainted when they saw him. That was still the era of corsets for certain women of higher class, and those things don't let you breathe so you can't gasp, so you faint. So they had smelling salts prepared before each viewing of "Phantom." Cool, huh?

The band-aid is so true... You notice Gerry's mask got a little smaller in the forehead area? He specifically requested that the nose run straight down the middle of his face. How OCD of him.

Oh, and I saw this whoooooole transformation bit on the makeup they put on the Phantom for the Broadway version. He is NOT made handsome on the uncovered side of his mask. They make his lips HUGE and all bumpy and stuff even on the uncovered side. Plus he's given white powder on his face, and I think they make dark rings under his eyes or something. So although the deformity covers mostly one side of his face, the other side is made to look not much better.

UN-PRETTIFY ERIK PLEEEEEASE~! T_T Raoul's there for eyecandy sakes... Leave Erik's ugliness alone...

[eriks_protege]

But he IS sexy in the other versions.

Just sexy in a different way...

And, by the way, I HATE Gerik. TOO SEXY IN THE WRONG WAY! Also, they probably made him go out in the sun without sunblock to give him that deformity. IT LOOKS LIKE A SUNBURN!

[*Ange_de_Musique*]

Well,though I do believe they should have made the deformity worse,I won't say it was a crime to make him sexy,though the defority definately should have been much worse.
I also think that Gerard's voice was grand. It was so alluring and passionate,I believe.

[eriks_protege]

*Ahem* Sorry about that last post. I don't hate Gerik but I certainly don't like him...Voice lessons, anyone? Torture to the untrained ear, although his PoNR was pretty good. Passionate, yes, and a pretty good tone, but NEEDS A LOT MORE TRAINING. And if you try that, 'The Phantom is not supposed to be trained' crap, I will Punjab you.

And to those who say, 'I like Gerry's voice better than Michael's because it's deeper,' the Phantom is a TENOR part. TENORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HIGH.

Also, Michael can go both higher AND LOWER than Gerry. What do you say to that?

*Ahem* Sorry, I'm listening to Gerry's MotN, which sounds seriously painful...that always puts me in an anti-Gerry mood. Although the man is HOT. But not sexy in the right way. Too Brad Pitt-sexy and not Erik-sexy. Get it?

[I_LOVE_GERRY]

eriks_protoge is right, but for a man who is scottish, there is something about his voice. I still like the fact that they made him sexy though because well..like I said there is just something about it that makes it O.K to have that much sexyness in a character.The only thing that was a set back was his diformaty.(excuse me if I spelled that wrong). They should have made it a tad worse, but other than that I really enjoyed the sexynass of it all.

[northangel27]

No more pretty phantoms, I beg of you. If Erik is beautiful you sort of tear out the whole foundation of who he is as a person. This man's soul is dark and tortured specifically because of what he has suffered due to his deformity. I actually laughed out loud in the theater when we really got a good look at Gerik's face at the end of the recent film (rather rude of me I know, but I couldn't help myself). I leaned over to my husband and whispered, "What? All that angst over a little sunburn?" It was ridiculous, and like other aspects added to and deleted from the film, made the whole story make that much less sense.

Erik was hideous. End of story. It was definitely a part of what caused the turmoil in Christine's heart, whether she wanted to admit it or not. I always liked Leroux's and Kay's descriptions of Erik. His face was basically a skull with thin parchment-like skin stretched over it. In the Leroux novel, when Erik shows up at the Masquerade the "mask" he is wearing with the Red Death costume isn't really a mask at all, but his own face. I don't know if anyone here has seen a mummified corpse, or a body that has been preserved in the ice for many, many years, but imagine that coming to life and talking, and then imagine kissing such a face. My God, Christine was strong!

Don't pretty up Erik. I know why ALW and Joel S. did so, but sometimes selling out on artistic integrity in the name of the almighty dollar just isn't right.

[queen]

I quite like the musical version..no...I LOVE it...and....THE PHANTOM
[queen cannot go on as she has lapsed in a phantomic dream]

[Easy Breezy]

As a die-hard fan of the Leroux novel, obviously I'm going to say that I'm disgusted that Schumacher made Erik so "sexy". As mentioned before, Erik's beauty is supposed to lie in his voice, not his face. But whatever sells, I guess. :\

[Pyromaniac]

Interesting points all of you. I think that they should have Erik be one of those guys that has a true heart of gold, however made of gold it can be for how obsessed he is, and the fact that he killed some people...they had it comming to them, but isn't all that appealing on the outside.

Aren't most of these things though built on the director's point of view? I mean, I never saw the opera, my parents did and loved it. I always envisioned the Phantom to be only half discomfigured and the other half be pretty decent looking. Why else would he so hate one half of his face unless he could contrast it with something?

Well that is my thought anyway. I also envisioned the Phantom to have an amazing voice, which is why I love Micheal Crawford so much his voice rocks! I think I lost my train of thought again...

Oh yeah there it is, I don't think that they should make the phantom complete hottness, but he shouldn't be horrendous looking either, at least for one half of his face.

