MovieChat Forums > The Phantom of the Opera (1925) Discussion > One Good Version

One Good Version

posted 16 years ago by wswj519
11 replies | jump to latest

Obviously the 1925 movie is a classic but why hasn't any filmmaker ever made a better version. Every "Phantom" film has either gone way off or hasn't been just right. Dario Argento's version is blasphemous, Robert Englind's is a gory horror movie but with some okay moments, the TV versions were just plain bad, and Weber's was good in my opinion. I'm more of a fan to the ALW's, mostly because of the music.
They need to make a movie that uses a Paris Opera House replica set including the lake beneath, classic opera's, amazing singers and dancers and all the mystery the Phantom is supposed to have. Also with computer graphics they can make the Phantom's face as grotesque as it should be.

"I don't even like cosmos bitch!"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chiznat7-1 15 years ago

Well.. I think to create the illusion of a nose not being there, then CGI would come into play. Kind of like when Leatherface is unmasked in the remake of TCM. I say just CGI the "no-nose" but let a skilled make-up artist do the rest.

Back in 1925 Lon chaney had to work with what he had and actually pulled his own nose back. Though it is a remarkable achievment, you can tell there is still a nose.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lizzy-snowe 15 years ago

I can't wait until an adaption faithful to both the story and the spirit of the Phantom is made. By the way, Erik's face isn't supposed to be all grotesque- it's more like a skull's head, a dreadfully creepy one.

[–] TheCableGuy88 15 years ago

CGI sucks... makes things look less realistic.

Anyway, I think it'd be a good idea to remake it, but without it being a musical. Follow what they did in the 1925 film, and keep the original ending where Erik dies of a broken heart. That'd be perfect.

[–] MissyH316 9 years ago

As far as if the Phantom actually had a nose or not: I don't remember offhand if Leroux said he did NOT have one, or if it was "so small to be un-noticeable from the side". While it's apparent from Chaney's makeup that there was a nose, the whole effect is just so well-done that the unmasked face is still quite a shock. Heck - even when Universal made the (poorly-done) bio-pic "Man Of a Thousand Faces" in 1955, they didn't even come CLOSE to getting the Phantom makeup right! Go figure! Chaney was just a genius. :)

I myself have also wondered why there's never been a good modern-day movie version, although I dislike the thought of CGI being used as it seems so often it's just a shortcut filmmakers take nowadays. Maybe it's for the same reason there's never been a remake of "Gone With the Wind": some originals just aren't worth messing with. Now had Universal gone with their first cut of the film (that got vetoed by the L.A. test audience), I think we would've had an even better, more definitive movie version - i.e., even more true to the novel.

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton  

[–] PrincessMagical 13 years ago

The Charles Dance version is awesome and is actually filmed in the Paris Opera House.

Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera

[–] ultron77 11 years ago

I don't think that a remake of The Phantom of the Opera would be accepted, due to the ongoing popularity of the 1925 version and Lloyd Webber's stage production.

As for the use of computer graphics in the Phantom's makeup, I don't think that would work. Visual and make-up effects today have CGI techniques as well as easier to apply make up procedures, but hundreds of people over the years have stated that they are nowhere near as effective to the audience as the Lon Chaney or monster makeups of the 1920's and 30's.

Halloween is a perfect example of that.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

Obviously the 1925 movie is a classic but why hasn't any filmmaker ever made a better version.

I'm sure every filmmaker who's made a Phantom movie tried to make it the best it could be. There's probably never going to be a version that pleases everybody.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PeterBlues (790) 6 years ago

the 1943 colour remake of this is actually the one featured in the universal monster dvd box and because of that it was the first version i saw, i guess the wolf man in the same box was not the first werewolf movie either, but what a great dvd box of universal monsters horror movies, i had only seen famous clips from this silent movie version, while another silent i recently watched (the lost world) was a viewing experience that really didn't need words with screeching music score, there are popping up boxes every other second in this while the score is much more pleasant, since one is so common to the unmasking scene being an iconic bit of movie history, and even featured as the cover of the fifty movie horror classics dvd box where i got it, i thought he looked more frightening with the mask on. i just had the chance of getting a hold of the gory version as you describe it, but you could just tell by the cover it probably was just that (gory and i'm guessing goofy) so i skipped that version. what a weird dragged out opening this has, notice the guy at the beginning looks like dracula, the settings are amazing, and this must have been just a variety of horror in the 1920's.

🎭 🎨 🎼 💀

nothing out of the ordinary clothes,
mould to extraordinary body of yours,
shapes risin from seaweed in mornin,
in breeze my mind youre blowing,
stuck on your forms like a leech,
as you disappear down sea with me,
ridin waves in blurry reality.