The Phantom of the Opera (2004) on DVD May 3 (1 Viewer)

[Geoff S.]

DVDAnswers.com reports:

"Warner has officially announced the recent Phantom of the Opera movie which stars the likes of Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Miranda Richardson and Minnie Driver. This new Joel Schumacher directed film will arrive in single-disc form, from the 3rd May this year. The retail price will be set at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen along with both English and French Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. English, French and Spanish subtitles will also be provided. I'm afraid Warner has yet to reveal details on the extra material for this one, but we'll let you know just as soon as we hear anything."

Having loved this movie and been personally affected by it, I am both suprised and dissapointed by this lackluster single-disc effort. I suppose I can't expect much since this one did flop in theaters (having not made it's budget back from domestic ticket sales). But it made back nearly twice it's budget when you include overseas ticket sales.

It figures that following the lackluster DVD of Chicago that we'd be offered this.

On the positive side, this is my first post. I hope no one else posted this already. I tried to make sure by doing a few searches
:b

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Welcome to the HTF, Geoff.
And thanks for the update. I too enjoyed the film, despite having a few problems with it, and will pick it up.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Chicago is destined for the old double-dip, and so is this.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Welcome Geoff!

I missed this in theaters but really wanted to see it as I love these types of musicals, Moulin Rouge is one of my favorite films, so i'm all over this when it's out.

In fact, i've never looked forward to seeing a Joel Shumacher film as much as I am this one.

I also LOVE Emmy Rossum.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I think we all thought Chicago would be a double-dip title, but it's been several years now and as far as I am aware there has been no actual hint of it so far.

 

[AlanP]

I CAN'T WAIT !!!!!!!
I LOVED THIS FILM !!!!!!!!!!!!
THE SETS, THE COSTUMES, EVERYTHING !!!!!!!!!!
IT IS ASHAME THAT IS WAS NOT A HIT !!!!!!!
I HOPE THIS DOES NOT DOOM OTHER MUSICALS !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MikeDE]

I am so glad you posted this. The theaters in my small town are undergoing renovation and there only a few screens open, so films like this come in one week and fly out the next. I wasn't able to catch it, and was hoping the disc would come out sooner than later. Never being able to see a stage production, I am really looking forward to getting the DVD.

Mike

 

[ArthurMy]

This film cost between seventy and eighty million dollars. Add to that prints and advertising. This film is so far from making its budget back it's not even funny. It has to earn two and a half times its production costs to break even. Worldwide, I don't think it's reached seventy or eighty yet. When it earns two hundred million (the 12th of Never) then you can say it's earned back its production costs.

I'm looking forward to finally seeing it.

 

[Adam_WM]

The funny thing is... consider how well the show has done oevr the years. I just think it's a case of people not going to the movies to see this. I figured everyone who saw this on stage would want to see the movie. Is it the opposite? Have the masses figured, "I saw it on stage already"? I really enjoyed it, a very good adaptation, but I'm not surprised by the single disc version. I just hope that Phantom's "non-success" doesn't put the death knell on future musicals.

 

[Porter Faulkner]

When we were making this film the budget figure always quoted was £80 million.A major part of that from Lloyd Webber's own company. Thats about 150 million dollars plus prints and advertising. Good luck trying to recoup that any day soon.

Even if everyone who had seen it on stage turned up to see the film it would not be enough money at $8 a ticket to recoup that sort of expenditure. Thats why the film was aimed at a younger audience and cast with more youthful lead players than the stage versions. That audience were not interested and the film disappeared very quickly from theatres to be replaced with more lucrative holiday fare.

For the real reason this film failed so spectacularly at the box office you need look no further than the ever present and heavy hand of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, who was responsible for most of the bad decisions..... like director and casting. It was also not helped by having some of the most damning reviews ever at its opening in the UK and US.

 

[Geoff S.]

boxofficemojo.com reports a production budget of $70 million (ad costs are N/A there though) and lists it's total take in at $113,674,692.

Always good to have concrete numbers to discuss I think. I probobly should have posted them earlier.

And as much as I don't care for Joel Schumacher, I thought his direction was more than satisfactory given his very 'big' style. That's what the film needed IMHO. I also loved this cast considering I have never been very fond of the singing talents of Brightman/Crawford.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

This was my favorite film of 2004, so this is a "day and dater". I'm sure I'll be purchasing it again, hopefully in a HD format.

 

[Jimmy M]

I got an e-mail from WHV which said that there is the single disc version ($27.95) as well as a 2 disc version ($29.95)coming on the same date. There's not much listed for special features yet, but it does say that the

"2-disc special edition features:
• 2 documentaries about the story's & the musical's legacy
• 3 more making-of featurettes
• DVD_ROM weblink to Phantom's online world "


Hopefully there's more announcements as to the special features which just haven't been made yet.

Jimmy!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I'm sorry, from a musical-theatre view point, this musical is mediocre. Thematic melodic lines should never be re-introduced in such a blatant way throughout the play.

I haven't seen the movie, I hope it's not as bad as the musical.

 

[Jo_C]

The video release date wasn't so surprising, seeing that this film was indeed a flop. I'm sure a lot of critics found this to be unappealing, if not giving "Phantom" mixed reviews.

I was all ready to see this film, hoping this would be a true Oscar hopeful, but alas, judging by the poor performance at both the box office and in the awards aura, it was to my credit I didn't see it.

I believe this was an attempt by WB to rejuvenate the musical as Miramax did for "Chicago". The attempt failed. Everyone wanted to see "Meet The Fockers".

Another strike-out for Webber.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

removed by poster

 

[Jordan_E]

And the thing is, Phantom didn't go "wide" until January; those of us near those "select cities" may have seen it disappear quick (although not here, it's still playing the same number of theaters since December), but it hasn't even been out over a month nation wide.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Have you actually seen Phantom? Whatever one may think of MR and Chicago, those were undeniably conceived as works of cinema. Phantom was not. For long stretches, it could have been a filmed stage production. That was my criticism when I reviewed the film in December, and it still is.

M.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

removed by poster

 

[Michael Reuben]

So I'm guessing that the answer to my question of whether you've seen Phantom is a "no"?

M.