So I found something I think is really damn cool! (of course I'm a gigantic nerd)
Christine Nilsson officially made no recordings. Which sucks, because this is the woman it's generally believed Christine Daae was based partially on. Anyhow, I was browsing around period recordings and I found a footnote from a book on Edward Joseph Smith's collection. He apparently had/has a cylander from about 1897 which featured an unnamed soprano performing a Swedish song. It's believed that this singer may be Miss Nilsson! Unfortunately no one can be positive because it's A. the only recording of her if it really is her. and B. anyone old enough to remember actually hearing her sing live would have to be insanely old. I desperately want to hear this recording but I think it's locked up in archives somewhere. Sadness. I would really love to hear what the 'real' Christine sounded like, even if it is on a scratchy old cylander. *sigh*

Corrupted files that do not unzip/unpack properly make me sad :( *sniffles* I almost had a FULL version of the Budapest production, but the files I downloaded were all FUBAR and will not play! *moans and wails*

OK, so I would like to take this moment to rant on just exactly why the damn sword fight in the 04 movie pisses me off so very very much.
1. I think that the fireballs and insults he was hurling in the stage version were far more spectacular and lent him that air of mystery that the film seemed bound and determined to strip from him. It's 1881, pyrotechnics like that seemingly on the spur of the moment is some impressive s***! It's going to psych your opponent out. I mean, you're conjuring up fire from apparently nothing and throwing it at his head! That borders on supernatural.
2. OUT OF CHARACTER! Erik fights dirty. We all know this quite well. He sets up traps and nifty gadgets to ensure that he always has the upper hand. If we want to look solely at the 04 film, we have a man who has been brought up entirely within the confines of a theater. He may have seen staged sword fighting, but if he has half a functional brain he's going to know that stage fighting and fighting fighting are NOT the same thing. So untrained in the finer points of combat. Then we have a young nobleman. He is EXPECTED to know how to wield a sword! Erik's going to know he's outmatched and go a different route if he's smart. Which, we're assuming he is since he hasn't screwed up and gotten caught yet. He had the advantage of the high ground, he also had the element of surprise (I sure as hell didn't see him before he leapt down from the mausoleum) use them to your advantage with a ranged weapon! Get a pistol for God's sake! You could have at least wounded the boy before he even reached Christine! If you're unsure of your ability to take down your opponent in a man to man duel, make sure you never have to worry about it by keeping him at a distance!
3. (G)Erik lost. Suddenly the Phantom is a lot less threatening when he goes down like a bitch! You can't have it both ways, either make him untouchable and a genuine danger, or just freaking end it right there!

My rant on why the movie is just fucked up shit:

1. The singers/actors were terribly cast. End of story. I'm not going to compare them to MC or either SB as most people do because I have other reasons for disliking them so. Most of the cast has no musical experience. The fact that Gerry was in Oliver! at 12 and Emmy was “in the opera” at 7 mean absolutely nothing. The only one out of the lot that can sing is Patrick Wilson and we all know how unpopular he is for phans so I can’t say that that matters much…unless you count having a Vicomte, with no prior musical training, singing better than the acclaimed “musical genius”. In fact, I think that Patrick would have made a far better Phantom than Gerry. Rock and roll edge my ass. Gerry is not only tone deaf, but also a baritone singing a tenor part, and badly. True, there have been some stage Phantoms who are baritones and perform the role beautifully, but Gerry is certainly not one of them. Emmy, who obviously plays Christine, was so young for the part that her vocals never could have lasted on an opera stage or even a Broadway one. Her voice isn’t completely intolerable, but it most certainly doesn’t reach the operatic qualities it needs for the role. As for their acting, they all fell short. Emmy wasn’t so bad as she was nominated for a Golden Globe and considering her age, she did alright in that industry, but the rest were pathetic. Patrick, although an excellent stage actor, needed to change his acting technique. As for Gerry, I actually like him in other movies, but he couldn’t maintain a solid character for Erik throughout the story. He was too fluffy and not in a good way.

2. They were all too young! Most of the cast is 5-10 years away from the ages they should be. Christine, or Emmy, is supposed to be 16 in the movie while she is 20 or 21 in the book/musical. It may be only a few years apart, but it’s still a big difference. Let’s put it this way, Christine in the movie is only a year older than I am. It’s just not right. Raoul was actually perfect as far as age went so I can’t complain. But Gerry…children, let me say this. How old do you think Erik is supposed to be? If you said in his 30s, that is most certainly incorrect. In Leroux’s original novel, Erik is supposed to be a 50-year-old corpse. Now, I can’t expect them to base it off of the book when it’s SUPPOSED to be based off the movie, but the Phantom in the musical was at the very least 40. Their age effects their characters and they were seriously marred.

