I just saw The Phantom of the Opera that came out last year, and it was average, very average. It had a few cool scenes in it, and the music at the beginning of the movie was really awesome, but other than that, this movie was boring. I know it is based on the opera, but there was just way too much singing that was not needed, ESPECIALLY in the graveyard as that whole scene was long, drawn out, and pointless. I wanted to see a movie, not the opera put onto a DVD.

However, I thought the set designs were fantastic, and the masquerade scene were awesome. The ending was a bit weak, and having the Phantom look like a wannabe John Travolta didn't help matters. Heck, if I looked like JT, I'd want to cover my face as well.

Overall, I give it 2.5/5 stars for the stuff it did good in. I just hope that if someone else makes this into a movie, we get an actual movie rather than the opera filmed.

As for the HD-DVD itself, holy crap. I read everyone say that the audio was too low, but holy crap, this disc makes Constantine seem like Chronicles of Riddick in the audio department. I had my receiver turned up to full volume (level 73), and it still was not enough to hear their whispers.

The audio level was fine for me using my Panasonic XR70 via hdmi.

How do you use an HDMI on a receiver?

How do you use an HDMI on a receiver?

The Panasonic XR70 has a single hdmi input which will pass through the video. I set the Tosh to output PCM (analog). I love this receiver and at around $230 these days it's a real bargain imo.

I think you're crazy. Phantom has amazing PQ and the audio is out of this world. We all know that the levels are a little low on the first titles but you shouldn't have had to max out your receiver. You need to set up your system correctly - and maybe calibrate your display while you're at it.

Great PQ and sound, but unfortunately the movie sucks. :)

Seriously what equipment in what size room are you viewing this on? I found the PQ and more importantly the TruHD track even at 2 channel to absolutly amazing, incredible vocalist aswell, probally one of my favorite HD DVD's or even movies to date.

Also how can you even conseive a Phantom of the Opera not being a musical, or without Opera class singers, wouldn't make much sense would it?

I just saw The Phantom of the Opera that came out last year, and it was average, very average. It had a few cool scenes in it, and the music at the beginning of the movie was really awesome, but other than that, this movie was boring. I know it is based on the opera, but there was just way too much singing that was not needed, ESPECIALLY in the graveyard as that whole scene was long, drawn out, and pointless. I wanted to see a movie, not the opera put onto a DVD.

However, I thought the set designs were fantastic, and the masquerade scene were awesome. The ending was a bit weak, and having the Phantom look like a wannabe John Travolta didn't help matters. Heck, if I looked like JT, I'd want to cover my face as well.

Overall, I give it 2.5/5 stars for the stuff it did good in. I just hope that if someone else makes this into a movie, we get an actual movie rather than the opera filmed.

As for the HD-DVD itself, holy crap. I read everyone say that the audio was too low, but holy crap, this disc makes Constantine seem like Chronicles of Riddick in the audio department. I had my receiver turned up to full volume (level 73), and it still was not enough to hear their whispers.

But do you like operas and musicals in general? If you don't, you probably won't like the Phantom. Personally, I thought it was terrific - from the story to the music. I would also like to see Moulin Rouge released on HD-DVD. That's another recent good one. If you are interested in more of a movie version of The Phantom of the Opera, you might want to check out the version with Robert Englund (who also played Freddie Krouger).

As far as the low volume level is concerned, it is well known that this HD-DVD was recorded at -10 dB. That's way too much to compensate for by simply turning up the volume control. If you try to do that, you will most likely introduce a disproportionate amount of noise (like radio static) into the sound, which will totally ruin it. You must instead compensate using the speaker setup section of your AVR. I had to bump all the speakers and sub by +10 dB to get the same SPL at the same volume level that the SD DVD produces. In fact, just to compare, I watched the SD-DVD with DD first, and then, after bumping up the speaker levels, watched the HD-DVD with DD+->PCM->DTS. The audio from the HD-DVD was superior in every way - from dynamic range to the clarity of the voices and individual instruments. So, you might want to rewatch this movie compensating for the -10 dB this way. It will make a huge difference in your enjoyment of the movie.

I just saw The Phantom of the Opera that came out last year, and it was average, very average. It had a few cool scenes in it, and the music at the beginning of the movie was really awesome, but other than that, this movie was boring. I know it is based on the opera, but there was just way too much singing that was not needed, ESPECIALLY in the graveyard as that whole scene was long, drawn out, and pointless. I wanted to see a movie, not the opera put onto a DVD.

However, I thought the set designs were fantastic, and the masquerade scene were awesome. The ending was a bit weak, and having the Phantom look like a wannabe John Travolta didn't help matters. Heck, if I looked like JT, I'd want to cover my face as well.

Overall, I give it 2.5/5 stars for the stuff it did good in. I just hope that if someone else makes this into a movie, we get an actual movie rather than the opera filmed.

As for the HD-DVD itself, holy crap. I read everyone say that the audio was too low, but holy crap, this disc makes Constantine seem like Chronicles of Riddick in the audio department. I had my receiver turned up to full volume (level 73), and it still was not enough to hear their whispers.

No offense, but have you ever seen a musical before? This is pretty faithful in most respects to the Broadway musical. This is not an opera. The purpose of the musical is for people to sing and danve and what not. Might not be up your alley but that's the purpose. And I think it sounds AMAZING. Many of the musicals fans(and there are a ton) would have been quite upset I would imagine if a majority of these musical numbers were excised from the film....and man is Emmy gorgeous or what?

Couldn't disagree with the OP more. This is a fabulous movie, with a sublime presentation. We love it!

