Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I like the music and plot of Les Miserables better, but I think The Phantom of the Opera has a cooler set.

When I saw Les Mis I had decent seats, and Sutton Foster was playing Éponine. (I met her after the show, too; she was pretty nice.) Musically, that performance was superb. In contrast, I had a very different experience when I saw Phantom. I was up in the nosebleeds, and the girl next to me was actually singing along with the music. Yes, you read that right. She didn't take hints, either. I was very displeased.

I'm a fan of PotO, although I have a bit of trouble reconciling myself to the basic plot. I don't like watching or reading things when I don't have a clear feeling about how I want everything to turn out. It's not like I have to have a happy ending, I just like to have one in mind. With PotO, part of me hates Raul and wants Christine to end up with the Phantom, but I also have moments when I just don't like the Phantom, no matter how much I sympathize with and understand him. He's a very complex character in that way. So, I don't dislike PotO, in fact I truely do enjoy it. I just like Les Mis better.

And for the record, I love Joseph and Evita as well. I've probably watched Evita more times than I've watched any of my other DVDs. (I'm specifying DVDs here, because my copy of Newsies is on VHS, and it probably wins in the over all "number of times watched" category.) I can't really stand to watch the movie they made of Joseph (although I do own it), but I still love the music.

Hm, if you've never listened to the Wicked soundtrack, how can you be sure you won't be able to reconcile yourself to it? It's enjoyable, and it adds a lot more comedy to the basic story. You still get the deep character development and such, but it's impossible to be bored while listening to it (which was a problem I had sometimes while reading the book). I'm a fan, but I listened to it so many times at work last summer (my coworker was obsessed), that by now I much prefer to only listen to it here and there. Still good, though.

I'm not sure I won't be able to. I just haven't been able to yet. I'll get there. Really.

Perhaps it's sort of a holdover from my aversion to seeing a movie right after I've read the book it was based on. I've found that that can be a big mistake. And it's not so much that I don't like the adaptation. It's more that I don't react well when they turn it into a completely different story I have a very hard time reconciling them. I've gotten better, but the one that hit me hardest on this still bothers me occasionally. And that's been many moons ago. Okay, almost 15 years according to IMDB. But it was a huge disconnect and the movie was wildly popular.

A Mom, but not yours wrote: I've gotten better, but the one that hit me hardest on this still bothers me occasionally. And that's been many moons ago. Okay, almost 15 years according to IMDB. But it was a huge disconnect and the movie was wildly popular.

Okay, now you've got to tell us what is was.

Oh man. Wicked. I am getting pretty sick of a bunch of little ten-year-old girls singing those songs over and over and over in their little showtunes groups. I guess it's sort of died down since my freshman year, but still.

Ahem., it was Jurassic Park. I read the book. A great message. Reasonably engaging story. It was okay. Not something I'd read over and over, but not a read I regretted. Then I went to the movie. I was okay with exchanging the kids' personalities somewhat so the girl wasn't a wallflower, but when they killed off different characters from the book and made it an adventure story instead of a philosophical statement I had real problems with it. I was absolutely shocked when they made a movie of the sequel. Considering several of the characters were dead. And others should have been already.

No. I'm not unreasonably obsessed with this. Why do you ask?

I would definitely NOT recommend reading the book of Les Mis then watching the screen adaption with Claire Danes and Uma Thurman. Both fine stories, but should have nothing to do with it. I've come to never expect a movie to follow the book to my satisfaction.

Les Mis, all the way. I had a brief Phantom obsession in high school when the movie came out, but it's always been Les Mis.

A Mom, I would tend to agree with you on the whole "don't watch it too soon after reading" idea. Yet with Michael Crichton, that delay time may just stretch to infinity. Jurassic Park is probably the best Crichton book-to-movie transition, and if that scarred you, think of how bad Sphere is. (or Timeline, or Congo, or ....) They keep trying, but no one has been able to come close to pulling it off. As for Phantom, I really enjoy the rendition I originally saw. It was much more tragic (Both the Phantom and Christine pass away at the end), but it makes the video pale in comparison. **Shudder**

Tao, I agree that Chrichton adaptations may be more difficult than most since his actual subject matter is almost always political commentary. When the movies are made solely as adventure movies, they lose an essential part of what the book was.

Actually, of late I've gotten much better at seeing the two different types of media requiring a different telling of the story. That doesn't mean that I always agree with the differences. For the most part Eragon was a reasonably good adaptation. While it left out large amounts of the story, I believe they were parts that would have been visually uninteresting. I do question, however, leaving out a character who plays an important role in sequels completely. The Golden Compass was also a reasonably good adaptation and the effects were great. I'm a little miffed, however, at each of the characters being solely good or solely evil instead of a mixture, as most real people are and as the characters are in the books. Oh, and my son who hadn't read the book thought it ended too abruptly. It was a relief to hear that reaction from someone who hadn't read the book and didn't realize there were a few chapters at the end of the book that just weren't in the movie. I sat there until the bitter end of the credits, hoping it was just some sort of sick joke. Oh, and I want Lord Asriel's press agent.

*bob will avoid going off on Eragon*

I must say that when (yes, when) I'm a famous author (okay, maybe not famous), I'm going to think for a very long time before I let anyone buy the rights of my book to turn it into a movie (supposing anyone would want to do such a thing). In fact, I've been telling people that I'm going to keep the rights until I'm rich enough to help produce, so I can therefore have a say in how things go down. Or, I'll just have to develop my script-writing skills so I can at least help with the script. However it happens, I want a say in how my story comes to life.

A Mom, but not yours wrote:Oh, and my son who hadn't read the book thought it ended too abruptly. It was a relief to hear that reaction from someone who hadn't read the book and didn't realize there were a few chapters at the end of the book that just weren't in the movie. I sat there until the bitter end of the credits, hoping it was just some sort of sick joke.

I thought it ended abruptly too. But I hear that the first book ends with the sacrificial murder of a child, so maybe that's not the best note to end on. I didn't like the ending, but that just wouldn't work in a kid's movie.

Especially since it was done by someone the movie portrayed as a wonderful person? Perhaps a valid point.

However, it was also the catalyst that sent the girl on her next/continuing quest to make things right with the world....