[eriks_protege]

I was very, very unhappy with the movie. Gerard Butler is extremely handsome, and I am appalled and disgusted with the incompetence of the make-up artists. Also, he can not sing. Yet. Either they should have trained him up really, really well, or hired someone who could both act AND sing. Like Josh Groban. He auditioned too, and he is fabulous. He is handsome, too, though...but with better make-up artists...

Anyway, a sexy Erik is an abominable idea. If Erik looked the way Gerard Butler did in the movie, he would not need to live underground, and would live perfectly happily above ground, and would be like a normal man.

Except, if he SOUNDED like Gerard Butler did in the movie, he would have a LOT of trouble finding an opera house who would let him play a role...opera requires an extremely well-trained, good voice. One which can actually HIT THE NOTES.

[queen]

Well,just to reciprocate my old post,I believe that if erik was more ugly in the movie then it would have a more deep feel,an emotional one I should say.Which is good.

[MystMoonstruck]

I don't believe I've addressed this issue yet, unless I missed my post, so, here goes!

I don't understand why Erik is so minimally disfigured in the film unless it was to ensure a wider range of theatergoers. It could have been worse: Erik could have been shave-chested and mega-buffed. Gerard has a good body, as revealed in Attila, but he didn't look as brawny in this role. That's not much of a defense because, with a relatively small mask and some makeup, he was far better-looking than many of the men around the opera house. It did make it seem odd that he should carry on so and feel sorry for himself. His deformity is unpleasant but not horrifying.

Even "Phantom of the Paradise" has an extremely dreadful-looking Phantom. Someone already noted the trend: full mask, then the upper half of the face covered, then the famous half-mask. Band-Aid?! Teehee! I LOVE the scenario: current hunk with bandage on face covering pimple. Sounds like a possibliity.

I thought the "prettified" Erik weakened the story a lot. Still, Erik was a murderer. To me, it wasn't his face that was the obstacle between Christine and himself; instead, it was his brutality and readiness to kill that repulsed her. Yet, even to the end, Erik was threatening her with his countenance, telling her that Raoul could go but that she would have to look at him, Erik, ever after. That's a very strange way to try to win over the girl he supposedly loves.

Hmmm... Perhaps people could understand Christine turning her back on Erik if he was hideous. BUT, if he's a hunk except for minor deformity, the ugliness inside him sends her away.

[Lord Moe]

I have no problem with a good looking phantom. But there is a line to be drawn, a line which was crossed in the movie. I mean, come on. Having a shirt that shows some of Butler's chest. The Phantom is not a hunk.

Sexy is where to draw the line. The Phantom should not be made out to be a sexy person, because he isn't. You can be sensual and romantic without being sexy.

[Michlynnhen17]

Ok, am i the only one who got scared my gerry deformity, i'm not scared by him anymore, : goes off to ask my cat if i scared easy:

[Victoria]

I don't mind him being sexy in real life, I just had hoped that the deformity was more horrific and not a sun burn.

A friend of mine once said that maybe they wanted to show that his real distortion was in his soul which makes sense but still...

[Eriss Haughten]

I believe that the true phantom would have been mtruch sexier. Elsewise, Christine would never have loved him as she did for the short span of time. In his soul he is a kind man with feelings and this should be portrayed in his phisical appearence as well. A sexier phantom meens a more interesting book and movie. I say all this because I am very in love withthe phantom and his story, I would not feel that differently were he other than he is.

[Christine Daaé]

I believe that the true phantom would have been mtruch sexier. Elsewise, Christine would never have loved him as she did for the short span of time. In his soul he is a kind man with feelings and this should be portrayed in his phisical appearence as well. A sexier phantom meens a more interesting book and movie. I say all this because I am very in love withthe phantom and his story, I would not feel that differently were he other than he is.

Have you read the original book by Gaston Leroux? If not, you should. Erik's character -- that is, the Phantom's character -- might surprise you.

Everyone who calls themselves a phan ought to read the original book. That's all I've got to say.

~ Zelda

[marissamayhem]

Here is my take on this.

I think that if you look at the time period, Erik would have been treated like a monster even with his "sunburn" type disfigurement. Any difference in a person's appearance was treated like the plague. I read a book a while ago about a woman who gives birth to a boy who has a red mark on his face and her son was called 'monster' just for that. It was the same time period so it wouldn't surprise me that Erik could turn out completely emotionally and mentally wreaked from having a disfigurement that we, in this time period, think isn't that bad. But this movie wasn't being shown in the late 1800's and I think they did a real disservice to the Phantom of the Opera by making Erik look the way he did.

In PONR, people are waiting for this big reveal of this horrible disfigurement that will explain all these things he does then Christine rips and the mask off and you're like "... that's it? .. Really? .. That thing? .. It isn't even that bad." It kind of makes the Phantom look like a big baby.

I wish they would have stuck with Leroux's version of the Phantom or even the show's version. People could really feel for the Phantom if he looked so disfigured that he couldn't possible truly function in society. I just want to tell the movies Phantom to get over it, while with Leroux's Erik, I cried with him. People would have been more keen to empathize (is that the right word? I always get empathize, sympathize, and ampathy mixed up. :P) with Erik if he wasn't seen as so sexy.

[Christine Daaé]

VERY nicely put, Marissa. I agree wholeheartedly.