I think you're crazy. Phantom has amazing PQ and the audio is out of this world. We all know that the levels are a little low on the first titles but you shouldn't have had to max out your receiver. You need to set up your system correctly - and maybe calibrate your display while you're at it.
I second your emotion!

What the heck was he watching? POTO is one of the best PQ I have ever seen.

My wife and I have seen it about 6 times just because of the dazzling PQ. In fact that is one of the movies we show to family and friends to dazzle them about the new format.

POTO is not for everyone, it is for people who appreciate the sophistication of fine arts, culture, and theater. My wife and I, even the kids found it to be very enjoyable and extremely tasteful.

I liked the flick but didn't like the strained way that the Phantom sang, it was like a bad Meatloaf imitation or like he was on the john struggling to squeeze one out IMHO. Especially because the original Phantom, Michael Crawford did it completely differently.

:)

I thaught the Crawford vocals for the Phantom wasn't really as agressive or dark as the newer one, it was too traditional opera but just uninteresting. I like this newer phantoms rediculous control over range and is a much better phantom IMHO, especially with Music of the Night.

I hear ya, but it wasn't "opera" it was musical theater really. I just thought that the movie phantom was all strainy and made a very ugly sound at times. He screamed his high notes instead of singing them.
(btw, I am a singer myself and studied classically with the partner of Meatloaf's teacher.)

:)

I just thought that the movie phantom was all strainy and made a very ugly sound at times. He screamed his high notes instead of singing them.
(btw, I am a singer myself and studied classically with the partner of Meatloaf's teacher.)

:)

It did not sound that way to me at all. Baratone voices are tough to reproduce well. Note sure what type of audio setup you have; but, you most certainly need at least a mid-fi setup, and don't even think about getting a good reproduction from your TV speakers. (Of course, I am not assuming you were using your TV's speaker, but I have heard the SD-DVD on TV speakers and it does sound like you describe on those. Additionally, as I mentioned in my post above, you must compensate for the - 10 dB sound level through speaker setup. If you just turn up the volume, the sound will be thin with too much noise). I thought this phantom (Gerard Butler) did a great job. He has a very harmonically-rich, baratone voice with a very good range, as "I Superman I" pointed out. Not strained at all. Of course, Michael Crawford did a superb job too. But, his voice is really more different than necessarily better than Butler's voice, IMO.

First, they should have cast a tenor. Baratones normally don't sing as high up as the part demands. I saw it on DVD, not HDdvd so no audio level issue for me and I have a very good settup. NHT Super Ones and a Pioneer Elite amp. Many critics have commented on his lack of chops,
"Much more damaging is the fact Butler is not a trained singer. He manages to get by but lacks the vocal range and richness to do justice to some of the show's finest songs." Hollywood reporter. He sang in some rock bands but did not have formal training and it shows. I didn't mean that he sounded strained all the time, I meant either for effect or due to his smoking history, when he went for the big high notes he sounded bad. Raspy, strained and just an ugly sound. Everyone else sounded fine so I don't think it's my settup.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with a rock singer doing these kinds of tunes, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie and Jeff Buckley all could have hit a home run with ease. They could sing passionately, powerfully with alot of emotion and not sound like they were straining in the bathroom. I just thought he didn't sound good. My gf, (also a singer who has been in many musicals and has sung at Carnegie Hall) also felt the same. We turned to each other at one point and said, "This is they guy they picked?!?!?" Must have been for the broody looks.
Other than that, the film was decent.

:)

I'm not a fan of musical's in particular but i really enjoyed Phantom. Sure its a bit sacharine and its hard to make a story most everyone knows interesting but the film does a pretty good job. The picture quality is also fantastic and well worthy of a HD transfer. I also have the problem of muted audio unless i go digital out to a reciever. Using the analog outs I also have to turn the sound up to max to hear the dialog.

I also thought he sang like a frog. The contrast to her singing was dramatic. The beauty and the beast in looks and voice.

The best singing I have seen in a movie lately was in Walk the Line and De Lovely.

OP, please get a clue about what this movie was supposed to be - a filmed version of the Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical. It is NOT an "opera." It is not intended to be a movie drama with lots of dialog instead of singing. If that's not your cup of tea, fine. Watch something else. But the movie is what it's intended to be. Just like the people who complained about "too much singing" in the movie version of Evita. That's what it was supposed to be folks!

That said, of course there can be varying opinions about the quality of the performances, staging, etc. I thought Emmy Rossum was great in her role. Gerard Butler not so much. He needed more power in his voice in the higher ranges. But it wasn't terrible.

Great PQ and sound, but the film was far too long. However, Emmy Rossum's voice was beautiful.

Nothing wrong with POTO pic or sound on HDDVD...check your settings Doc.

I think you're crazy. Phantom has amazing PQ and the audio is out of this world. We all know that the levels are a little low on the first titles but you shouldn't have had to max out your receiver. You need to set up your system correctly - and maybe calibrate your display while you're at it.

What the hell? I never said anything about the video quality. The VQ was excellent. I only mentioned the audio. And my system is set on what it has been for the last three years.

But do you like operas and musicals in general? If you don't, you probably won't like the Phantom. Personally, I thought it was terrific - from the story to the music. I would also like to see Moulin Rouge released on HD-DVD. That's another recent good one. If you are interested in more of a movie version of The Phantom of the Opera, you might want to check out the version with Robert Englund (who also played Freddie Krouger).

