Adam Pascal and Anthony Rapp back to RENT starting 7/30- Page 9

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:33pm

I don't require Rent to be in "ideal circumstances" more than I would any other show.

You don't require it to be ideal circumstances, but you do require that you're familiar with the actor's previous work, as you said "Unless some actors that I know do good work are in there, it's hard for me to convince myself to spend money on the show." How do you ever get out to see new shows, if all you'll see are shows with actors you already love? How did you learn to love these actors in the first place if you wouldn't spend money to let them prove they're worthy?

Because there are constantly other shows opening besides Rent that also offer $20 or $25 rush tickets, and I (and I'm sure others) hardly have enough money to see all of those. Is seeing other shows a bad thing?

That's not what I was responding to. misschung claimed these people can't afford to see Rent as often as they want. If you're that hard-up for money that the $20 lotto is too expensive for you to "waste" on an old show, then how would you have the $100 or $90 or even $60 for discount tickets as soon as Adam and Anthony are announced?

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:38pm

Because maybe they feel that Adam and Anthony will bring the show enough quality to make the money worth it.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:40pm

I just explained that some people dont live in NYC and therefore cannot do the lotto thing.

And I never said they would be "wasting" money if they bought tickets to Rent..

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:46pm

You don't require it to be ideal circumstances, but you do require that you're familiar with the actor's previous work, as you said "Unless some actors that I know do good work are in there, it's hard for me to convince myself to spend money on the show."

That was only a so-called "requirement" because of a pattern in Rent's casting. I genuinely think there's an ongoing pattern of carelessness there. If there wasn't one in the first place, I'd be more willing to shell out money to see people I don't know. But I simply don't trust the producers/casting directors' sensibilities at all when it comes to this show.

How do you ever get out to see new shows, if all you'll see are shows with actors you already love?
You should probably note that the operative word there is "new." I have seen Rent before and have a happy little old video sitting somewhere around my dorm that has proven to be more satisfying--more Rent--than what often happens in the Nederlander theatre lately.

Seeing a new show is always a gamble. I take that gamble. I don't get how you can't decipher the difference between shelling out the money to see a new show that seems up my alley and shelling out money to see a show that I already have seen and know I love when I KNOW there's been an awful lot of carelessness involved lately.

How did you learn to love these actors in the first place if you wouldn't spend money to let them prove they're worthy?
To be redundant by seeing new shows. But choosing to spend money on new shows is completely different from spending money on a show multiple times only to see that show that you love damn near butchered.

"f you're that hard-up for money that the $20 lotto is too expensive for you to "waste" on an old show, then how would you have the $100 or $90 or even $60 for discount tickets as soon as Adam and Anthony are announced?
Well, like I said, if other people have become a little disgusted with some of the work that's been onstage in Rent in the past and noticed a lousy pattern, I would see Adam and Anthony as a glimmer of hope that maybe there'll be some people who care about the story they're telling us.

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:51pm

This really is so simple. People really do just think Anthony and Adam will bring the original quality back to RENT. Why is this still being discussed?
Besides, what is so wrong if someone wants to see a show just because their favorite actor is in it? I know I'd see anything with Aaron Lazar or Victor Garber in it. If I happen to like the show, then I happen to like the show. There's nothing wrong with someone going back to see a show just because two originals are back (IF that is the case).

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:52pm

I seriously doubt the majority of these people haven't seen Rent because of financial circumstances, so misschung's entire argument is moot.

I don't see how being burned by a bad cast is an excuse to abandon the show completely, yet still call yourself a fan. I hate that Rent hasn't always been given the justice it deserves in recent years, but I'm not going to give up on it completely (or at least until OBC members gallop in to save the day...) I'm going to go and fangirl the actors I feel deserve it, and publically critique the performances I feel need work, and not see it when Antonique Smith or Matt Caplan are on. Because it's about the show, not about the actors, and I'm going to give the actors a chance before rudely assuming every actor to enter post-OBC is going to suck just because Caplan did.