I reiterate, however, that everyone who calls themselves a "phan" really should read Leroux's original book. I could just be a snob, but I really believe that reading Leroux's book ought to be a prerequisite for "official" phandom, if indeed such a thing existed. I feel that phans who expose themselves to multiple versions of the story, rather than just one, are better informed on a whole.

But anyway, enough soapbox-hijacking of threads. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled topic.

~ Zelda

[Jennifer Linforth]

This is a very interesting subject for me, one that prompted me to write a four page essay on sexuality and subliminal sex in Phantom of the Opera. (I will spare you it.)

In my opinion Webber's need to create a sexy Erik was for the benefit of a new target audience. I feel he wanted to capture a younger generation of Phantom fans who might not be familiar with the original novel (it is not often taught in English lit classes)

Do I agree with the sexy image of Erik? No. And that has sparked some heated discussions with my editor often resulting in me often yelling at IM. Sexy sells. No matter the medium--sex in this day and age sells. Movies, music, books--you add a bit of something sexy in a leading man and it sells.

But if you are looking at Leroux, making a physically appealing Erik will not work. It goes against everything that Erik was. It contradicts his torment and the irony of his ardent ability to love. Leroux pulled much of his book from the stories of Death and the Maiden. What an extremely frustrating fate to look like Death yet be painfully seductive... women would not go willing into the arms of Death after all. That had to tear him apart.

I often say Erik was less 'sexy' but more 'sensual' He had a power to seduce that transcended his face. Christine's love for him was much in part due to a 'captor bonding' sort of reaction--feeling elements of love for the person victimizing you, not necessarily truly 'loving' that person.

I don't disagree with Webber's choice to make a sexy Erik, but for me Erik was, and always will be, hidden beneath a full black mask and cursed with a deformity that went beyond his face--it filled his body and his soul.

My editor is a Webber fan. (small, ironic world that she got assigned my book.) Those debates that had me yelling at IM involved changes she and the senior editor wanted made to characterizations based on mass market appeal. A week worth of negotiations and we found mutual ground to work on. (I came out the bigger victor, IMO <vbg>)

What I have learned about Leroux is that there are as many images of Erik in people's minds as there are images of the famous Mr. Darcy. What works for one might not work for another, but all visions of him seem rooted in a deeply passionate character. That element of Erik I believe will never change, but hopefully continue to for generations to come.

Mav

[Hidden Away]

Alright I have to admit, Gerard Butler portrayed the Phantom as a very unnoticed, georgous, sweetly seductive, alluring, and just well a guy that every woman would fall head over heels for. *snickers to self* He did rather catch on to the young and new views such as teens at the time that always say, "OMG he's like sooooo sexy!!!" WHAT EVER! You'd hear me have a random outburst once in a week, but not every second of my life.
Anyways, he did add more of a mysterious, attractive, and some kind of cetain appeal to Erik. He did make a lot of people (unfortunately like me), mostly woman, feel as if he were a erm..... 'good' if you know what I mean. And there is nothing wrong with that. And you have to admit, if he really did write The Point of No Return, then you'd actually come to assume that in varies many ways and natures. I know my friends has found that in a very sweet, seductive like nature (goodie for her! But not for me if I have to hear it every second of my school life) Anyways, basically a sexy Phantom is alright with me, as long as he keeps true to Andrew Llyod Webber's envisionment of his Phantom: more confident that Gaston's version, seductive, partly insane, and a defenseless creature in the world (I believe it was the same for Gaston's....I don't know, you tell me!)

[A_Single_Rose]

I'm not badly bothered by a sexy phantom. I do enjoy the sexyness of Erik in ALW's version, but ideally, I would prefer Leroux Erik. Leroux's 60 year old Erik is the "true" Erik, not some 30 year old hunk.

Again, Sexy Phantom is all right, but Leroux Erik, is THE Erik.

[cornholianphantomess]

Well,its hollywood,folks.They have to sexify everything.But he has to be sexy and have that bad boy appeal to Christine for it to be a hard decision.But he could have had a little more deaths head going on.The deformity could have been worse,but he's more dangerous in the movie and more trickster in the play.I was glad they let him have half a head of hair when the mask was off,unlike the play,I whispered to my mom"They only left him a wispy little mohawk at the top."

[F-warp]

Put simply: I don't like it....I REALLY don't like it!

In my humble opinion, there is only one horror character in classic literature that has any real business being erotic or sexy and that is Dracula. Nosferatu was an excellent movie, but a complete offshoot from the book, which was very erotic for its time. Dracula was a very sexual story but that just isn't what POTO is about.

I don't deny that there is a highly romantic aspect to the story. Hell I think POTO is romantic in the same way that Dracula is erotic, but sexy is just all wrong for phantom. The story of phantom is not about sex or love, it's about understanding.

The phantom is meant to have a sort of wretched apeal to him. He's meant to be so ugly that you can't help but look at him and think: "poor guy!" That is the beauty of the unmasking scene, it tells you so much about the character by doing so little and it's the only way to really justify the way he behaves. Do you think The Elephant Man would have been a touching movie if the deformity had been toned down? I think not!

The phantom is a broken man, beat down by a cruel world that doesn't care and will never care. So his face is not only the cause, but also the reflection of his suffering.

