I picked this one because I LOVE this movie.... and I haven't seen the play nor have I read the book.

I love all three, but the stage play was breathtaking.

I have to go with the original novel for the very simple reason that without it there would not BE any other versions. Not to mention that you get a much more intimate sense of who all of the characters are throughout the book.
On a more personal level, Gaston Leroux has never insulted me, either.

The stage version shows what the book makes confusing. The movie just sucked.

you can always add some versions cause I only know these three!

What were you confused by in the book?

I picked this because I haven't seen the play or read the book. But this movie made me fall in love with the phantom story :-)

Leroux. Pwns. All

(also, I do believe this question link asked a link...)

It's the one that started it all.

i have tried reading the book and i REALLY could not understand it. maybe i'm dumb, i don't know. but i think the stage version is the best. iv'e seen it twice. but i love the movie too, its one of my faves.

I did read the book and I didn't find it confusing at all, I just think the phantom is more romantic in the movieversion

Definitely LeRoux. There's no question. Although, Kay's version is the best not on the list. I wish they'd make it at least into a mini-series (or a Musical, it'd be better than LND).

Ok, kiddies, Q&A time on the Leroux novel since I've noted that several people have complained of being unable to follow/understand it. Ask me whatever you want about the novel and I'll answer it for you. I've read the thing probably damn near 50 times, I have the annotated version, a version in the original French (Which I CAN read about half of), and have actually taken the time and effort to attempt to look into the stuff that perplexed me or interested me during various readings. I would be more than happy to help clear up any confusions you might have if it will help you enjoy and understand the original novel more. :)

I'm with Phantomess. I gave the book to a lot of my friends to read, and they hated it because it was so "gosh darn confusing!" (to quote my ditz of a friend) I had no trouble understanding any of it though I've only read it once (except WHY Christine didn't go with Erik and left him to die in misery...), so if you can't get a hold of Phantomess, ask me!

nothing beats a live performance :) xxx

Because I really liked the actors in the film, and I think the Phantom is more romantic.

Maybe because this was my first touch with the fandom. But also because I'm a romantic personality and yet this version too has some horror and sinister stuff in it, though not quite as much as I'd liked. But still, I find this a bit more appealing to me than the other two. (:

i agree with phantomess about the fact that there wouldnt be other versions without leroux's book, and also that it is an amazing book. i still think the stage version is just so incredible though. the movie was actually how i first got into phantom, but now that i have found out about the original and other versions, the 2004 movie looks kinda 'eh' now... and i just watched the charles dance version, and i actually really enjoyed it, although it did stray quite a bit from the original novel... (and i do admit to crying at the end)and also @ phantomess's comment about not personally insulting people, you're right. leroux never did anything offensive to phans or the story, unlike someone....coughcoughandrewllyodwebbercoug­hco­ugh

the play waz amazing! and i don't get it why people don't like andrew lloyd webber! without him, we wouldn't have this amazing story and play! i like the andrew version waaaaay better than the original version! if u read my comment on erik and christine spot 4 which version is better play or movie? question. there are a lot of things i experienced in the play!:)

The reason people don't like Andrew Lloyd Webber is because, while he may write some very pleasant music (which may or may not have been lifted from Puccini) he is also an abrasive little toad of a man who insults his fan base at every turn. Artistic temperament is one thing, but the man is simply out-of-touch and unpleasant.

Far better than either the book or movie.

the movie is really beautiful and even though I'm not such a big fan of musicals (I know, shocking!!), I really liked this one. The book was good, but not as good, if you ask me. And I haven't seen the stage version.

i luv all of them but mostly LND

I fell in love with Phantom through the musical and really it's what I think of when I think of it..
I have read the book twice and I loved it.. and it is right there would be no other version without it.. But I think without my understanding of the musical I don't think I would have liked the book so much..
I hated the movie in pretty much every way with the exception of Emmy's costumes..
All in all nothing quite beats the whole experience of seeing it on stage..

I would have picked Leroux's Erik hands down before I saw the Phantom 25th on DVD (and I even saw the production live before that). Something about the facial expressions given off by the actor really touched me and I had to think about this one XD. In the end I've got to go with the book and even say that I'm very disappointed that in all the movie versions I've seen or heard of no one seems to try and completely capture Erik's complete personality. Most certainly not the 2004 movie. I have to watch that movie and see it as a completely different, non-related story so I don't get angry with how much they diluted an amazing character into a cheesy romantic figure. Leroux's original is the best in my opinion. (Also I DID read the book when I was younger and I also found parts of it confusing there are some parts were I felt like I got lost in all of the complicated dialog and details of the book so I see where you guys are coming from but if it's any consolation it's crystal clear when I read it now.)

all

all

I love the movie and I have seen it 3 or 4 times. but I love the stage version too, and I must not forget the book. :-)

What Phantomess said. She clearly is one of the experts on here. I personally love more complex characters and really loved how complex Erik was in the novel. This and because I'm a stickler for original versions. Also, some of the confusion with the novel could depend on the translation in the copy they have. I also mostly agree with LLCoyote about how the 2004 film basically took away most of my favorite aspects of Erik. Don't get me wrong, I love myself a hopeless romantic's type of story; I just also like when the romance is more complex with the inclusion of a "Beauty and the Beast" type of set up to the scenario. I became a part of the phandom when I first watched the 25th Anniversary performance when it had been on Netflix two years ago. Everyone is personally biased to their first exposure cast of the story, regardless of the adaptation they watch. I personally dislike how sexualized Erik is in the 2004 film, even with the fact that he is practically the representation of sexuality to Christine, mostly due to how down played his deformity is. Seeing how it was a film version of the ALW musical, one would expect that they would keep the deformity the same but make it more realistic. What they put on Gerard Butler's face was a red tinted skin color version of the entire deformity from the stage version, which was then replaced with the severe burn that was the deformity of the Final Lair (aka "Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer"). This was the closest any film adaptation got to practically having no deformity like the Dario Argento/Julian Sands version with the rats. The novel had so much more to it than what just Lloyd Webber shows in his musical. It is those parts that actually give me more sympathy to Erik. The fact that he actually had a best friend makes him more human; the fact that Raoul had an older brother who worried about class in regards to Raoul's relationship with Christine made it much more realistic to the time period it is set in. Although I like how Madame Giry is depicted in the musical, I hate how the Persian is completely absent from the entire show. While reading the novel, and the Kay novel, I found myself feeling like the Persian had been cheated of his actions because they were all given to Madame Giry. The novel did such a better job of humanizing each character by emphasizing on their flaws and the aspects of them that MADE them human. That's it for my rambling session.