Talk:The Phantom of the Opera (novel)/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Hterry08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KateKeWu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

False Document
There's no mention of this literary device in the article. It seems like it would be pertinent to mention that The Phantom of the Opera novel uses the False Document device as there are some who believe that Leroux is really trying to tell a true story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.87.86.50 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The Mask
Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.149.21 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Looking through movies and paintings, I've noticed that the Phantom's mask changes a lot, especially between the mask that covers half his face and the mask that covers both sides of his face. After reading the book, I don't think Gaston went into detail of how much the mask covered up. Does anyone know who started the idea of giving Erik a half mask?

That was the Webber version. The mask was cut in half so that the performer could sing clearly. Unfortunately it's spawned the dreaded "Sunburn of Doom". Vw 02:13, 15 March 200light and then I saw that I was in the hands of a man wrapped in a large cloak and wearing a mask that hid his whole face." - Chapter XII: Apollo's Lyre, when Christine tells Raoul about Erik.

Also, there's a part where Erik says something like "I'm lifting the mask, you can see Erik's lips singing..." --OFX 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of an erratic mask, in the recent movie version, what has happened in the masque ball scene, where Erik wheres only an eye mask where it has been shown that the deformity goes well past the hairline?

Actually I read that the mask was cut in half when they first started performing the play version of this.It was cut in half so that the actor playing as the Phantom could sing and perform his lines. User:Voltosx

Not sure there's any definitive answer. Lon Chaney seems to have gone for a full mask, and most adaptations that followed adopted the near full mask (with the mouth cut out). It wasn't until the Webber musical that the half-mask was used. Originally they intended to use the full mask (hence the logo) however Director Hal Prince decided it was going to be difficult for an actor to emote behind so much mask and decided to chop it in half. He said this also allows for a great metaphor -- the phantom being a split personality, right down the middle. Pretty clever if you ask me... : ehmjay (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unintended perhaps. In the novel, IIRC, the Phantom sang from behind a wall; in the Chaney film, the Phantom wore a full mask but did not sing while masked, but in the musical version, he had to sing while masked, so the mask was altered to allow the singer to, well, sing and act as required by the musical format. Unintended or not, the half mask is dramatic and visually effective. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot missing
Isn't it traditional to include a plot summary? I watched the movie once a long time ago, so would someone more knowledgable please include a plot summary (preferably more than 5 sentences). →Raul654 17:23, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added a plot summary. MathKnight 18:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sureeeee totally cass4lyfe 7:53, 7 Nov 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.171 (talk)

Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera
I have had similar feelings toward the Joel Schumacher film. It is, in my opinion, a complete mess, and its only selling point is the music (NOT the voices-Gerard Butler's rendition of "The Phantom of the Opera" being a prime example). One further example is when Christine kisses Erik in his "house on the lake," as the camera rotates around we see a very bright light that appears to be coming from the wall. This either insinuates a window, which I think all fans would agree do not exist in Erik's underground world, or a stage light, which I am not completely sure Erik possessed either (although I could be wrong). It was just a poorly done film (again, in my opinion). --OFX 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it sad that so many people and critics disliked the movie, as I personally thought it was wonderful! I thought the music was amazingly orchestrated, the locations and atmosphere lush and the casting I personally thought was very well done, especially Emmy Rossum as Christine as she was sublime, a true angel vocally! But yes I agree that the Phantom's deformity wasnt strong enough, it should have REALLY been a shock value thing on film, it should have REALLY made people gasp! Also I preferred the way the stage version portrayed him as more of a ghost and a magician, the film made him just a man using trickery, which I wasnt so keen on.


 * I am surprised there wasn't any kind of legal problems, that Susan Kay is not given any credit at the end of the film. The scene showing the a younger Erik in the cage at the carnival was directly from her novel 'Phantom'. It is not found in the Gaston Leroux novel, nor ALW's musical. As far as Emmy Rossum, somebody forgot to shout Action. She seems to float throughout the film as if under the influence of some very powerful tranquillizers. Wait, actually never once did I see characters in a story. I saw actors speaking lines on a set. They all needed some serious Red Bull. Vilawolf


 * "As far as Emmy Rossum, somebody forgot to shout Action. She seems to float throughout the film as if under the influence of some very powerful tranquillizers." Which is how she's described in the book. She's not necessarily the most stable-minded person, especially after all of Erik's hypnosis etc.--OFX 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we are allowed the minor slip of the brain occasionally. Neverless, I do know that the scene as it is portrayed in the film is a far cry from the casual/passing refrence that Giry makes in the stage version of the Webber mockery, so my point still stands. Vilawolf