While I'm at it, there is another thing I don't like about both the musical and the 2004 movie, namely the way Christine kisses the Phantom (I am now one of those people that doesn't call the musical phantom Erik).

In the book she only gives him a little peck on the forehead and its enough to make him change his ways. This tells us just how little affection this man has had in his lifetime and its beautiful how such a little gesture can make him so happy. Most of us get kissed like that every other day and don't think anything of it. Erik gets kissed like that and has a complete breakdown!

The character of Erik is all about loneliness and suffering. He is a broken wretch, driven to the brink of insanity because of a cruel trick played on him by mother nature. It takes real heart to look through all that and see whatever is left of the beauty within.

Its a shame that the musical has to depend on emotional themes of a far lesser glory.

[Jennifer Linforth]

F-warp:

Solid observations! Kudos... we think much alike. Especially about the book not being about sex or or the physical aspects of mutual attraction, but about understanding the differences between love and infatuation and seeing the conflict that arrises out of bonding with someone on an unhealthy level.

A sexy Erik just would never work. In my opinion again...

Mav

[tiannangel]

I think it all depends on the version of the movie or stage play you see.
I don't think a really sexy/hot guy would work when it’s a performance, but I recon for the 2004 version, Gerry Butler was really good as the phantom.
He pulled off the acting and singing brilliantly, but I think they needed to elaborate on his face a bit more. When Christine took off the mask in “Point of no Return”, his face actually wasn’t that horrifying. I wouldn’t mind if they made him hot, just that without he mask, he shouldn’t look too…normal?
Another reason they needed a sexy phantom is becuase it helps enhance the fact that he's supposed to be enticing and mysterious.
Then again, it's all my opinion. :)

[marissamayhem]

I think it all depends on the version of the movie or stage play you see.
I don't think a really sexy/hot guy would work when it’s a performance, but I recon for the 2004 version, Gerry Butler was really good as the phantom.
He pulled off the acting and singing brilliantly, but I think they needed to elaborate on his face a bit more. When Christine took off the mask in “Point of no Return”, his face actually wasn’t that horrifying. I wouldn’t mind if they made him hot, just that without he mask, he shouldn’t look too…normal?
Another reason they needed a sexy phantom is becuase it helps enhance the fact that he's supposed to be enticing and mysterious.
Then again, it's all my opinion. :)

Well, to me, sexiness is very different from sensuality. In my own head, Erik is a extremely deformed, ugly man but who happens to have the most SENSUAL voice ever heard. I don't think he had to be physically sexy for him to be enticing. His voice should have done that all on its own.

[tiannangel]

You could be right, but then again, it could just be Hollywood needing to make every guy character hot.

[Mrs Nadir Khan]

When it comes to a sexy Erik...

I used to be okay with it. Granted, this was prior to reading Leroux or Kay and I had been pretty naiive when I was first introduced to Phantom. Sad that this was only a few years ago.

But before I go off on a tangent about discovering Phantom, I'd like to point out that Erik is a sensual being, very expressive. His voice, his hands, his rhetoric can all be seductive and sensual. But there is nothing "sexy" about him. "Sexy" implies physical fitness and beauty. Erik was painfully gaunt and thin as well as hideously deformed. There was a reason he was called the Living Corpse. Versions that make Erik sexy lose Leroux's vision of Erik and the reality of the story. It's tragic because he's ugly. If Erik were sexy, I don't think we (the readers) could pity him the way we're supposed to. It would be, "Oh. The hot guy didn't get the girl. There's always the next one, right?" For Erik, there was no "next one".

As for "sexy" in behavior, I should hardly call making Christine tear at his decayed flesh "sexy". He is (in Leroux) manipulative, abusive, and out-of-control. He's not Mr. Darcy; he's not a Byornic hero. He's an angry, half-mad, deformed man in a doomed love triangle.

[xXphantomaddictedXx]

Well, to me, sexiness is very different from sensuality. In my own head, Erik is a extremely deformed, ugly man but who happens to have the most SENSUAL voice ever heard. I don't think he had to be physically sexy for him to be enticing. His voice should have done that all on its own.

I totally agree with you. His voice should have done the job, but it didn't. I have heard, though, that the most sensuous Phantom was played by Michael Crawford back in the 80's. Unfortunately, some of us are too young to have seen that version... :(

[tiannangel]

I think you can watch tiny bits of his performance on Youtube, but that's about it. Michael Crawford had the BEST phantom voice ever. You literally fall so hard for it.
But I think the phantom is sexy in his own way. Sexy doesnt always have to imply physical appearance, and I recon that the phantom in any adaptation and movie is still pretty sexy.

[The Countess]

When it comes to a sexy Erik...

I used to be okay with it. Granted, this was prior to reading Leroux or Kay and I had been pretty naiive when I was first introduced to Phantom. Sad that this was only a few years ago.

But before I go off on a tangent about discovering Phantom, I'd like to point out that Erik is a sensual being, very expressive. His voice, his hands, his rhetoric can all be seductive and sensual. But there is nothing "sexy" about him. "Sexy" implies physical fitness and beauty. Erik was painfully gaunt and thin as well as hideously deformed. There was a reason he was called the Living Corpse. Versions that make Erik sexy lose Leroux's vision of Erik and the reality of the story. It's tragic because he's ugly. If Erik were sexy, I don't think we (the readers) could pity him the way we're supposed to. It would be, "Oh. The hot guy didn't get the girl. There's always the next one, right?" For Erik, there was no "next one".

