The Novel vs The Movies

I've seen all the movies from Lon Chaney to the new one based on the musical. There's been a couple of weird ones too. One with Robert Englund, one by Argento with Julian Sand and of course the take-off, The Phantom of the Paradise. I have to say the new one is my favorite so far. I have as yet to read the novel which I just downloaded from the Gutenberg Project, so I'm not sure what in the movies follow the story and what does not. The movies themselves were all different appealing to different generations of viewers. As soon as I've read the book, I'll come back for more discussion.

I've read the novel and I can say that no wonder they changed the story for the movie. There was no way that I could muster any sympathy for the Erik in the novel. He traveled, he had a taste of life that the Erik in the movie never had. The movie Erik was basically an innocent who grew up in an Opera house whereas the novel Erik had traveled the world. The movie Erik was only marred by a burn on one side of his face which could under the right cirumstances been ignored. Which is probably why Michael Crawford and Gerard Butler were picked to play him. They are both nice looking mean and having at lease 2/3 of a face that is nice to look at makes the Phantom more sympathetic. I wanted to wrap the movie Erik in a hug and go "Poor Baby." There was no way I would've touched the Erik in the novel. He looked more like the Lon Chaney verison of Erik which would have been a definite horror to look at.

As much as I couldn't muster any sympathy for Erik, it was equally as hard to like Christine or Raoul. As someone here in the forum already said, Raoul was a spoiled brat but more than that he was an impetious fool. He ran around banging his head against walls instead of calmly thinking things through. He is the reason that his brother died. If Phillipe hadn't had to go chasing after the idiot then he would have never been where he ended up. Christine was much better either. She had her chances to leave but didn't. It's hard to tell whether it was out of fear that Erik would blow up the Opera house or that she was a victim of the Stockholm syndrome. Either way she wasn't very sympathetic for me either.

Being an author, it's hard for me to watch a movie or read a book. I always think of ways to change it or carry it on after the original ending. For the last few weeks I have things running through my head on how the movie Erik's story could have progressed after he escaped.

I hope this wasn't too long.

Keep in mind that Phantom was Leroux's first book and that he was a journalist and not a novelist. The book is a horrible mess of an adventure novel, a mystery novel, an attempted romance novel, and a horror novel. In the book Raoul just needs to die, Christine just needs to grow up, and Erik needs to not be a psycho. The reason why webber chose a half mask instead of a full mask (and he said this in an interview) is because with a full mask you couldn't see the actor's face or expression on stage, just the mouth. A full mask also made singing more difficult. Thus they made a newer and less restricting mask. Keep in mind that Erik's face is supposed to be distorted with a sunken nasal cavity and the skin stretched so tight around the eyes you could almost see the bone. Not pretty. Also, Erik is SUPPOSED to be a madman and a murderer. The musical/movie softens him up a lot to gain sympaty. I agree though, I could so live with movie Erik's face. If you want a novel that marries the book and the musical/movie together you should read "Phantom" by Susan Kay.

I'll have to check it out....Thanks.

I also favor the 2004 movie. They changed the tone of things in many ways. It was a way to make the characters more believable, definately more of a tragic romance instead of the originally intended horror. I have not seen the horror movie version, only the Broadway musical and recent movie. I read the book too.

The movie "Erik" draws compassion and empathy from the audience. The actor himself brings a lot to the role - use of non-verbal expression was unique and made the movie better. I can see how a full mask would have been a barrier.

"The Phantom of the Opera" was not, in fact, Leroux's first novel. I believe he had written "The Mystery of the Yellow Room" as well as several little-known works beforehand, although "Phantom" and "The Mystery of the Yellow Room" are his most famous.

Keep in mind that the "Phantom" novel was first translated into English in 1911. It is an old story, and would have affected Edwardian readers much differently than it affects modern readers. Also, Erik is supposed to be deformed, not look as though he has a 3rd degree sunburn. I fully agree with Lum, although he was always a sympathetic character to me. Madame Giry's sheltering of Erik in the Opera House from the start is also logistically impossible, as, in the movie, the story is set during 1870 and the Opera House was not opened until 14th January 1874, and even then it was not entirely completed.

Erik's character in the novel is perhaps one of the most pitiful characters I have ever read - I might even go so far as to say too much so.

whats the horror movie called

I definetly prefer the movie to the novel. I just got done reading my fave chapter "Apollo's Lyre". I would not have any smypathy for the novel Erik. The movie Erik? That's a different story entirely.
P.G.7.

I love Lion King!