I see how you can relate the beating in the movie to Javert. With that said, I only skimmed Susan Kay's novel. In Susan Kay's version, was there a scene where the freak show went through Paris and Giry supposedly hid Erik beneath the Opera Garnier? -Pamina

Absolutely not. Erik kills Javert himself when Javert tries to rape him, stabs him several times in the gut and chest. However, Javert did keep Erik in cage and actually tied him to the bars to prevent Erik from hiding his face. I have the Libretto for the Mockery in front of me now and I shall quote it for you:

Raoul: Go on. Giry (trance like as she retraces the past) And there was... I shall never forget him.. A man... locked in a cage...   Raoul: A cage...? Giry:A prodigy monsieur! Scholar, architect, musician...   Raoul (piecing together the jigsaw): A composer...    Giry: And an inventor too Monsieur. They boasted that he had once builtdfor the Shaw of Persia, a Maze of Mirrors...   Raoul: Who was this man? Giry: A freak of nature... More monster than man...   Raoul: Deformed...? Giry: Form birth it seemed. Raoul: My God Giry: And then, he went missing. He escaped.

So you see, Pamina Andrew's Erik could not have possibly been a child when he escaped. He was already a full grown man. And It's clear that Giry had no part in his escape either. Only Susan Kay has Erik escaping as a child. Andrew has him exhibited as a full grown man...Vilawolf

Andrew doesn't exactly have him exhibited as a fully grown man. First of all, you can't see his face anyway to tell how he was, but it wouldn't really make sense. Giry is about 55 during the course of the plot, but when she "rescued" Erik at the freak show, she must've been about 11. So if Erik was a fully grown man when he was exhibited at the freak show, he would've been really REALLY OLD when he discovered Christine! And in the movie, Erik was definitely not that old. Even though he definitely wasn't supposed to be a sexy beast (a major flaw in the film), Erik looked like a 35 year old or younger. It wouldn't make sense. So to be reasonable, we'd have to assume that Erik was about 15 or 16 when he was at the freak show in the film. And anyways, if you hate the musical so much, why do you have the libretto?! Pamina

Because, Pamina, it is my duty as a Phan to keep it close at hand as to inform the Fashion Fans that they are wrong in their interpretation of the story. And do I really have to remind you that Erik was somewhere between 55 and 65 years old at the time he meet Christine? By that way, as I quoted from the Libretto, "Giry: And an inventor too Monsieur. They boasted that he had once builtd for the Shaw of Persia, a Maze of Mirrors..." Now how exactly is Erik suppose to have done that if Giry is the one who helped him escape? Vila 07:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in the novel that he is between 55 and 65? It never says so. And when I said that Giry rescued him, I meant in the most recent film and not the novel. Read more carefully. -Pamina Anyone up here who despises the 2004 movie, i am right with you! my god, my ears, my ears!!!! although, i think it has potential with the sound turned off. i just don't get it - they dubbed minnie driver as carlotta, so why the blazes couldn't they have dubbed gerard butler? my god, who taught that man to sing? i thought christine was all right - she needed to be stronger vocally and acting-wise, and she has diction issues, as does the entire cast (who in their right minds sings the word angel as angul?) but not all that bad, especially compared to the phantom. first of all, he's supposed to be in his 40's and heavily deformed, not in his 20's and "good looking"! anyway, i'll finish my rant by saying that in the movie, by speeding up the music (Masqerade and Track Down This Murderer were sped up about tenfold, did anyone else notice? and they cut a verse from the title song! madness!) and by showing the phantom's trickery, they took out all the magic that the play has. the play is a godsend. the movie... not so much. - Angel of Music

Try listing to it again with the French Audio track playing. It's an improvement, but not much.Vila 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree on the French version. There were a few times in the movie where Gerard's voice was electronically modified ("soar" in MOTN is what comes to mind) and there were a few times as well in the French version. So although the French is an improvement, it's still not up to par with the stageplay. --OFX 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

i adore the film version (2004). i thought it was beautifully shot and gerard was good-whats wrong with all of you? gereard (while hot-Erik wasnt supposed to be hot but thts not his fault) he was a great depictition of the character of erik. and as for the sunburn of doom the costume designer said "Even though the make-up in the stage show is grotesque, and very much a copy of the Lon Chaney make-up, I felt the audience is smarter than a lot of obvious prosthetics. The Phantom is very disfigured and the right side of his face is quite tragic. Christine, however, always looks past that and views him with compassion. As she sings, "This haunted face holds no horror for me now / It's in your soul that the true distortion lies." I did not want to bring you "Freddy Krueger Goes to the Opera!" so that should explain it. you have to admit-it is awful especially how far igoes around his head.