As for "sexy" in behavior, I should hardly call making Christine tear at his decayed flesh "sexy". He is (in Leroux) manipulative, abusive, and out-of-control. He's not Mr. Darcy; he's not a Byornic hero. He's an angry, half-mad, deformed man in a doomed love triangle.

Mrs Nadir Khan, brava darling. My thoughts exactly.

The only major tiff that I have with a sexy Phantom is that he actually has to be ugly enough for people to forget his 'sexiness' before the unmasking. I wouldn't be so aposed if the actual deforminity didn't make peoplesay, coming back from the theater, "OMG did you see how hot the Phantom was?" His face needs to have a lasting impersion on the audience. For example, if you came home from watching the musical, I bet you wouldn't be thinking about the other side of the Phantom's face. Nope, you'd proably still be thinking about the tumors or his lip or even (if you were sitting close enough) his nearly baldness. If he's ugly enough by the unmaskign scene, then he can look however he wants.

[tiannangel]

Yes, I have to admit, I agree.
The movie Erik played by Gerry is hot, but I really would have liked to see more accent on his deformity.
It didn't seem to go well with the plot, how Christine sai his face was not like a face, and it turns out to look like a bad sunburn.
And during the movie, I think the makeup got less and less....deformed, don't you reckon? On stage of Don Juan, his face was a lot more deformed than down in his Lair.

[The Countess]

Again, awful make-up department. It's not poor Gerry's fault and I get all steamed when people bash him for not being ugly enough. He's actor people. He does what he's told and gets paid for it.

[PhantomPhanatic]

The cinema was good I thought, but once I could imagine Erik the way he's supposed to be, I totally disagreed with the philm. Erik wasn't nearly that good-looking, plus the disfigurement wasn't at all bad enough to cause people to scream like that. But looking like a skeleton isn't all bad ;) Me likes the noselessness :D

[Ange de Musique]

"Me likes the noselessness." :D Hehe, I thought that was funny! :D

I, for one, am VERY happy with Phantom being sexy. To me, Phantom just wouldn't be Phantom unless he was sexy. :D It adds to the whole mystical, magical illusion that he is...and I must confess that I like it! :D This probably has to do with the fact that I was introduced first to a sexy Phantom. My first exposure to POTO was the 2004 movie, so I got rather used to that portrayal. (Lacking in some areas though it is)

Laura

[tiannangel]

Yes, I agree.
I first got into the Phantom was by watching the 2004 movie. I guess the first mental iage of Erik just made a lasting impression on me, because now it's kinda hard to image the original Erik's face without Gerry popping into my head.

[Phantom's_last_rose]

OK I think it was a good Idea to make Erik sexy. Also I totally agree with what was said previously you can look at his personality more when he is very good looking. And personally I think all the Erik's (that I've seen) are sexy.
First Gerry I think is the best looking.
Then Mikey
and lastly Lon. (I know I sound insane but I think Lon is hot if I couldn't marry Gerry or Mikey I'd go with him)

[The Countess]

Not to be mean, but what? How can you be good-looking and deformed at the same time. That's an oxy-moron.

Gerry, Micheal, and Lon are only handsome when they're not in make-up. I don't care what the actors look like, just as long as Erik's face is ugly.

[masquerading rose]

And actually, Gerry's "deformity" wasn't even all that ugly. He still looked like Gerry-- Gerry with a droopy eye and sunburn... He was too good loking (both and out of make up) to be a good erik. He defiantly was not my favorite, but he wasn't the worse. Appearance wise, though, he was the least convincing and the worst.

[tiannangel]

Hmm...I stick with what The Countess said above: It's not Gerry's fault his facial deformity wasn't horrible enough. Blame the make-up department.
His appearance was better than all the other Phantom's ones, but I think he made up for that by being a wonderful actor.
His singing I know a lot of people dislike it, but to me, it was really deep and powerful. The way he sang "Point of no Return" was one of his best scenes I reckon.

[angelgirl]

True,Gerry's deformity couldv'e been a lot worse.

And I have read the novel and concluded that Erik is in no way sexy. He's supposed to be this horribly deformed monster.
A.G.

[Madame le Courayer]

Movie-makers, novelists and playwrites can all present Erik that way they want to. I am not begrudging anyone "their" version of Erik.
Call me crazy, but I find the gaunt, cadaverous, noseless genius a lot more appealing than the sexy Gerik. I like the crosspoint: Here is a man with everything...a talent that blows the minds of most normal people, the voice of an angel, the knowledge nearly of a Solomon, and the experience of several lives rather than one. And yet, there's that face. And not just his face either but his hands too were exceptionally long and bony like a skeleton's. Nothing romantic about that! Erik's whole romantic appeal, if he has one and I believe he does, is in his enormous mind (the madness notwithstanding) and his great musical talent. And his age. You have to be older than thirty to have gained the prowess and knowledge Erik obviously posessed.
So, hot, thirty year old Erik? :no:
Cadaverous, fifty year old Erik? :smirk: Heh...