As far as the low volume level is concerned, it is well known that this HD-DVD was recorded at -10 dB. That's way too much to compensate for by simply turning up the volume control. If you try to do that, you will most likely introduce a disproportionate amount of noise (like radio static) into the sound, which will totally ruin it. You must instead compensate using the speaker setup section of your AVR. I had to bump all the speakers and sub by +10 dB to get the same SPL at the same volume level that the SD DVD produces. In fact, just to compare, I watched the SD-DVD with DD first, and then, after bumping up the speaker levels, watched the HD-DVD with DD+->PCM->DTS. The audio from the HD-DVD was superior in every way - from dynamic range to the clarity of the voices and individual instruments. So, you might want to rewatch this movie compensating for the -10 dB this way. It will make a huge difference in your enjoyment of the movie.

No, accept for The Lion King Trilogy, I do not like musicals at all. And I have no idea what you mean by bumping up the speaker levels. Is that the thing where they can go from 1-10? If so, I have the center at 4, sides at 5, rears at 7, and subwoover at 5. Trust me though, this thing makes the entire apartmet(complex) shake during 95% of my movies.

No offense, but have you ever seen a musical before? This is pretty faithful in most respects to the Broadway musical. This is not an opera. The purpose of the musical is for people to sing and danve and what not. Might not be up your alley but that's the purpose. And I think it sounds AMAZING. Many of the musicals fans(and there are a ton) would have been quite upset I would imagine if a majority of these musical numbers were excised from the film....and man is Emmy gorgeous or what?

Nope, I have never seen the opera. My girlfriends loves it and loves this movie, so she had been begging me to see this for a year now. I was expecing a movie that would have the musical stuff during the performances, NOT during the entire movie.

You might want to read existing threads on the subject before running off and making new threads for every little issue that you have. This stuff has been discussed to death.

Use the search function -- it's there for a reason.

I liked the flick but didn't like the strained way that the Phantom sang, it was like a bad Meatloaf imitation or like he was on the john struggling to squeeze one out IMHO. Especially because the original Phantom, Michael Crawford did it completely differently.

:)

ROFL, that is so true. The way he sang he made me feel glad the movie had the low audio issue. After pressing "Mute", the movie seemed much better. :D

Does anyone know if they plan on fixing the audio issue with newer batches? I personally thought the movie was great. I also think Gerard Butler did an outstanding job. His voice was supposed to be the way it was. He's a phantom.

PQ-wise...stunning. When it goes from black and white to color I went "Whoa!"

I'd say it really is an opera, since there's virtually no talking of any kind, but it is popularly regarded as a musical (apparently from the misconception that opera is perforce dull and boring).

There is talking, when the owner of the Opera hands over the place to the new owners...and when Carlotta gets upset about the Phantoms antics.

The PQ is excellent and the sound quality is good even when it is transcoded to DTS for my coax SPDIF connection.

The storyline in the movies follows the book and the musical of the same name. Whether you like the story or not that is a personal preference. A few CG scenes at the beginning (e.g. transition from the rundown theatre to the fully seat one) looks pretty good.

As for the singing... it is subpar most of the time esp. for the Phantom (wrong range) and Christine (too thin... not a full body voice. Need more vocal training). The supporting casts are actually not bad.

I'd say it really is an opera, since there's virtually no talking of any kind, but it is popularly regarded as a musical (apparently from the misconception that opera is perforce dull and boring).

It is not really that clear cut... even some operas have dialogs that are speaked, not sung (e.g. Mozart's Magic Flute).

Andrew Lloyd Weber's re-imagining of Puccini's greatest hits (Phantom music) is average musical theater. It is miles behind true genius like Stephen Sondheim/ Leonard Bernstein. And it is so not even comparable to actual opera there is no comparsion.
:)

All a matter of opinion, of course, but I find Sondheim a real bore. Everything sounds the same, and his lyrics, while clever at first, quickly become repetitive.

Weber's songs have grandeur, but there aren't many of them in each production, especially Phantom. I found Emily Rossum's singing beautiful, but the male leads didn't belong in a production of this importance.

Sonics are great. If you have a multichannel setup and don't like the sound, it's likely that you don't have a good center channel.

Again with the equipment issue. My center channel is fine. I had no complaints with the timbre of the other singers, his voice can sound raspy and ugly as hell at times. It's far from just being my opinion, check out most of the reviews. To imply that I have a crap center channel and that's why this guy sounds like a bad INXS Rockstar contestant have nothing to do with one another. Weber's scores are musically banal for the most part with maybe 2-3 decent pop/musical theatre tunes to fill them out. You can't honestly compare "Phantom" with "West Side Strory". Please....

Seriously what equipment in what size room are you viewing this on? I found the PQ and more importantly the TruHD track even at 2 channel to absolutly amazing, incredible vocalist aswell, probally one of my favorite HD DVD's or even movies to date.

Also how can you even conseive a Phantom of the Opera not being a musical, or without Opera class singers, wouldn't make much sense would it?

With all due respect, there have been like 8 versions of this story and this is the first one that was actually an opera. That being said, I surprised myself by liking this movie. It wasn't awesome, but ti was pretty good. And Emma Rossum was hot! I was extremely impressed with her singing. Who knew?

I thought the movie looked great, but I always had a problem with the audio. Not just the volume level on the HD DVD, but the mix. Even in the theater there seemed to be phasing problems. And it wasn't just keeping the Phantom's voice non-directional, it was in all of the music and atmospheres. Something just wasn't right with the surrounds. The problem still persists on the SD and HD DVDs. Maybe it's just my ears, but it doesn't work for me.