- i agree, iloved the film. sure they werent the BEST singers in the world but i really felt a power behind them. and as for the deformity not being harsh enough, well you have to berealistic. these days if a gujy in a film has acne scars hes horribly ugly and outcast, so what he had was pretty extreme by todays hollywood standards. and it had the right effect. he went from charming, handsome and brilliant (if slightly scary and obsessive...) to a beast, all the good looks of the rest of the face vanish. but i must agree with thecritics on one thing. THE VICOUNTE IS A MILKSOP. he is just generally weedy... i wouldnt be tempted. i wouldve chosent the other guy...220.237.227.150 11:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not the 2004 film version, this page is based on the story. But anyway, the film was great. I think some people are too critical about some things. Carlotta's voice was dubbed because M. Driver's voice wasn't suited at all for the part. And the person playing the Phantom wasn't in his 20s, he was in his 30s, in fact. Speeding up the music doesn't make the director stupid. Otherwise, the movie may be a bit too long. The film version is intended for people who can't afford/can't see for any reason, the 1986 stage version. They are different things, which should not be compared.  Insane  phantom 12:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the phantom of the Opera!
 * its so romantic and dramatic i so want ti see the musical and play! the story was great don't you think? sure it was kind of hard to understand but you got the point.why do you guys sound so intellegent? oh well see ya hey we should start a club call me 7248594898 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.137.117 (talk • contribs)

I just wanted to add that I am a fan of the play and also the book, as well as the true events that created it. I saw the original Broadway Play when it hit America. I also saw a Broadway Tour version of the play in Florida. I can't STAND the damn Movie. I saw it in the theater and LEFT near the end. They killed the damn feeling of the play. They would have been better off filming the play, lol. `The Cyndicate (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i thought the 2004 movie was very well done i saw the musical on broadway and i felt that emmy rossums voice was much better than when i had seen it at the majestic theatre. her voice is like an angel (and just because they pronounced the words didfferently when singing doesnt mean it sounds wrong, some words dont sound pretty when you sing them so you change the vowels so it sounds beautiful and doesnt hurt your ears any singing coach will tell you) i felt it was a great adaption of andrew lloyd webbers musical and the setting was great and so were the actors. i thought the acting and singing was great i really felt the deep emotions they were going through. i can watch it over and over and still love it. dario argento's 1998 film however is a complete other story. this movie sucked. it was one of the worst movies i have ever seen the acting wasnt that great the plot was changed so the phantom wasnt even facially distorted but was raised by rats instead and was a total freak in love with his precious rats. all around bad movie. and the phantom gets shot in the end in front of christine while she is screaming dont leave me my love and pretty much kicks raoul to the curb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.242.209 (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1910 or 1911?
Was it written and/or published in 1910 or 1911? I find both years mentioned otherplaces, the french wiki has 1910. And Google gives a slight edge to 1910 in pure hit-counts, but I don't know. Hope someone can find out for sure, and if necessary make apropriate changes to where 198.53.86.7 just did his 1910 to 1911 changes. And say so here, so it gets settled. Shanes 04:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) It was published in France in 1910, first published in English in 1911.

Plot summary
Is the current plot summary definitely the summary of the book, as opposed to any of the stage or screen versions? It's been too long since I read the book to put my finger on anything specific, but something about it makes me uneasy. --Paul A 08:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is accurate to the book, although it leaves out important character points at the end of the novel in order to avoid spoilers.

Pet Peeve: "Erik"
My peeve is that in the ALW musical version, The Phantom's name is never revealed, he is simply known as The Phantom or The Opera Ghost, but many "Phans" still refer to the musical version as "Erik" despite this, almost using it in an elitest way. I dont know why, but I just find it annoying when people refer to the musical version as "Erik", he's The Phantom!


 * We call him Erik because that is his name. In all actuality Webber has very low standing among us "purist" Phans because of how he treats Erik. Not to mention all of the mistakes he has made in Plot and Characters. Andrew Lloyd Webber is an egomaniac and should be shot, drawn and quartered .... He hasn't a clue as to how to structure a scene to find its meaning. Its all so over done that nothing moves you as it goes on and on and on. It is clear that the man has no soul. His 'work" has no heart, soul or substance. A bigger waste of a production there has never been. I wanted so much to like his musical but it fails miserably. Erik is not supposed to be a cute stud with a sunburn and a bad temper, he's supposed to be a deformed criminal genius! His murderous behavior only makes dramatic sense in the context of a terrible (and extensive) life of persecution because of his horrible looks. Reduce his affliction to mere irritation, and suddenly a story that lives or dies on its psychological depths becomes mere superficial melodrama, and incoherent melodrama at that. If you would like to go into a detailed conversation with me, let us please continue it on my talk page. VilaWolf


 * In the original novel, he's named Erik. And Vilawolf, ALW did not write the musical---he only wrote the music. -Pamina