[Hidden Away]

Ha well I'm just wishy-washy on the subject, but you know there are so many things that can open up from a different POV of Erik. The more your exposed to a different Phantom the more you can favor his light.

A sexy Phantom, I would love to see someone else play such a Phantom and then we'll see. I loved Gerry performance don't get me wrong, but it just seemed like a fantasy land you know? ;)

[The Countess]

This whole "sexy" Phantom offiaclly repulses me. I can understand why Erik may have some alluring qualities to some individuals, but making him handsome or sexy in appearance ruins the story. I'm opposed to Gerry getting the part in every way possible, no matter how decent of an actor he his. Because of his looks, I can never respect him as a serious Phantom.

[Esgaroth]

Here is my take on this.

I think that if you look at the time period, Erik would have been treated like a monster even with his "sunburn" type disfigurement. Any difference in a person's appearance was treated like the plague. I read a book a while ago about a woman who gives birth to a boy who has a red mark on his face and her son was called 'monster' just for that. It was the same time period so it wouldn't surprise me that Erik could turn out completely emotionally and mentally wreaked from having a disfigurement that we, in this time period, think isn't that bad. But this movie wasn't being shown in the late 1800's and I think they did a real disservice to the Phantom of the Opera by making Erik look the way he did.

In PONR, people are waiting for this big reveal of this horrible disfigurement that will explain all these things he does then Christine rips and the mask off and you're like "... that's it? .. Really? .. That thing? .. It isn't even that bad." It kind of makes the Phantom look like a big baby.

I wish they would have stuck with Leroux's version of the Phantom or even the show's version. People could really feel for the Phantom if he looked so disfigured that he couldn't possible truly function in society. I just want to tell the movies Phantom to get over it, while with Leroux's Erik, I cried with him. People would have been more keen to empathize (is that the right word? I always get empathize, sympathize, and ampathy mixed up. :P) with Erik if he wasn't seen as so sexy.

Your first paragraph was exactly what I was alluding to in another thread (cant remember which one) - in the Victorian period, a person's character was judged as much by the perfection and attractiveness of their looks as they were by their social standing and actions...and if there was a marked blemish to their visual, it told thei viewer something unpleasant and of course, the general lack of knowledge in medicine lent itself more to superstition and a desire to rid oneself of contamination of the blemish. I think in fact the Phantom alludes to this in one of his songs: not only will my blemish be hard to look at, but it will eventually infect you. I know its hard in our 20th/21st century understanding of good health/hygiene and advances in medicine to believe that people could be that judgemental, but I believe the 2004 movie stays true to that.

Plus I think in today's world I think the director et al knew that the thought that would run through the general populace's mind would be: "he's really THAT hideous? Well of course she would run away." It would make the final decision all too easy. I too think making him LOOK like a "tormented rock star" actually made it HARDER for Christine to choose...otherwise everyone would shrug and wonder why Christine didnt shrug him off sooner. PLUS, I like that until the moment Christine unmasks him for teh second time, she is 'seeing' him with particular rose colored glasses...he appears a certain way to her because she is enthralled by his presence and voice. When she takes the mask off, she also takes off the rose-colored glasses and is able to look at Erik for what he is, even beyond the disfigurement.

Having said THAT about the physical appearance, *I* love the 2004 interp because I think it says a LOT about the character of Erik to highlight the distortion of his SOUL. Here's my logic: given the history of his childhood in the movie was different than the one in the book or other versions, it makes ABSOLUTE sense that what is relatively minor in comparison to other disfigurements (I think Id rather cozy up to a man who has skeletal features than say perhaps, the poor young man who became known as The Elephant Man. Erik had nothing on him, it seems to me, but I digress...) was warped into a HUGE identity disfigurement. Being rejected by your own mother KILLS a sense of self to the child...if the one who bore you can't stand you, how good would you be for anyone else? And so what technically may only be a distracting feature of a face is intensified into a truly ugly thing in 2004Movie!Erik's mind to the point where he knows before even trying that he will be judged first and primarily on his disfigurement...and it isn't even because the disfigurement is that bad...its the fact that his own mother murdered who he was.

See, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Gerry's interp - I think he really touched upon something that speaks to everyone - loss of self, rejection, isolation - that all tends to feed upon itself until something that would otherwise be minor becomes the epitome of being. And its something we've all experienced at one point or another. He responds to Christine's rejection with a sense of vengeance "my mother didnt love me so you're going to pay." sounds trite, but thats a visceral thing for someone who's sense of self was murdered. And the fact that Erik longs to be heard and acknowledge is also visceral. As an adoptee, I so very easily relate to Erik's pain.

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in on it too. Apart from the fact that I love Gerry and find him incredibly handsome, I dont have any problem with what Schumacher did to 'sex' things up...I like to think there was more to it than trying to get warm bodies in the seats and earn money. I think there was a different way of trying to show the tug of war going on inside of Christine...and how even in the face of someone as sensual and sexy as Gerry's Phantom, she can still walk away because she sees something deeper there...and she's seen it the entire time.

and having said all of that, I laughed out loud at another poster saying their one thought at the end of the movie was "Hey, Christine didnt want him? I have a shot!" ROFL. Me too, me too!

