helop.blogg.se

He decides she should be bait! He put her in danger? For what? Nothing! If he loved her, they could have ridden off into the sunset. At the masquerade he is mad at her for allowing a delusion to prevent her from wearing their engagement ring! And then, when it is proven the phantom is real, does Raoul admit he was wrong? Does he comfort her for the insanity she has had to deal with? Nope.

We never get a scene of him acknowledging that he was wrong, and apologizing to her. Do you remember he didn't believe her when she told him what was going on.

Just throwing this out there, but Raoul and Christine are not some epic love affair. Overall I would say that it isn't a worthy sequel - it reminds me of the book Scarlett which tried to 'fix' the end of Gone with the Wind, it just takes away the impact of the original and almost cheapens the original story. I did like Meg being obsessed with the Phantom, in the adaptations (especially the Gerard Butler version) they do seem to suggest Meg wants to know more about him so. Going from the Gerald Butler film version - I don't know, the fangirl shipper part of me thinks Christine kinda regrets going with Raoul so I kinda like it but I do think it ruins the unrequited love which is such a key element to Phantom of the Opera. Same for the 25th anniversary show version. Going from the book - it would NEVER happen. I don't mind that, it is something that could happen - as Chiara said there are various things that can cause it, and you do hear of people who love their families but are still alcoholics. The music wasn't as good, though it was still good it just doesn't have the resonance of Phantom. So that's my opinion! Sorry I'm getting quite worked up about this! :) AND Christine was not a slut she loved Raoul and wouldn't have been with Erik in the final scene: the "Final Lair" you can see how the idea repulsed her. Yet nothing happened, and no there was no chance for the child to have been conceived. In the "point of no return" the Phantom wanted to sleep with Christine for the first time that was the whole point he desperately wanted her. WHAT RUBBISH, no offense to what you said, just to what the story was! There was no chance for them to have slept together. If he was getting too obsessed with alcohol, he would have cared enough for Christine and their relationship to get better and accepted her help getting over it. he might have been a weak person in adaptions other the 25th anniversary show, but he doesn't seem stupid. Besides, there is no reason for him to become an alcoholic his relationship with Christine was fine, so he obviously wasn't depressed. No offense taken, it just upsets me!įirst, Raoul loved Christine.

Ok, I don't really have a problem with the whole Meg thing, but Raoul's story line is the problem and Christine's child with Erik. But the 1880's and the 1890's are not THAT different :/ The only weird thing is the time - they made the original PotO being set ten years later. There are so many ideas of them having a child. Well, some people love that idea! Most people, actually. (Don't get me wrong, there is NO offence here! I just want to find an explanation and these things are very frequent!)ģ. It just makes sense that he needed some "help" and didn't get out of it, especially after hsi brother's death. His whole family could be related o.O And he always was a weak person. Alcoholism is a genetical problem and - being aristocratic - gen defects are very likely. Being a show girl was just the right chance for her to become famous on her own, which would never work in the opera ballet.Ģ. The thing is, a ballerina could find more spotlight as a leading show girl, especially one who also has some singing abilities, which are not enough for opera but perfect in addition to her dancing. But people don't understand, that ballerinas and show girls has basicially the same social status. People always think Meg has to be a super innocent little ballerina.