From the way the man talks, and wealds the copyrights, he seems to want people to believe that he did. It is after all know as the "Webber Version" is it not? We can talk authorship untill the cows come home, but once again, it does not change the fact that the mockary is only popular with what has come to be know as either the "Fashion Fan" or the "Weekend Fan". Any serious devotee of Erik know that there are much better, and dare I say more accurate, accounts out there. Vilawolf


 * I don't feel the need to discuss it further. I'm not saying that Lloyd Webber wrote the story, nor am I saying that other versions (including the original) of Phantom do not refer to him as "Erik", I am saying that in the ALW Musical version, The Phantom's name is never revealed, and so when "Phans" who consider themselves Elitest or higher than others due to liking the original refer to the ALW MUSICAL version of The Phantom as "Erik", THAT is my peeve, as his name is never revealed in the musical version and Phans tend to use the name "Erik" when talking about ALW's Phantom in some sort of elitest way. I dont want to get into a discussion about ALW himself or the ALW Musical version itself, as I personally enjoy it, its only the reference of the ALW Phantom as "Erik" when not ever named as such which is my peeve. TR_Wolf

It doesn't matter if you like or not the man's name is Erik. You must realize that Webber is only playing a very small part in the story that is The Phantom of the Opera. As Gaston is the creator of the story, I think we are forced to go by what he tells us above all others and Gaston says that The Phantom's name is Erik. If you want to get right down to it, Gaston does not even refer Erik as "The Phantom". He instead calls him O.G. or Opera Ghost. The Phantom only came into play in poorly translated copies of the French book. It's nothing to do with being "smarter" or "closer to Erik". It has everything to do with knowing the material. People who take the time to know the material know that the man has a name and we have enough respect for both the Character of Erik and the Creator of the character, Gaston Leroux to use the information that is given to us. Think of it as a feather. Gaston’s book being the Shaft of the feather and all of the other versions; Susan Kay’s book Phantom, Webber's Musical, the Dozen’s of films, are all the feathers Barbs. These all come together to form an amazingly beautiful and delicate form. But only when they are together. By choosing to focus on a single barb your are not seeing the overall beauty. Vilawolf

Well really I know that I and a lot of my phan friends use it simply because it is a nice name and is far shorter to say and type. To say that it's an elitist thing it being rather narrow minded perhaps.

dude, stop dissing ALW up there! the man's a genius! a genius, monsieur! (and if anybody adds "well, clearly, madame, genius has turned to madness" it is NOT true in this case) - Angel of Music

He's a genius alright. I love all of his musicals. But he's still a conceited egomaniac. -Pamina

And so are most men who have a trumped up view of their own creations

Three Words: Where's The Persian? Who is easiest the second most intriguing character, he has been completely left out. Simply one more reason why Andrew is a Fool. Vila 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

omfg, you guys are dissing the guy who wrote music of the night, think of me, don juan and all i ask of you. you really are kidding me-this man is a musical genius! it's an adaptation of the story in the book-not a copy! go make your own musical if your not happy. - Angel of sexy

I believe it is unfair to judge or critize because it would be impossible to keep it exactly the same and add music. I mean look at Wicked. Nessa is in wheelchair not armless and Fiyero dates Galinda. It is not possible to keep it the same, but I've read the book 2 times and seen the ALW musical 5 times and they haveenough incommen to be good in my book.--Fiyero554 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Fiyero554

i love the ALW POTO musical but agree that ALW himself (while damn good with his music) is a real ass. But on the topic of Erik's name-i never use it as if its something elite and high and neither do any of my friends who are obsessive phans. We use it because its so much easier than saying 'the phantom this' and 'the phantom that' its just sounds silly when the guy has a name. Lauren317 07:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Firtsly: it's an adaptation. Yes, its not like the novel in every respect but then again, it's not the novel. And secondly, Andrew Lloyd Webber DID write the play. He is one of the authors of the "book" (ie the story/words) as well as the co-author of the screenplay. So yes, in fact, he did write the play. : ehmjay (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration?
I read (somewhere on Usenet, which is proverbially the equivalent of "hearsay evidence from Richard Nixon") that Leroux was inspired by the discovery, during renovations, of a human skeleton under the opera house. Does anyone know anything else about this? DS 15:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leroux claims in the novel to have discovered a skeleton under the opera house. As victims of the Paris Commune were kept down there, it is quite possible that skeletons would have been found. A former publicity officer for the Opera Garnier has claimed that a skeleton was indeed found in 1907, when a time capsule was buried, along with part of a house!

I have a number of articles on claims of and evidence for a true story behind the novel. I am considering writing them up to add them to this page - does anyone think this would be a good idea? Broken Wing

---Please include the articles you've found! I'd appreciate it greatly!