3. One word…”sexy”?!?! How the hell can you make a deformed maniac sexy? It ruins the entire meaning of the story if you just slap on a little sunburn on a Scottish god. The entire movie was sexed up and made more vulgar. Joel Schumacher, you are a pathetic pompous bastard. Because of you, we have these demented Gerik phans who all want to marry the supposedly crazed genius just because he’s “misunderstood”….um and insane?!? Joel, you not only made the film far more adult than it needed to be, but you also, yet again, screwed up the characters of a timeless story. Burn in the heat of my eyes!

4. The coloring of the film was also a monstrosity. Why the hell did it look like Toucan Sam threw up all over it? It’s supposed to be a gothic tale of romance, not a Disney movie! And then Joel really fucked up by making Masquerade, the most colorful scene in the musical, all black and white. To this day, I have no idea what the directors and producers were on.

5. The costuming, good God, the costuming! It’s not only terribly immodest (Meg’s Masquerade dress?), but completely inaccurate for the time period. No woman would ever wear something that showed so much of her boobs. Maria Bjornson but why would they keep anything original in the movie? Beats me!

6. The phan girls make me want to shoot myself. Nuff said.

That’s it for now. God, I feel good!

So this is tiny and piddley and stupid, but it is probably the ONE AND ONLY TIME you will see me defend ANYTHING about the sequel. (God this almost makes me sick) Here goes. So I was browsing on the POTO.com boards about the sequel and all of the nonsense, and someone had made a comment about the Phantom having a scrapbook with a lock of Christine's hair in it and how very very wrong that was to them. Victorian hair art was a big thing during that period. A sweetheart would very often carry either a lock of hair or a little something made from their darling's hair such as a watch chain or other small item. Remember, this was the era when photography was still coming into vogue so carrying a picture of your lover in your wallet wasn't as common as it is today. While today we may view hair jewelry and art as macabre or just plain freaky, back in the day it was extremely commonplace and perfectly normal. Hell, I even saw a comic adaptation once that ended in a panel with a dead Erik buried with a lock of Christine's hair clutched in his hand.

Hopelessly random, and utterly strange thought.
Anyone ever play the boardgame Clue when they were a kid? There should totally be a Phantom version! Joseph Buquet could be the victem rather than Mr. Body.
Instead of Mr. Green and Mrs. White and all of them, have different versions of Erik! Like the Claude Rains and the Lon Chaney.
Instead of the Rope, the punjab lasso. Instead of the Candle Stick, the chandelier. etc etc.
Get rid of the Kitchen and the Billiard Room. Change them to the Grand Escalier, the Rotunda, Box 5, etc etc.
"It was Leroux Erik! In the 3rd cellar with the punjab lasso!"

Ok, so my new pet obsession of the moment is the Pied Piper. Like everything about it. The Browning poem, the history behind the tale (actual multiple historical accounts of this stuff! Weird!), the old movie with Van Johnson, and, of course the Grimm's Fairy Tales comic book adaptation.
Now to tie this nonsense in with Phantom. (Aside from the whole do NOT piss this musician off or you WILL be sorry, and the fact that they both seem to have a talent for entrancing with music) Anyhow, in the comic version the Piper is shown towards the end as being--ya ready?--corpse-a-licious, no nose, glowing gold eyes, and black hair. Sexy Phantom Piper! Score!
Also, browsing around the interweb I saw some infos saying that the 4 part comic has been optioned and movie is a-comin'! Double score!

That's awesome! Hurrary for corpses!

A Phantom of the Opera Clue game would be absolutely amazing!

...I want that now. They should make one.

Did anyone hear about this whole Phantom concert business? More of a cash cow for ALW I know, but I'm pretty excited for this. I have no information about this whatsoever (research!!) but if he intends it to be like the Les Mis one (DVD anyone?) this could be a good thing, especially if the sequel screws us all over. The only problem is that ALW wants Josh Groban as the Phantom. Now, he has a great voice and all, but IMHO he should be Raoul.

Ok, my question is something I'm confused on. I'm almost done reading the Kay novel, (I just have the last little part where Raoul narrates to go,) and I still don't understand the meaning of the phrase, "None of us can choose where we will love." I mean, I understand if it would've said, "None of us can choose WHO we will love," because you can't really control who you fall in love with, but "where?" Unless it means you can't control where you fall in love, either.

I think it's meant in the idea of "where one will find love".

Ok, I get it now. Thanks, Phantomess!

wow