Here's the rest of it.

“Crawford is the quintessential Phantom.”

“Crawford is the name/voice everyone associates with the Phantom role.”

“Crawford was originally promised the role and the producers should keep their promise.”

Above three quotes from “The Great Movie Debate: Wrap-up” with quotations coming from various surveys returned in response to the magazine’s poll of the Phantom & Banderas fandoms.

I am adding my entry to your guestbook because I applaud your efforts to bring the voice of reason to an industry gone mad. I know it won’t be easy for you to get someone as big as Warner Brothers or the Really Useful Group to listen to you because just on general principle, they think they know more than the common man and have completely lost sight of the fact that their own success or failure relies entirely on the common man. If we the movie-goers stopped going to see the movies or theater pieces they produced, they wouldn’t be in a position to think they knew more than the rest of us.

This amnesia on the part of those running these two companies when it comes to the delicate topic of where their revenue originates is particularly well illustrated in their belief in our basic stupidity. Here is an example of what I mean.

On March 22, 2000, Warner Bros. Pictures wrote a letter to your campaign which stated in part that:

“...we have no confirmed information about who will or will not be involved. When the time comes for those decisions to be made, the casting of this film, along with all the other aspects of its production, will be in the hands of the filmmakers and Andrew Lloyd Webber, who owns the rights to the property.”
http://www.phantommovie.com/WBletter1.htm

“No confirmed information,” they say.

So what about the announcement by the office of Emmanuel Nuñez, Antonio Banderas’ agent, to the effect that “Antonio Banderas has been signed to play the title role in the movie version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera”?

Quotation from: Simonson, Robert. Agent Says Banderas Signed to Play Phantom in Opera film,” Playbill On-line, Aug., 18, 1998.
http://www5.playbill.com/cgi-bin/plb/news?cmd=show&type=news&code=+82093&selector=U.S.

What about the announcement Andrew Lloyd Webber -- whom Warner Brothers does acknowledge as having a say in the casting of the Phantom role -- made at a press conference on March 7, 2000 in Bombay, India when he said, in effect, that “the film actor Antonio Banderas has been tentatively selected to play the title role in a film version of The Phantom of the Opera.”

Quotation from: Simonson, Robert and Terri Paddock. “Lloyd Webber Says Banderas Is Choice for Movie Phantom,”Playbill On-Line, March 8, 2000.
http://www5.playbill.com/cgi-bin/plb/news?cmd=show&type=news&code=+94026&selector=U.S.

What about when he said it to the New Zealand Herald? Here are his exact words: “As far as I’m concerned I think Antonio will do it wonderfully.”

So is Playbill On-line lying? Is the New Zealand Herald lying? Is Banderas’ Agent lying? Is Andrew Lloyd Webber lying? Is Warner Bros. lying? They can’t all be telling the truth. I don’t expect they’re foolish enough to think that there isn’t a discrepancy. Perhaps they just don’t think Phantom fans have the intelligence to notice the discrepancy.

Which brings me to a concern. If they have misjudged their audience in this, how out of touch are they with their audience in general? Since it was the phenomenon -- yes the phenomenon -- of the repeated attendance of Phantom fans that was responsible for the mega success of Phantom of the Opera the theatrical musical, which made (and continues to make) more money than the most lucrative film of all time, Titanic, who exactly do they think it is that’s going to make or break the Phantom film? The people who went to see the film version of Evita perhaps? I don’t think so. I find it mind boggling to contemplate that THEY would think so. At the same time, the section in Warner Bros.’ letter that says:

“We must respect the integrity of our filmmakers and allow them to make creative decisions as they see fit,” seems to imply that they DO in fact think that some anonymous group other than the massive number of Phantom fans -- who made the theatrical Phantom the success that it is -- will somehow descend upon the theaters and save the day for them. They either think THAT, or worse, they think that Phantom fans are too foolish to know what they themselves will ultimately pay to see.

Your campaign is a testimony to the fact that love of PHANTOM is the phenomenon that so many outside of WB/RUG have been saying it is (including Time magazine). What other film in the history of motion pictures has aroused this much concern in the public with regard to who was going to be cast in the lead role? None! But they seem oblivious to the great force at work here, a greater force in sheer numbers than anything they have ever seen before.

Incidentally, they also seem oblivious to past history. Your own website has the list compiled by Thalia of Theatrical Musicals turned into Hollywood Movies and their success or failure depending upon whether or not the original Broadway actors were allowed to immortalize their role(s) on the silver screen. Warner Brothers certainly doesn’t need to BELIEVE what Thalia says. All they need to do is make note of the titles she mentions and then pull out some of their old ledgers. The significant correlation between a stage-musical-made-movie that casts the originals and success for the resulting film is certainly nothing that a statistician would miss. Perhaps what Warner Brothers needs is a good statistician... or perhaps what they really need is to remember that they are only human, just as the paying public is, no better, no worse. And that if they want a successful film, it’s the paying public they are going to have to please. I will be very, VERY sorry, if it turns out that they have to learn this lesson the hard way, not only because it will mean embarrassment and a loss in revenue for the producers but also because it will mean that the hauntingly beautiful Phantom performance of Michael Crawford will not have been recorded for posterity... and will be lost forever.

In closing, I’m going to include some quotes from the Millennium Issue Collector’s Edition of POTO: The Phantom of the Opera Magazine. Note that this magazine is a venue for ALL versions of Phantom, not just the Andrew Lloyd Webber version. It includes information on the Lon Chaney silent film as well as all the different movie versions, other stage versions, book versions, etc. Nevertheless, this widely diverse group of people whose contributions made this publication what it is, love the STORY of Phantom above all else had the following to say about Michael Crawford:

“Only two performers have ever made me feel I was in the actual presence of the Phantom himself. One was Michael Crawford -- yes, he really WAS that special (and you can forget the OLC which is but the palest shadow of what he was like on stage)...

Quote from: “An Interview with Peter Karrie” by Paul Clemens

“The reason the research was started was the usual obsessive/compulsive disorder known as ‘Phantomitis” which hit rather hard, back in 1990. I had loved the novel and other movies for many years, but when friends encouraged me to give a listen to Crawford’s Phantom, that was all she wrote...”

Quote from the Introduction to “Was the Phantom Real? Historical Documentation for Possible Phantom Sources” By Leatha Ann Betts, a geneologist.

“Crawford is the quintessential Phantom.” “Crawford is the name/voice everyone associates with the Phantom role.” “Crawford was originally promised the role and the producers should keep their promise.”