I don't think you should. There indeed might have been a skeleton beneath the Opera House, but that skeleton could belong to anyone. Come on. PotO is fictional, people. Those articles were probably just made by bored Phans and should not get mixed up with reality. If they were real, it would be worldwide news and would be in newspapers everywhere. Put the link on this page and I will get a look at it -Pamina

I think it would be acceptable for those articles to be shown in the main one. They do have some pertinence to Phantom of the Opera. Maybe somewhere around the bottom though, as such pertinence is somewhat shaky. And I don't think that "if they were real, it would be worldwide news and would be in newspapers everywhere." While the musical is currently #1 running musical show of all time, the book and Erik's supposed/questioned reality are not a major focus of the general public. --OFX 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish that someone would do THE research and find out the truth on this event. From my own research on the subject that was started at the age of 12 and I am now 30 as of January 13th 08, I found that they did find the remains of a person that could be indentified as "The Phantom" from the ring that was still located on his finger. The secret passages still exists in the opera house. "Erik" was from Persia/Modern day Iran. He was an accomplish builder/planner. There IS historical evidence of the King of Persia banishing "Eric" who had an extreme physical deformity on his face. He was brought to France to work on the Opera House project, allowing him to build the passage ways and traps that still exist to this day. The thing that makes me scratch my head is the people that try to say that this story is a fraud or a fake. I am NOT a psycho fan. I was when I was younger, but I am no more. I am more interested in fact and the real story of these events. I guess I will have to make some time to dig up the real information again and point out all of the sources for the information. I still have an old file that I put together in storage. I will dig it out and post the information here. What I can tell you that we found for a fact, is that there were several murders in the Opera House. "Erik" DID exist and was Persian. He was also an accomplished builder(What we would call an architect today.) To this day, the Paris Opera House curators get upset when the Phantom is mentioned to them in a serious way. The events surrounding this story involves the death of a few people and almost the complete demise of the Opera House. The actual Events happened around 1880-1890 and lasted until just after the turn of the century. Anyways, I hope more people will dig up the facts around this event and post REAL information about it as I will, quoting sources. The Cyndicate (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot
"He had grotesque facial deformities as a result of complications in his birth, which were also reponsible for the early death of his mother. Following his orphanhood, he was sold to a traveling circus freak show"


 * The following paragraph is also incorrect - he was not a court "jester," and did not reach any agreement with the Shah to stay in Paris and be paid for his silence. People seem to be editing this page without reading the novel! Am correcting it.


 * I just corrected this line -- "The Phantom discovers their plan and during Christine's last show, as lead in an opera of his own conception, kidnaps her and takes her back to his dungeon." This is what happens in the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, not what happens in the novel. He also doesn't live in a dungeon or lair in the novel, he lives in a home which is normal in every way except for having been built beneath the opera house. Masked Angel

It seems to be from the Frederick Forsyth "novel". Widly despised by Phans everywhere VilaWolf

everyone has different tastes. im sure that book would be wuite well like by some. i think that opinion to be biased

Inspiration
I'm doing a speech on the Phantom of the Opera, and Broken Wing, if you would post you evidence and such, I would bu highly interested. -Lana

Phantomoftheopera.info is the link I think they are talking about. Unfortuantly, it's down or something. Hasn't been working for a couple months now. VilaWolf

Music
There's word floating around the net that Blink 182 did a msical version of POTO, but some source say that it has been mistaken for a version by another artist. Can anyone clarify adjust the main page acordingly - User:Oatzy

It was done by Nightwish. - Correction it was done my Iron Maiden VilaWolf

I've heard those three versions - all of them are distinct. Possibly the supposed blink 182 one is that by Me First and the Gimme Gimmes?

Thats odd. Cause the copies I have of the "Blink182" and the Iron Maiden versions both sound the same... VilaWolf

Name?
I've seen the name Claudin attached; the article calls him Erik. Is it Erik Claudin, or is Claudin a mistake? Trekphiler 14:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's from the 1943 version with Nelson Eddie. In the Leroux book, Erik has no last name. VilaWolf

There WAS a version done by Nightwish, but also one by who Trek believes is Blink. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was Blink182, also.


 * If you listen to both the "Blink182" song and the Iron Maiden song, they are identical. Nightwish is a cover of the alw song Phantom of the Opera. I had confused Nightwish and Iron Maiden earler. VilaWolf


 * I have heard a version labelled as blink182 and the Iron Maiden song is very different from this. The Nightwish version is distinct from them both. I'm not saying it really is blink182, but it's certainly not the Iron Maiden one. Apart from anything else, it's no more than 2 minutes long.


