If it was to be a sequel to a film, it should be on silver screen.Ģ.) In the film (and on stage), she evidently also loved Raoul and likely would not cheat on him, especially not in the eve of her wedding to him.ģ.) They never bother to explain how the hell Christine supposedly found the Phantom's hideout in the big wide world. LND's nonsense if it wants to be a sequel to the 2004 film:ġ.) LND is on stage like the original play. But that's where any logic regarding its similarity to LND, ends. And she obviously lusted him in the film. And that's all I could have ever hoped for."Īs in, the 2004 film's got exactly the same essence but it's essentially about Joel Schumacher and the actros' interpretation of that essence which became più deeply emotional and different in directional choices.ĭon't get me wrong I do believe that in the 2004 film, Christine loved the Phsntom o rather that man of who the Phantom was one part of and she'd gladly get rid off the Phantom part of him. It's not based on the theatre visually o direction-wise, but it's still got exactly the same essence. (Contradicting much?) Well, officially they are not exactly the same thing:Īndrew Lloyd Webber: "While it doesn't deviate much from the stage material, the film has dato it an even deeper emotional center. But also that the film and the stage play are exactly the same thing. Then someone comes saying LND isn't a sequel to the film but to ALW's PotO. Forgive me the strong phrasing but I Amore logic very much as well as the depth of their relationship which LND completely shits over. "The true feelings of Christine and the Phantom are revealed in LND!" I'm a die-hard E/C shipper but still I genuinely react with: Fuck no. I actually can't see it as a sequel to any version but especially not to the film.
0 kommentar(er)