Andrew Lloyd Weber's re-imagining of Puccini's greatest hits (Phantom music) is average musical theater. It is miles behind true genius like Stephen Sondheim/ Leonard Bernstein. And it is so not even comparable to actual opera there is no comparsion.
:)
Not to mention Pink Floyd's "Echoes," which was lifted for the signature descending chords in the theme. I think that might have resulted in a law suit. Roger Waters had made several disdainful remarks about it.

It's best to have the "Dialogue Enhancement" ON (on the Toshiba remote set-up) while watching POTO, that helps a lot. I thought POTO was a great film, it should have won Best Picture that year.

Once again, comparing "Phantom' to actual opera is ridiculous. It is NOT opera, it is cheesy over the top 80's musical theatre music. The movie itself was decent but the music is not opera. Next thing people are gonna say that the Phantom guy sings as well as Pavorotti and Domingo. Sheesh. Do a comparison, put on Pavarotti singing "Nessun Dorma" after hearing the Phantom screech a bit. He was an untrained rock singer with kind of a raspy voice and if he were ever to attempt an actual operatic number would probably cough up a lung. Trust me, I studied clasically and wound up giving it up for rock and roll. Night and day difference the technique, discipline and talent required. The girl, on the other hand did sing surpisingly well.

:)

Which is especially surprising sense she started the film at age 16, singing Opera sense she was 7. Special Features are a good thing for knowledge :D yeah, but at 16-17 and having vocals like that is pretty insane from my perspective and extremly impressive.

I agree with the girl comments.
:)

Once again, comparing "Phantom' to actual opera is ridiculous. It is NOT opera, it is cheesy over the top 80's musical theatre music. :)Let's face it. Most operas - with VERY few exceptions - have cheesy, over the top, silly and ridiculous plots. Of course much opera music is memorable, but some of the songs in Phantom are as well.

I'm not talking about plots, I'm talking about the musical compositions. "Phantom" is pop/theater music. Being "memorable" and musically sophisticated are two very different things. Just because a score is played with mostly classical instruments, (except for that god awful dated 80's synth) it does not make it classical music! Anyone who thinks "Phantom" is classical music or true opera needs to take a basic music compositon class IMHO. And attempting to place that Phantom singer with true male opera singers is laughable. Put it this way, do you think the Met would hire him?

:)

Tommy is pop music too, but it's regarded as an opera. Ditto Jesus Christ Superstar.

Umm, with all due respect those are considered Rock operas...
Go to a record store or a music library and try to find Jesus Christ Superstar in the opera section.
I have nothing against rock operas, but they are not operas.
Notice the difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_opera

I'm not talking about plots, I'm talking about the musical compositions. "Phantom" is pop/theater music. Being "memorable" and musically sophisticated are two very different things. Just because a score is played with mostly classical instruments, (except for that god awful dated 80's synth) it does not make it classical music! Anyone who thinks "Phantom" is classical music or true opera needs to take a basic music compositon class IMHO. And attempting to place that Phantom singer with true male opera singers is laughable. Put it this way, do you think the Met would hire him?

:)


Well thanks to special features we know the Met hired Emmy Rossum sense she was 7 and she only left to do movies, so she was a traditionaly trained singer and to me it shows in this film.

I'm talking about the Phantom dude. Sheesh.
I said she was good. Even if Domingo himself were starring as "The Phantom" that wouldn't suddenly make it an "opera".
Meatloaf trained classically too and went from musical theater like Rocky Horror to doing rock. That doesn't make Bat out of hell an opera!

:) d

My girlfriend is looking at the thread and wants to chime in that Patrick Wilson was great. He is an actual trained singer and actor. She has seen him live on Bway and in a national tour of "Carousel" (a MUSICAL by the way, not an OPERA, but a tried and true classic and wonderful musical) and he is the real deal. Sure he looks cute too but that's just icing. He is also a capable actor without singing - anyone see the extraordinary HBO "Angels in America"? He does just fine even when not singing. And she thinks some of this hullabaloo may be tied into the fact that the word OPERA is in the title. The original book, which she listened to in entirely as book on tape, all 13 hours, takes place at the Paris Opera House and is set amongst the world of opera, but that does not mean that ALW's show is an opera.
:)

I'm not talking about plots, I'm talking about the musical compositions. "Phantom" is pop/theater music. Being "memorable" and musically sophisticated are two very different things. Just because a score is played with mostly classical instruments, (except for that god awful dated 80's synth) it does not make it classical music! Anyone who thinks "Phantom" is classical music or true opera needs to take a basic music compositon class IMHO. And attempting to place that Phantom singer with true male opera singers is laughable. Put it this way, do you think the Met would hire him? :)The only singer in Phantom that I liked is Emily Rossum. None of the guys really cut it for me.

Most of the songs in most operas are less than great. The Nessun Dormas are few and far between. Don't forget that operas were the popular music of their time. So a lot of it depends on your definition. Weber is a talented composer but of course Phantom is not really an opera - it's a story about an opera company.

Yeah, I would agree that it is better clasified musical then opera, and would also pay the respects to Patrick Wilson, on the special feature on casting I would surprised out how efortless it seemed for him to perform his vocals, and his braodway experience is shown in the film, but he's not so much of a focus and not a big part of the trianlge.

Umm, with all due respect those are considered Rock operas...
Go to a record store or a music library and try to find Jesus Christ Superstar in the opera section.
I have nothing against rock operas, but they are not operas.
Notice the difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_opera


From the first line of your second link:

A rock opera or rock musical is a musical production in the form of an opera

Rock operas are a variety of opera. Like it or not.