 * Forgive me for asking but might I know your name? It's simply that I have this odd habbit of addressing the people I speak with by name. VilaWolf

The Lon Chaney "Versions"
The rarely seen 1925 New York premiere version

The 1929 re-edit The Los Angeles version ended not with a chase scene as in later versions, but with Erik dying alone at his Pipe Organ. (first of two Re-edits after the first cut bombed in theaters)

The 1930 re-edit San Francisco premiere. Which also ended with Erik dying alone at his Pipe Organ, after he played Christine and Raoul a wedding march. (Edited again after the second film also failed to please)

There are some differences between the versions. The 1925 edit is the one most common to be found, it's basicly the origional edit by the first director. After it bombed, Universial decided that they had invested too much in the film to accept it's failure and brought in another director, who reshot the entire film almost page for page out of the book. This one had a lukewarm success in the theaters. In the 1930 version, the first two films were spliced togeather by a female director, actors are introduced with their own credits, "Carlotta's mother" does not appear, Carlotta is played by Virginia Pearson in both the opera and the dramatic scenes. The chandelier sequence is edited more competently, There are more scenes in Christine's dressing room, and also one crucial scene in a garden that explains why Christine is so enamored to the mysterious voice she hears. This one is the edit that took off like a rockett.

There was a "talkie" version of Phantom made in 1929, but the recording was thought to be lost. Lon Chaney was doing other things and did not appear, so they hired a voice over and they never actually showed "The Phantom" talking. Only his shadow talked. The Milestone DVD of The Phantom does offer some parts of the "Lost" Talkie soundtrack, as well as the stills from the "deleated scenes". (Which were just about all the changes that the second and third director did) One opera sequence where the singing of actress Mary Fabian (who did her own singing) is perfectly timed with the picture, and will make your jaw hit the floor.


 * I deleted the infobox on the frontpage because that info is already available on the wiki page for the Chaney version (and only two of those versions were released to the public). For the record, there were five versions--


 * Version 1 - January 1925 preview... the fullest cut, had Chaney dying at the organ.
 * Version 2 - Sprint 1925 preview... subplots added with comic reliefs and Ward Crane as "Count Ruboff" with a duel for Christine.
 * Version 3 (general release) - Final cut, complete with club-in-the-head ending.
 * Version 4 - Sound reissue, December 1929 with almost half of the film reshot in sound--no Chaney.
 * Version 5 - Silent cut of sound reissue-- what we see today. Possibly for overseas, or for theaters not wired with sound.


 * Thephotoplayer 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

From watching the Special Features on the Milestone DVD, Universial Studios Excutives give the impression that the versions 1, 2, 3 as you list them are backwards. VilaWolf


 * Listen to the commentary again (Historian Scott MacQueen, not a Universal Executive). Right off the bat, he explains that those are the five different versions of the film.  All the same, the listing stays down as that information is already available on the Lon Chaney version page. The Photoplayer 09:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Links
The musical version links here when it is trying to link to the song. Can someone fix it? --Gharkib 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the External Links having to do with the AWL version be moved that entries page? Vila 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson Quote
Is it really necessary to quote "the Phantom was recently called 'the gayest supervillain ever' by Homer Simpson." Maybe something for the Homer Simpson page, but I don't think this is really relevant to this article. Chupper 21:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Sure, why not? It's funny, and has a reference to PotO and how it bobs in and out of random shows; namely, the Simpsons -Pamina

Moved from Top
There is another P of the O musical made in the 1980s, Ken Russel I think

It's Ken Hill, not Ken Russell -Pamina From a quick look on Google, it looks like Ken Russell directed the Sarah Brightman video of the song "Phantom of the Opera" from the musical of the same name? -- Someone else 23:44, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Hm. I may well have the name wrong, but there definitely was another West End show of the same name in the late 80s / early 90s. I know - I saw it (not by choice!) -- Tarquin 23:49, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I dug up one by director Ken Hill where he wrote new lyrics to old opera arias - said to have been the inspiration for Lloyd-Webber. I bet that's the one! -- Someone else 03:50, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moving the Susan Kay summary
I've been reading through this article and I was thinking that the Susan Kay section on Erik would be best placed in a separate article. I understand that the book is important to many "phans" and don't wish to undercut that. However, this is supposed to be an article about the Leroux novel; the Kay book not an official sequel (no, it's not--Leroux didn't OK it!). Nor do all phans consider it canon; nor should it hold more importance than any other book in the long line of Phantom-inspired books and films.

