Why did the movie 'Chicago' do so well

[serryjw]

and "Phantom of the Opera" do so badly. I loved Chicago and saw the B'way show Phantom but have not seen the movie yet...Can any one whom saw both compare them?

[Dookus]

1. A very simple reason

Chicago is a great musical with fantastic songs.

Phantom is schlock with nary a memorable tune.

[serryjw]

3. That's not an answer

when the Broadway show did so well. You may not like the music but millions do.

[tuvor]

2. I only saw Chicago, but...

Phantom didn't feature Zeta-Jones and Zellweger in hubba-hubba costumes.

[autorank]

4. I saw the original horror movie "Phantom" and stage/movie Chicago.

Of course the stage version had Jerry Orbach (who was totally, unbelievably great in the role, a classic for all times).

Phantom is a NY/Broadway thing or for people who like Broadway productions. Chicago is like Brecht, it's the story of our time told through a story of another time. Every line drips the truth and the horror is mitigated by the music and cynicism.

I think it moves right past the popular audience members to the best elements of their subconscious minds and registers there is the sanity that comes from accepting the truth.

Or, it could just be better advertising. Who knows.

[democracyindanger]

5. Women. In. Garters.

That, and people were good and sick of Phantom by the time it hit the movie screen.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

6. horny men nt

[Bossy Monkey]

7. Presumably the names above the title

IMDb users gave Chicago 7.5 and Phantom 7.2. It is true though that Chicago was directed by a choreographer while Phantom was directed by, while not a hack exactly, somebody with kind of a mixed cv. DC Cab, anybody?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293508/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299658/