Ok, you go ask a music teacher this question.
Gee, when my voice teacher was trying to teach me opera I should have said "I wanna sing TOMMY" and watched his reaction.
"Townshend may also be the originator of the term itself. In 1966, he played a comedy tape to his friends called "Gratis Amatis". One of his friends made the comment that the odd song was "rock opera." Kit Lambert, the Who's producer, is than believed to have said "Now there's an idea!"

Ok, so because someone made up a term in 1966 then it's suddenly fact?
Opera is opera, Rock opera is rock opera. They are not the same. Opera is a dramatic form that was invented over 400 years ago. Because someone made a comment about a song from a comedy tape back in the 1960's that suddenly changes the form?

And REGARDLESS, Phantom is NOT considered a rock opera, it is considered a MUSICAL. A rock opera WOULD be Tommy.... Rock must be involved.
Next thing y'all will say CATS is either an opera or a rock opera!

http://www.theatredb.com/QShow.php?sid=s0031

On the ITDB, (like IMDB for theater) Phantom is classified as a MUSICAL!

The Phantom of the Opera (1987-1988)
Type: Musical Place: Broadway (note, NOT opera)

And Wikipedia states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_the_opera

"It has since been adapted many times into film and stage productions, the most notable of which was Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 musical." (note again, NOT opera)

You can argue semantics until the cows come home. This is really getting pointless. My mother was an actual opera singer, my father was a Broadway actor. I worked backstage at a Broadway theater for 17 years. I studied classical voice until I gave it up to sing original rock and roll music. I am NOT a music snob. I have a strat, a Les Paul and Brian May copy guitar. But I DO know the difference between what is generally accepted as fact in this matter by the business. I know all the crew at the Majestic were Phantom plays. Guess what? In this industry, Phantom is considered a BROADWAY musical. Call up the box office. Ask them. The fact that Rossum studied opera before going into films does NOT suddenly make the material an "opera". If you went into the Met and auditioned with a song from "Phantom" you'd be laughed off the stage.

Anyways, my original comment WAY back was that I liked the film but didn't think the Phantom sang very well. I undersand the idea behind the casting choice but just think a better singer would have made the film work better. Also he was WAY too young and not NEARLY as deformed as the character is supposed to be, but that's another thang.

:) d

As a rule, there is no spoken dialog in an Opera. It is all sung. Tommy has no spoken dialog, nor does Jesus Christ Superstar.

As a rule, there is no spoken dialog in an Opera. It is all sung. Tommy has no spoken dialog, nor does Jesus Christ Superstar.

As a counter example please get a copy of Mozart's Magic Flute and listen to the far and between non-sung dialogs :D I won't even try to get into the others.

Is POTA an enjoyable musical? Yes. Unlike some diehard opera/classical musics lovers I think it is pretty entertaining and enjoyable (I have also gone to a couple of Canadian productions before). You don't need to act like a musics critiques everytime you heard a piece of musics, do you? ;) Is the singing great in this movie version? No, for the most part but the supporting casts are not really that bad IMHO. As far as the story goes... I have seen/heard some operas that have more or less equivalence cheezy love-interests storylines :eek: :D

One: there are exceptions like carmen.
Two: Once again that doesn't make the above 2 "operas"
Once again, from ITDB,
"Jesus Christ Superstar (1971-1972)
Type: Musical Place: Broadway
, NOT listed as an opera!
Tommy started out as simply a concept album. There was no film or stage show. By that defnition, ANY musical album could be considered an "opera". The New Britney Spears? an opera..
Note how when you mention "rock opera' You have to indeed say "rock opera" whereas with classical opera, you just say "opera" not "classical opera".
For instance, "Honey, I have tickets to 'The Opera'." Nobody in their right mind would assume that meant you have tickets to a Broadway show of "Tommy" or "Jesus Christ Superstar" unless they were an ignorant fool.
.

Once again, they might be rock operas, they might be completely using the operatic form, but they are not considered true opera by the industry.
This is just getting silly. It's now semantics. "Phantom" is not considered an opera by anyone except some of the delusional people in this thread. On the show's own website they say,
"The musical opened at Her Majesty's Theatre on 9 October 1986 with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman in the leading roles and there have been more than twenty productions worldwide since then."
http://www.thephantomoftheopera.com/poto/show/the_show_background.php

Meaning the people who put on the bloody show call it a MUSICAL! NOT an Opera!!!!! I don't know how much clearer it can get. sheesh. IMDB calls the film an adaptation of "The Musical". ITDB classifies the show as a "Musical." The official website of the show calls it a "Musical" yet some people in this thread keep continuing to assert that all of that info. is wrong, THEY are correct and it is indeed an opera.

d

One: there are exceptions like carmen.
Two: Once again that doesn't make the above 2 "operas"
Once again, from ITDB,
"Jesus Christ Superstar (1971-1972)
Type: Musical Place: Broadway
, NOT listed as an opera!
Tommy started out as simply a concept album. There was no film or stage show.
Note how when you mention "rock opera' You have to indeed say "rock opera" whereas with classical opera, you just say "opera" not "classical opera".
For instance, "Honey, I have tickets to 'The Opera'." Nobody in their right mind would assume that meant you have tickets to a Broadway show of "Tommy" or "Jesus Christ Superstar" unless they were an ignorant fool.

Once again, they might be rock operas, they might be completely using the operatic form, but they are not considered true opera by the industry.

d

Oh I agree POTA is not an opera. All I want to say is that the presence or absence of spoken dialogs is not really one of the differentiator of the two formats.

Hey, you were the one linking to a wikipedia that said the opposite of what you were claiming.