Updated On: 5/6/07 at 10:52 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:58pm

But saying you're not seeing RENT because you don't like the way the casting is going doesn't have to be equated with giving up on the show, does it? RENT is a long show, and if someone really can't sit through a certain performer's performance of their favorite show, then not going back until the performers they KNOW they will appreciate shouldn't be such a bad thing, should it? I know I've sat through performance of Damn Yankees (one of my favorite shows) and thought "I will never see Damn Yankees unless Victor Garber is Applegate" because I don't want to waste my time watching a performer I feel is not bringing what they should to a show I like so much.

...if that makes sense, orangeskittles? I dunno, I feel like I keep repeating myself, but that's really the best I know how to describe it.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:58pm

But I seriously doubt the majority of these people haven't seen Rent because of financial circumstances, so misschung's entire argument is moot.

Okay, but you are making assumptions again. I mean I know that I havent seen the show more partly because of financial reasons. And I know a lot of other people who haven't, either. I also live over an hour away from the city and don't have time to do the lotto and not be guaranteed a seat.

I'm not saying that everyone stopped seeing the show for that same reason, but I am saying that its a factor and you can't assume that everyone lives in the city and can stand on that lotto line all the time.

I wouldn't say that people are giving up on Rent. But you also have to remember that not everyone likes seeing shows multiple times. For some people its like a movie or a book - they see it once and that's enough.

Updated On: 5/6/07 at 10:58 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:06pm

orange, you're missing the point entirely (and being oddly childish about needing to prove that you're somehow a bigger fan. Or at least that's how you're coming across). The fact that attending the show IS about the SHOW and the experience of seeing the SHOW for me is EXACTLY why I can't take it when there's a Mark who goofs around, when Roger is whiny, when Mimi is merely a beautiful girl who can sing well, when Maureen is doing nothing but fishing for laughs unsuccessfully the entire show, when Angel is just a stereotypical drag queen, when Collins has no heart, when Benny is just a one dimensional jerk, when Joanne is a complete sucker who lets Maureen walk all over her, and when NONE of the people in any of these roles even remotely understand the importance of what they're characters are going through or the arc of their characters. Because then I'm not watching Rent I'm watching a bunch of amatuers do some vocal acrobatics with no soul, no genuine emotion in what appears to be a rock concert. When that has been my experience MORE than once (because I HAVE gone in again before "rudely assuming...") and a few YEARS apart, I see no reason why I shouldn't be enormously skeptical every time the Rent fan in me goes "Damn, I want to see Rent again.

It's not about the actors, it's about the show? Any show suffers from awful actors. ANY show, no matter how much you love it. I have the libretto of Rent and the cast recording right here, along with a video that promises to please. I love Rent. When what I'm watching on stage actually IS Rent's story, Rent's characters.
Updated On: 5/6/07 at 11:06 PM

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:06pm

misschung - I'm not even going to get involved with most of this and the fan-related arguments, but the bottom line is that if you really wanted to see Rent, you would have made it your business to try lotto once or purchase $45 tickets at the box office immediately prior to the show. If you didn't truly want to see it for whatever reason, fine. However, in at least 90% of circumstances, it's such a cop out for anyone who is truly looking to see the show to claim that they don't have the financial means, the ability to get to New York or a tour stop, etc. I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed to find someone posting on BroadwayWorld.com who hasn't had $45 (or slightly more for transportation fees to NY or a tour stop) to spare over the last few years. If you or anyone wanted to see Rent, there have been more than enough opportunities to do so. Choosing not to for some sort of cast-related reason is another can of worms I'm not ready to open tonight. Updated On: 5/6/07 at 11:06 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:11pm

siamese dream, I understand what you're saying but I know for some people, going to the city to see a show means an entire family affair. For transportation for, let's say a 4 member family, and tickets that are not lotto because not many people understand what lotto even IS, money can certainly be an issue, even if one of the 4 family members is dying to see RENT and can think of only seeing RENT. Know what I mean?