What I'd propose is to make a separate article solely about Kay's Phantom book, set it up as a regular Wiki article about a book, link it to the Wiki Literature project, etc. It could be linked here with a "see also" or with a piped link in the sequel book list. Then all this information would have a proper home and wouldn't infringe on the Leroux material. Thoughts? Mademoiselle Sabina 17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The only novel that should be delved into with any degree of completeness is The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux.  I rather enjoyed Kay's adaptation, but feel that it definitely requires its own page.  I would also recommend a separate article on that HUGE list of adaptations; they contain information only necessary for a POTO completist.  We could make a summary under "Adaptations" recognizing the prominence of Kay's novel, the LLOYD Webber musical, the Lon Chaney film, and include a note to see the full list.
 * Also, there is a musical called The Phantom of the Country Opera currently available from Music Theater International. I don't know anything about it, but I see it every time I'm on that page (surprisingly often!) and, if the list of adaptations is going to be this extensive, it should probably be mentioned.
 * &mdash; Music Maker  18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the Summary
I think the Plot Summary should be revised. The first mention of the fact that The Phantom wears a mask is when it is ripped off his face! Also, a little should be told about Erik at the point where he is first introduced. Ordinary Person 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question
Was Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical of The Phantom of the Opera the first time music was put into it. That's kinda hard to fallow... I mean for example was it the first time the "DAAAA, da da da da da, Duh duh duh da da!" opening writen or was it writen before the '80s version?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.174.137.102 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC). GREATEST STORY EVER!!
 * Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote the famous "DAAA, da da da da da" tune you refer to, but was not the first time music was put to the story. Ken Hill's musical pre-dates Lloyd Webber's, but used existing music (from operas). Kopit and Yeston were working on their musical at the same time as Lloyd Webber, but it was not released and produced until some years later. Masked Angel

Okay... So the "DAAA da da da da da" music riff wasn't used or heard of until Webber wrote it in 1986? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.129.182 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?
Why is this entire article devoted to Andrew Lloyd Webber's adaptation of the novel...and not the novel itself? Shouldn't the article about the musical adaptation be titled differently than the novel?

Orpheus
Somebody really should draw a connection with the 5000 year old story of Orpheus and Phineus which is apparantely comparable. As well as Faust and Doktor Faustus, which is also comparable. I am not a literary expert, but this story is waaaaay more interesting than just a Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goflow6206 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Fuzzy Memory
I remember reading something about Leroux claiming on his death-bed that Phantom was true and lamenting the fact that people never believed him. Can someone please confirm or deny this?Sith Lord 13 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He did say that it was a non-fiction book untill the day he died but if he truly believed it had actually happened or if it was simply a marketing ploy, no one can be sure. I do remember hearing about one of the construction workers building his own 'house' below the opera, falling in love with an extra, and when she rejected him he bricked himself up inside his house. During renovations this building was supposedly discovered along with his body but all traces of it are said to have been destroyed. It may be that story that led him to say it was real. I'm not saying any of this is true, it's just the legend as I've heard it. Vila 06:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can answer this. The 'death-bed' claim is a nonsensical one invented, alongside other absurdities, by Dr John L Flynn in his error-ridden introduction to the Signet Classics edition of the book (available to view on Google Books).  To give you an idea of Flynn's (lack of) credibiility, he also claims that Leroux never saw the Lon Chaney film due to his obesity (in fact, Leroux did see the film in 1926 and commented on it) and that the novel was a bestseller in France (when it never has been).  Dr Flynn is also responsible for a similarly error-ridden book discussing the various adaptations of the novel.  In short, there is nothing to suggest that Leroux ever made such a claim.  The 'legend' that Vila refers to above is attributed to apocryphal and highly dubious information supplied by Renata de Waele, a former publicity officer for the Paris Opera House, many of whose claims have now been proved false. WikiFantôme 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Raise up your hand to the level of your eye."
I noticed they said that a lot in the Webber version of the movie. (I haven't read the book or seen any other versions, so I don't know if it's mentioned anywhere else, too.) Does anybody get the meaning behind it, though? A pyrate&#39;s life for me... (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I forget if it appears in the book, but the use in the musical is that if you have your hand at eye level, then he can't get you with his magical lasso and strangle you (your arm would get caught in the noose too, leaving you room to breathe).


 * For the record, talk pages are supposed to be use to discuss the article, not ask questions like a chat board, so your question and my reply aren't really useful here and someone might go on and delete them (but I just couldn't resist answering anyway, since I knew the reason). keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Sorry, it was just really bugging me. thanks for answering, though. A pyrate&#39;s life for me... (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It does mention it in the book. I only read it once, but I remember "Raise up your hand to the level of your eye" was the advice the Persian gives to Raoul, as they go down to rescue Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.225.34 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

True story?
"...which is, according to the author, based on a true story".

Someone, having read this kind of description, might really believe it's based on a true story. I think this sentence should be rewritten.93.183.224.212 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Film
"Its worldwide box office over the past 20 years has outgrossed even the former highest grossing film in history, 1997's Titanic."