ITDB lists "Phantom" as a musical not an opera.
IMDB says the film "Phantom" is an adaptation of a musical not an opera
The Phantom website lists it as a musical not an opera
I worked on Broadway for many years and actually know many of the crew members and cast at the Majestic theater where "Phantom" is playing. They call it a musical.

Yet you are correct and they are all wrong. Phantom is not a musical, it is an opera.

I'm done. Now you're just arguing for the sake of it.

d

Tommy is pop music too, but it's regarded as an opera. Ditto Jesus Christ Superstar

I have nothing against rock operas, but they are not operas

I would split the difference. Tommy is NOT a rock opera, no matter how much people want to beleive it. The Who sings the story, but no where do CHARACTERS from Tommy actually act and sing (except IIRC Daltry occasionally is Tommy). Tommy is a theme album with a consistent story line driving the songs, but the characters AREN'T there, so it isn't an opera, rock opera, or whatever. OTOH, Jesus Christ Superstar is an opera. It has a cast of seemlingly a couple of hundred characters that sing the entire production as they play the characters. Lines of dialogue between characters are always sung, and the production takes all the characters through an entire story, completely sung. Is it good opera? That's a matter of opinion ( I thought it was ground-breaking). But it is opera.

Besides the ultra low vol, both the main leads christine and the phantom did not have the same range of vocals as say, sarah brightman and the live opera phantom(s), hence one could agree the audio is not top notch.

However, seeing there's just way too few hd-dvd content today, this is still one of the top disks to collect.

"Softly, deftly, music shall carress you. Hear it, Feel it, Secretly possess you."

I bought a open box 1A, it only came with only a remote, once i got home i turned it on, waited seemed forever to boot, opened the tray and out popped a dirty smudged Phantom of the Opera!
Well first thing off is the audio was so low!, i had to crank my reciver up to the + ranges just to hear anything!
Once i found that damn secret menu button under the sliding cover, i went in and turned all the audio settings to on, isnt as low now.

The volume level is low via the digital coax connected to the DD/DTS receiver. I am not talking a little low, it's about 15 settings too low, basically if you get acceptable settings for POTO, and then switch discs and forget to lower the volume, you will get earth shattering blasts from your speakers.

I'm talking loud enough to upset the wife on the 2nd floor from the paradigms in the supposedly noise insulated home theatre in the basement.

The producers of the disc should not have made the viewer have to jump through hoops to get a decent decibel level out of the disc. They missed the boat here. Careful if you switch to a normal disc after you crank the volume all the way up to play this disc. You will blow out your speakers.

The visual quality is stunning. The lighting, subtle colors, detail - all stellar. Too bad about the sound. Currently the longest running MUSICAL on Broadway the video is true to the stage production in most respects. The performances were most notably weak in the casting of the Phantom. Wrong age and wrong vocal range. What impressed me the most were the stage numbers within the film. The costumes, choreography, lighting, and editing were superb.

One of the reasons this film lost money was from a lack of understanding of the stage presentation itself on the part of many of the movie goers. That is clearly evidenced from some of the comments in this thread. Many people familiar with the "horror" version of the film thought the production was a musical version of that instead of being nearly completely re-written for the stage. Others hear the operatic voices and think it is an opera. I am sure many of those same people liked the dreadful updated "musical" version of Moulin Rouge with it's silly songs, cut short choreography, and truly bad casting.

It's kind of mind boggling that such a popular musical could be misinterpreted so much, but it is true. Even many of the reviewers online of the HD DVD version are admitted musical theatre haters. They liked the techie qualities of the disc, but hate Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Even when I purchased the HD DVD version (I also own the SD version and THE SOUND TRACK IS MUTED AS WELL) the older guy at the register said he liked the Lon Chaney Jr version of the film better. Incredible.

John

I was expecing a movie that would have the musical stuff during the performances, NOT during the entire movie.

That's why it's called a musical theatre :p

Nuts - The PQ and audio on this disc is stunning - the movie is not for everyone, but the presentation is sterling.

I am having the same audio issues, and I will be taking it back. If I listen to KONG at the same level I'll blow all of my speakers. Sadly, I love the movie. I guess I'll have to stick to the SD DVD for now.

I've never had to pump up the volume on my receiver anywhere close to maximum before this HD DVD.

I tired multiple settings before giving up on this title. :(

I am open to suggestions...

Nuts - The PQ and audio on this disc is stunning - the movie is not for everyone, but the presentation is sterling.

Nuts is right. Couldn't have said it better myself. :D This movie is a moving work of art. It is absolutely stunning, and the audio was out of this world! The 100 piece orchestra they used never sounded so amazing as it does here. Utterly fantastic! Definitely one you want in your HD DVD library.

Here we go...Now, here's the thing: WB's disc appears to be mastered at some 10-12 db lower than the SD disc. Turning up the volume introduced some small additional, unwanted hiss and hum into the system. Anyway, after adjusting the two discs for equal output, I found the sound of the HD-DVD's DD+ and TrueHD through the analogue outputs was more than acceptable. It seems clear, open, and extended. Of course, increasing the overall volume means that you'll have to turn down the sound the next time you play a standard-definition disc with its greater gain, so be careful not to harm your speakers or your ears.

Found this HERE (http://www.hddvd.org/reviews/phtomoftheoper/3612/3).

I don't have Dolby True HD yet so I think I'll have to send this one back. I have to turn it up so high I start getting a slight hiss like he described above.

Oh well...

PQ looked soft to my eyes. I also didn't like how they used only one refrain or melody; kinda gets old, great audio though but not really 'immersive' as most of it was singing.

OOT
Trivia:
Do you reckognise Butler in the Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies" ?
He has one line on camera.