[Hidden Away]

To me the only reason that Erik would be alluring would be because some girl is madly in love with his music and mystery. Sure he could be intriguing, but gorgeous...I don't think so. I think that movie producers were so involved with the idea of making it appealing to all ages...they just forgot the people that actually cared about the story before the 2004 movie was made.

[The Countess]

Your first paragraph was exactly what I was alluding to in another thread (cant remember which one) - in the Victorian period, a person's character was judged as much by the perfection and attractiveness of their looks as they were by their social standing and actions...and if there was a marked blemish to their visual, it told thei viewer something unpleasant and of course, the general lack of knowledge in medicine lent itself more to superstition and a desire to rid oneself of contamination of the blemish. I think in fact the Phantom alludes to this in one of his songs: not only will my blemish be hard to look at, but it will eventually infect you. I know its hard in our 20th/21st century understanding of good health/hygiene and advances in medicine to believe that people could be that judgemental, but I believe the 2004 movie stays true to that.

Plus I think in today's world I think the director et al knew that the thought that would run through the general populace's mind would be: "he's really THAT hideous? Well of course she would run away." It would make the final decision all too easy. I too think making him LOOK like a "tormented rock star" actually made it HARDER for Christine to choose...otherwise everyone would shrug and wonder why Christine didnt shrug him off sooner. PLUS, I like that until the moment Christine unmasks him for teh second time, she is 'seeing' him with particular rose colored glasses...he appears a certain way to her because she is enthralled by his presence and voice. When she takes the mask off, she also takes off the rose-colored glasses and is able to look at Erik for what he is, even beyond the disfigurement.

Having said THAT about the physical appearance, *I* love the 2004 interp because I think it says a LOT about the character of Erik to highlight the distortion of his SOUL. Here's my logic: given the history of his childhood in the movie was different than the one in the book or other versions, it makes ABSOLUTE sense that what is relatively minor in comparison to other disfigurements (I think Id rather cozy up to a man who has skeletal features than say perhaps, the poor young man who became known as The Elephant Man. Erik had nothing on him, it seems to me, but I digress...) was warped into a HUGE identity disfigurement. Being rejected by your own mother KILLS a sense of self to the child...if the one who bore you can't stand you, how good would you be for anyone else? And so what technically may only be a distracting feature of a face is intensified into a truly ugly thing in 2004Movie!Erik's mind to the point where he knows before even trying that he will be judged first and primarily on his disfigurement...and it isn't even because the disfigurement is that bad...its the fact that his own mother murdered who he was.

See, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Gerry's interp - I think he really touched upon something that speaks to everyone - loss of self, rejection, isolation - that all tends to feed upon itself until something that would otherwise be minor becomes the epitome of being. And its something we've all experienced at one point or another. He responds to Christine's rejection with a sense of vengeance "my mother didnt love me so you're going to pay." sounds trite, but thats a visceral thing for someone who's sense of self was murdered. And the fact that Erik longs to be heard and acknowledge is also visceral. As an adoptee, I so very easily relate to Erik's pain.

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in on it too. Apart from the fact that I love Gerry and find him incredibly handsome, I dont have any problem with what Schumacher did to 'sex' things up...I like to think there was more to it than trying to get warm bodies in the seats and earn money. I think there was a different way of trying to show the tug of war going on inside of Christine...and how even in the face of someone as sensual and sexy as Gerry's Phantom, she can still walk away because she sees something deeper there...and she's seen it the entire time.

and having said all of that, I laughed out loud at another poster saying their one thought at the end of the movie was "Hey, Christine didnt want him? I have a shot!" ROFL. Me too, me too!

This isn't directly related to your post, but I thought that I would touch on a few things you said and didn't say.

I agree that back then people were most certainly treated differently, but Phantom, especailly the musical version, isn't for people of the 18th centuary. When we look at him, we have to see that he is ugly so that there is reason behind his actions. So, no, I can't say that the movie pulled that off too well. In addition to that, referencing anything from the times back then as explainations to the movie is fruitless considering the lack of research of the times back then.

Erik was supposed to be ugly inside, true, but he was supposed to also be hideous on the outside as well. That's the entire message of the story, that it doesn't matter what you look like (ugly, beautiful, handsome) but what you do is how people see you. Besides, he's supposed to be physically deformed. That's the most important componant to his character.

Another note is that the deformity is crucial to Christine's decision. Her choice isn't a hard one because she loves them both the same, but because he's threatening to kill her fricken fiance. The choice of either living an unhappy life with a deformed mad man and living an unhappy life without the man you love is far more difficult than either living an unhappy life with a handsome mad man ect.

Not bashing E/C or anything, but Christine was supposed to be afraid of him still. That didn't seem as evident in the movie as it did in other versions.

[Esgaroth]

This isn't directly related to your post, but I thought that I would touch on a few things you said and didn't say.

I agree that back then people were most certainly treated differently, but Phantom, especailly the musical version, isn't for people of the 18th centuary. When we look at him, we have to see that he is ugly so that there is reason behind his actions. So, no, I can't say that the movie pulled that off too well. In addition to that, referencing anything from the times back then as explainations to the movie is fruitless considering the lack of research of the times back then.

Erik was supposed to be ugly inside, true, but he was supposed to also be hideous on the outside as well. That's the entire message of the story, that it doesn't matter what you look like (ugly, beautiful, handsome) but what you do is how people see you. Besides, he's supposed to be physically deformed. That's the most important componant to his character.