I feel this line is unjust and not 'selling' the play in anyway. Using a combined box office of over 20 years of several remakes agaisnt one film is inadequent and amounts much to 'cheating'. for lack of a better word.

Phantom of the Opera is a classic lit, it does not need these types of comments to enhance its value, to me it's false advertisement and should be removed.

--Tieu yeu nu (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

this is such a sad tradagy for them all. O.G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.77.254 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot
I have removed a 55kb plot summary from this 10kb article, as grossly unsuitable. A brief synopsis outlining the basic plot should be enough, a blow-by-blow account of that length is, at the very least, a breach of copyright. --TS 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.200.50 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is a 55kb plot summary appropriate for this 10kb article?
Is a 55kb plot summary appropriate for this 10kb article? TS 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that, Tony Sidaway. A slight excess in plot length might be acceptable, but this is far, far beyond that, listing practically every event in the book, and it desperately needs pruning. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Agree - for the reasons above. --Stuart K. Foster (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, per Chaoticfluffy above. This is so excessive that I think we should just remove it and semi-protect the article if the IPs keep reverting it. It's not a summary - it's a rewrite! Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I saw the long plot template tag here and actually wondered if there was a level two version of it; this is absurd! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have removed the RFC tag and replaced the large synopsis by a brief, incomplete one. Although I have seen the film I have not read the novel. --TS 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to tell the IP on its talk page that the plot is inappropriate for the article and to please stop, but since the user is apparently on a dynamic IP the message may not get to the intended party. If the IP continues warring, I am not sure what the next step is...article protection? An IP rangeblock? Anyone know? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary in short
Thrown out because of his ugly by his parents Erik ran away from home. As a man he hid in the Paris opera and became the Opera Ghost using his numerous musical and technical skills. The phantom, Erik, falls in love with a ballot soprano Cristine Daae. He tries to make Cristine a star by frightening the other lead singer. when Christine does get a lead role, her childhood friend recognizes her and still loves her. Then Christine is captured by the phantom. and so on...

that's how the play goes, but I need to read the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.166.61 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Lotte
In Leroux's book, it is clearly stated that Christine's father told her and Raoul tales of Lotte, a girl who could hear the Angel of Music. (from http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/phantom_opera/5?term=lotte)

There was one story that began:

"A king sat in a little boat on one of those deep, still lakes that open like a bright eye in the midst of the Norwegian mountains..."

And another:

"Little Lotte thought of everything and nothing. Her hair was golden as the sun's rays and her soul as clear and blue as her eyes.  She wheedled  her mother, was kind to her doll, took great care of her frock and her little red shoes and her fiddle, but most of all loved, when she went to sleep, to hear the Angel of Music."

While the old man told this story, Raoul looked at Christine's blue eyes and golden hair; and Christine thought that Lotte was very lucky to hear the Angel of Music when she went to sleep. The Angel of Music played a part in all Daddy Daae's tales; and he maintained that every great musician, every great artist received a visit from the Angel at least once in his life. Sometimes the Angel leans over their cradle, as happened to Lotte, and that is how there are little prodigies. . ."

Why someone would claim that it was "likely" a game they played, I don't know. Perhaps this comes from another version of the story? ChiMama (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
Article has been tagged long-term for needing sources. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

radio adaptation
So I am currently listening to a Basil Rathbone radio episode entitled Phantom of the Opera. There are some definite differences, most notably the phantom is the father of whom Christine is ignorant of, and he does what he does to improve Christine's career. The father is still a violinist, but in this version he is a member of the orchestra who loses his job because of something wrong with his hand (and thus can no longer secretly pay for Christine's singing lessons). Rauol in this version is a Paresian inspector as well.

To help y'all track this down if you want to it was starring Nelson Eddie, Susana Foster and Basil Rathbone. Apparently it was based on the 1943 movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting the end of the 'Plot'
The end of the 'Plot' section is as follows:

"He let's Christine go with royal and the . . She leaves on the condition that when he dies.When he here's an oncoming mob of angry people he tells the three to flee on the boat and never return. Though Christine Gives the rating back to the phantom."

This might be vandalism or somebody with a poor capacity for English tried to add to the article.

Somebody knowledgeable of the subject should rewrite/restore it.

May 13 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.208.132 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial sales
I have removed the sentence stating that Leroux's novel initially sold "very poorly". This is apocryphal and there is no evidence for this - contemporary newspaper reports from France suggest good sales. The sentence says that it has also been out-of-print many times - again removed as this is misleading. I'm not sure about countries but Leroux's novel has never been out-of-print in the author's native France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CircularRuins (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)