:)

Here we go...

Found this HERE (http://www.hddvd.org/reviews/phtomoftheoper/3612/3).

I don't have Dolby True HD yet so I think I'll have to send this one back. I have to turn it up so high I start getting a slight hiss like he described above.

Oh well...

The TrueHD is amazing. You can hear how well Emma Rossum sings and see how hot she is. It is not the best plot (sorta boring) but it is a wonderful musical (the Phantom was a bad singer, no doubt). Emma Rossum is something to remember though (her friend wasn't that bad looking either) but her smile and face made the movie watchable and entertaining.

PQ looked soft to my eyes. I also didn't like how they used only one refrain or melody; kinda gets old, great audio though but not really 'immersive' as most of it was singing.
Well, I'm not going to knock your opinion, but the PQ on this disc absolutely set the tone for HD DVDs to follow - incredibly sharp, brilliant, almost unreal colors and smooth china texture skin tones.

Again the movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but t was a fantastic presentation of the film.

As for the audio, the TruHD track is radically more open than the DD+ tracks. Not only could you "sense" the surroundings about you, but in the singing, Emma Rossum's voice often had a slight high-pitched "attack" on some notes, that just jumped out and shag-piled the hair on your back :)

The only Phantom of the Opera that exists in my mind starred the man of a thousand faces... :D

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1761/chaney15ce2.jpg

Well, I'm not going to knock your opinion, but the PQ on this disc absolutely set the tone for HD DVDs to follow - incredibly sharp, brilliant, almost unreal colors and smooth china texture skin tones.

Again the movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but t was a fantastic presentation of the film.

As for the audio, the TruHD track is radically more open than the DD+ tracks. Not only could you "sense" the surroundings about you, but in the singing, Emma Rossum's voice often had a slight high-pitched "attack" on some notes, that just jumped out and shag-piled the hair on your back :)

I see, I've not re-watched this film since FW 2.0; will have to check it for the audio; imo Constantine really benefited from Tru-HD

I was under the impression the volume level error had been corrected in recent repressings, is this false?

The TrueHD is amazing. You can hear how well Emma Rossum sings and see how hot she is. It is not the best plot (sorta boring) but it is a wonderful musical (the Phantom was a bad singer, no doubt). Emma Rossum is something to remember though (her friend wasn't that bad looking either) but her smile and face made the movie watchable and entertaining.

I'd rather see her friend (the British actress), now SHE is hot! :p

I was under the impression the volume level error had been corrected in recent repressings, is this false?
Maybe the Future Shop that I went to is still carrying the old batch. Any way of checking?

I would pick up a new one if I was assured that this issue was corrected. A serial number check or something...?

[QUOTE=Kysersose]Maybe the Future Shop that I went to .../QUOTE]

Did you have any luck with FS taking a opened HD-DVD back, or how do you plan to get a refund?

I spoke to the manager and he happily exchanged it for Mi:III

No problem whatsoever.

Both King Kong and Mi:III sound very good on my setup. A tad bit lower than what I am used to, but not nearly to the extent of The Phantom. My NAD receiver just couldn't get that one loud enough without it hissing.

Decided to try Phantom anyhow, while I need to run at a much higher volume level, the sound and image is wonderful well worth the cost and a decent price at Walmart too.

Decided to try Phantom anyhow, while I need to run at a much higher volume level, the sound and image is wonderful well worth the cost and a decent price at Walmart too.
I'm glad that it works well for you. With my setup it just couldn't work. I had to set my receiver to the maximum volume level it would allow, and it still wasn't loud enough. Introduced a lot of hissing though...

First movie ever to do that.

Apparently it has been fixed in newer batches. I have to turn up my receiver a "bit" for all HD DVD's, so maybe you got one from the new batch?

I wish I could tell the new batch from the old...

No offense, but have you ever seen a musical before? This is pretty faithful in most respects to the Broadway musical. This is not an opera. The purpose of the musical is for people to sing and danve and what not. Might not be up your alley but that's the purpose. And I think it sounds AMAZING. Many of the musicals fans(and there are a ton) would have been quite upset I would imagine if a majority of these musical numbers were excised from the film....and man is Emmy gorgeous or what?

Emmy was only 17 when filming that too -- there is no way I believe Christine and Raoul grew up together -- he was way older.

As for voice, Emmy by far has the best voice of them all (although the diva was voiced by a true opera singer, and hilariously played by Minnie Driver). The phantom had a poor voice -- a theatre voice but not a trained classical voice.

Our whole family loved this movie -- even kids.

Can anyone confirm there is a new batch of this DVD out with a better audio level? I think this is just a rumor.

i just bought this disk.

the picture is beautiful. the lead actress is beatiful to see and hear.

i cannot recommend this disk to anyone except as a rental. IMHO the audio is broken and i can't really fix it. i spent a couple of hours playing with audio settings.

i bought the disk for the trueHD audio but i cannot really use it.

the receiver i have has an input trim feature but is does not apply to the 5.1 analog inputs. so, i have to crank up the volume to the point that there is a constant hiss otherwise the quiet sections are too quite to understand vocals.

the best i can do is set to true hd and use the digital connection where i can apply the +6db trim. i still have to crank up and additional 10 to 12db to enjoy the film.

firmware 2.0 on the a1 really made the audio work well on all my disks except this one. i think my only fix for this will be a new receiver with hdmi audio for tureHD.