Another note is that the deformity is crucial to Christine's decision. Her choice isn't a hard one because she loves them both the same, but because he's threatening to kill her fricken fiance. The choice of either living an unhappy life with a deformed mad man and living an unhappy life without the man you love is far more difficult than either living an unhappy life with a handsome mad man ect.

Not bashing E/C or anything, but Christine was supposed to be afraid of him still. That didn't seem as evident in the movie as it did in other versions.

Just a weeee nitpicky thing: 19th century, not 18th. And we could round and round, Im sure, about historicity...we'd never come to an agreement LOL. I dont see how it could be fruitless when people demand historical accuracy - I was attempting to say that I thought the 2004 film version was probably as accurate in its Victorianism as the stage play was to the book. I would also argue what I was trying to say was that Gerrys interp HIGHLIGHTS the fact that it doesnt matter what you look like, actions speak louder than appearances. Given that today, people excuse the absolute worst in people, I think the movie's message hit home for me. I got the picture!

I dont mind that its sexy. I think it works, but then thats probably because I'm shallow that way. But you make excellent points and I thank you for sharing them with me :D

[The Countess]

Just a weeee nitpicky thing: 19th century, not 18th.

Ah, typo. I'm attempting not to two-finger type anymore.

I'm saying that historical importance is fruitless, but seeing that the movie doesn't hold true to such things, using its accuracy in an arguement is. The dress, for example, completly missed the mark.

But, back onto topic, I myself can't tolerate a "sexy" Phantom because in my opinion, it marrs the theme that true beauty and ugliness lie within. And not to mention I'm a complete purist.

[lynn82md]

The earliest known movie Phantom, played by Lon Chaney in 1925, wore no mask except when he was dressed in the Red Death costume.
He did wear a mask. It's just not the same mask that most people who are fans of POTO are used to seeing.

The mask that Chaney wore was a full face mask, but it was (how to describe it?) that of a person (think plastic version of a mask that people used to wear for Halloween...that's the best way I can describe it).

With that said...to answer the OP's question, I think it was a good move. In my opinion, having the Phantom be attractive kinda represents his good side. The disfigurement embodies his dark side and his mystique. It kinda reminds me of Two Face a bit from Batman almost.

[The Countess]

But the thing is, his disfigurment wasn't good enough to represent his dark side so his physical beauty overshadows that. In most cases, yes there is a definite Two-Face effect, however, Gerry only looked slightly burned and not horribly deformed.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have minded if he was attractive if his sunburn was at least 3rd degree.

[lynn82md]

But the thing is, his disfigurment wasn't good enough to represent his dark side so his physical beauty overshadows that. In most cases, yes there is a definite Two-Face effect, however, Gerry only looked slightly burned and not horribly deformed.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have minded if he was attractive if his sunburn was at least 3rd degree.
I have to agree about that. Gerry's Erik's deformity wasn't bad enough. It kinda reminded me of a really bad first degree (or maybe second degree for that matter).

With that said, the phantom that I'm writing will be attractive like Gerry's Phantom too. However, I'm going to make sure the deformity is one that would make people cringe severely at the sight of it because in this day of age, most people can get comestic surgery to cover up something like that (especially burns). However, one section cannot be covered up because the deformity is highly infected in that area. So, whenever his mask is off, it would look like (hopefully) some zombie took a bit chuck out of his cheek. We'll see though. That's the plan at this point.

[Hidden Away]

It was not bad, period. It was almost funny how my friend wanted to see the Lon silent movie, but she, regardless of anything, passes out in the 2004 movie. Recovery was bad by the way. That is one motive to let her watch the silent movie...nothing more but to watch her freak. It was a disappointment...it didn't contribute anything for true phan....just the fan girls...*rolls eyes-->goes back to observing the Highlights CD audiotracks*

[The Countess]

I have to agree about that. Gerry's Erik's deformity wasn't bad enough. It kinda reminded me of a really bad first degree (or maybe second degree for that matter).

With that said, the phantom that I'm writing will be attractive like Gerry's Phantom too. However, I'm going to make sure the deformity is one that would make people cringe severely at the sight of it because in this day of age, most people can get comestic surgery to cover up something like that (especially burns). However, one section cannot be covered up because the deformity is highly infected in that area. So, whenever his mask is off, it would look like (hopefully) some zombie took a bit chuck out of his cheek. We'll see though. That's the plan at this point.

Out of curiosity, what is this for? It sounds very interesting.

[lynn82md]

Out of curiosity, what is this for? It sounds very interesting.
I'm writing (or trying to write considering I am also working on another project) a novel that is my own adaptation of POTO. I'm basing it a bit on info that I read in Gaston's and Kay's novels. The differences though is that I'm circulating this around dance instead of singing and it's going to be more modern...like set in this century. I do plan to write a bit more about Christine's mother's background too since you don't get too much info about her in both novels. I plan to publish this as a novel, and try to aim to publish this as a screen play that I can act in (I'm aspiring to follow the same path that Sylvester Stallone did with Rocky).

I've put up a snippet of the content about my story in the forum for writers. It's called Dance Populare.