I just saw The Phantom of the Opera that came out last year, and it was average, very average. It had a few cool scenes in it, and the music at the beginning of the movie was really awesome, but other than that, this movie was boring. I know it is based on the opera, but there was just way too much singing that was not needed, ESPECIALLY in the graveyard as that whole scene was long, drawn out, and pointless. I wanted to see a movie, not the opera put onto a DVD.

However, I thought the set designs were fantastic, and the masquerade scene were awesome. The ending was a bit weak, and having the Phantom look like a wannabe John Travolta didn't help matters. Heck, if I looked like JT, I'd want to cover my face as well.

Overall, I give it 2.5/5 stars for the stuff it did good in. I just hope that if someone else makes this into a movie, we get an actual movie rather than the opera filmed.

As for the HD-DVD itself, holy crap. I read everyone say that the audio was too low, but holy crap, this disc makes Constantine seem like Chronicles of Riddick in the audio department. I had my receiver turned up to full volume (level 73), and it still was not enough to hear their whispers.



This supposed to be a musical but I thought the guy who played the Phantom could not sing to save his life... geez, what a lousy voice!! :mad:

I bought this disc for its reference quality picture and audio. I'm not big on musicals--they disturbed me as a child in the Fifties (enormous dance numbers, couldn't figure how all those people got on a stage, etc.). South Park's "Bigger Longer and Uncut" does a pretty good riff on the genre. I found some of the music in "Phantom" to be almost rockish. Even the Marx Brothers' "Night at the Opera" managed to give us a little sample of real opera.

My biggest problem with this disc was using the song "Think of Me" as a demo one time too many...and then not being able to get the damned thing out of my head for hours on end!

[QUOTE=Dr Kain]I just saw The Phantom of the Opera that came out last year, and it was average, very average. It had a few cool scenes in it, and the music at the beginning of the movie was really awesome, but other than that, this movie was boring. I know it is based on the opera, but there was just way too much singing that was not needed, ESPECIALLY in the graveyard as that whole scene was long, drawn out, and pointless. I wanted to see a movie, not the opera put onto a DVD.

Overall, I give it 2.5/5 stars for the stuff it did good in. I just hope that if someone else makes this into a movie, we get an actual movie rather than the opera filmed.


:eek: Some comments are better left un-answered.

Just bought a copy at Target, low volume issue still!

I emailed Warner Bros asking if a repressing is available, we'll see.

First of all I still hate the title of this thread, but its content applies to my question. Has Warner Bros. released a new version of this HD-DVD with the low audio problem fixed? My Denon is maxed out at +4 with hiss and still isn't loud enough. I've read that similar problems with The Last Samurai have been fixed on recent discs.

Mark

BTW, this is not a bad movie and the sound isn't bad, it's just too quiet on this disc.

I have an idea. I am going to try to buy one directly from Warners web-site. I will let you know if they fixed the audio issue.

Old thread...but I just purchased Phantom and it still has the low audio problems. At first I thought something was wrong with my disk before doing a search here and on the Highdefdigest forums.

No issue for me though, I just turn up the volume a few notches and the audio sounds incredible.

I enjoyed this movie itself, and its sound quality. The volume was low so I had to dial it up. It is a must have disk to win approvals from your wife/girlfriends.

If you don't like opera/musical, don't bother.

Yeah i enjoyed the movie and with it's pq rating it was a must have on hd-dvd for me. Like Last Samurai i was dissappointed with the low audio, but the pq is much better than Samurai. Both of those movies almost sound better in sd on my oppo. Luckily for me my system can go to isane volume levels without any distortion or hiss. supposedly if you have a setup that can fully process TrueHD then the audio problem is moot. (no pun intended) well, someday I will have a TrueHD DTS-HD capable system. For now its 1.5mbs for me. Still sounds great though

I saw part of this movie on HD-DVD, the PQ look good on my TV, and the AQ sound really nice too. The sound scared the crap out of me during the beginning where the Theater transformed back into it old glorious days. WOW!

Just dial up the volume when you experience low volume. After all, isn't that what the volume dial is for?? =D

As for the singing... it is subpar most of the time esp. for the Phantom (wrong range) and Christine (too thin... not a full body voice. Need more vocal training). The supporting casts are actually not bad.

I agree the Phantom has the wrong range -- he really can't get those high notes without sounding ugly (no pun intended)

I disagree about Christine. I thought her voice was wonderful. Yes, it is not a Diva opera voice -- but that was the point. It was meant to be a stark comparison to Carlotta. Emmy Rossum has had child parts in opera, so she's no stranger to it. But, her voice is too "young" to have the power of a true opera performer. That is why she has not gone into an opera career. She herself said that a female singer needs to be at least 25 to have a voice for those parts.

I felt Emmy was the revelation of the movie -- a voice with true beauty, and looks to match. She was only 17 at the time of filming -- so we can't expect fat-lady power ;) Thank goodness for microphones -- singers don't have to fill a hall with unamplified sound any more.

Of course, we could just have listened to Carlotta ;) She was voiced by a very talented singer (and played over-the-top by Minnie Driver).

I think you're crazy. Phantom has amazing PQ and the audio is out of this world. We all know that the levels are a little low on the first titles but you shouldn't have had to max out your receiver. You need to set up your system correctly - and maybe calibrate your display while you're at it.

I loved the PQ, loved the AQ, and yes.. loved the movie! :P

after all this time would be nice if the thread title could be changed to something like...

The Phantom of the Opera, what do you think?

what i think is that if you have a system setup that can provide about 10 db volume increase, this is one of the best discs available to demo hd dvd pq/aq.

i bookmarked all the best parts.

Someone posted in another thread that the audio was louder when the TrueHD was bitstreamed rather than decoded in the player?