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:16pm

a) I said that vast majority of people, not every single circumstance. OF COURSE there are going to be circumstances where people absolutely cannot see the show. However, most people who have the internet access to post on BroadwayWorld.com to complain about how they haven't been able to see the show probably DO have the means to see it.

b) I find it hard to believe that MOST four-person families could not save the necessary funds to see Rent on Broadway or on tour over the course of YEARS.

c) If the family somehow cannot save the money, the person in question who is dying to see Rent could most likely travel on his or her own for one day into a city where the show is playing.

d) My points don't take into account a family's ignorance of the lottery system. If you are hellbent on your family seeing Rent, it's a reasonable assumption that you would research available seating.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:18pm

you can't assume that everyone lives in the city and can stand on that lotto line all the time.
Who said I was? I don't live in the city. I don't live within an hour of the city. I live 5 hours away, only get into the city one weekend every few months, AND have seen probably 50 other shows in the past year on a minimum wage work study salary. I've still seen Rent twice. What's your excuse now?

[misschung]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:19pm

siamese - I agree with you. And I mean, I have seen Rent more than once. And I've seen a lot of other shows. I am in no way saying that people CAN'T get discounted tickets or find another way to see the show. I only mentioned that scenario because not everyone can do that or the lotto thing as much as they'd like.


and orange - I'm not making excuses for why I can't see the show. I've seen it. I'm only pointing out different circumstances that could be a factor in other peoples' decisions.

I think we all need to agree to disagree here. Clearly theatre tickets are different priorities for everyone for a number of reasons.

Updated On: 5/6/07 at 11:19 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:21pm

Siamese, I agree with a, c, and d but for b, some people are not allowed to go the city by themselves. I understnad what you're saying about circumstances, I'm just pointing out what might be the case...however it turns out to not be the case right now on this thread SO...nevermind.

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:23pm

Well, I wasn't really referring to those who are underage and have parental restrictions on how often they are allowed to go into the city. In that case, suck it up and deal until you're 18, like everyone else had to. Updated On: 5/6/07 at 11:23 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:27pm

Ok I wasn't speaking for myself...but if people are just supposed to suck it up then it makes sense that they would go more out of their way to see the show if actors they like are in it.

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:31pm

You can stop hanging onto shreds of your argument at any time now, really. My point has NOTHING to do with people who go out of their way or don't go out of their way to see Rent based on who is in the show. As I said, I'm not getting into that argument tonight. I was simply addressing those who claim to want to see Rent so badly but it's just too difficult to see the show.

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:34pm

Yikes I am hardly hanging onto the shreds of my argument. I don't even care about RENT or Adam or Anthony, I was just debating because the assumptions made could work for everyone. Huge apologies.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:43pm

Yeah, I'm not sure that I see Anna hanging on to the shreds of her argument there. The point that people who have certain restrictions for how much they can see a show--be it parental, financial, or just the mere distance from a place--would obviously be more likely to be careful about WHO is in the show when they do choose the times they see it seemed more like making a valid point. To me, at least.

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:52pm

The point that people who have certain restrictions for how much they can see a show--be it parental, financial, or just the mere distance from a place--would obviously be more likely to be careful about WHO is in the show when they do choose the times they see it seemed more like making a valid point.

No, I agree. Of course people who are restricted from seeing the show in one way or another (again, I think those restrictions are much less common than many would have you believe, but I digress) would be more careful about when they see the show. I wasn't really addressing that point; I was addressing the people who claim to have this huge desire to see the show but claim to absolutely not be able to see it for one reason or another. For example, misschung claimed that the reason she hasn't seen Rent lately is because she cannot wait the requisite amount of time for lottery, which I really don't believe is a valid excuse for not seeing Rent provided you truly want to go for one reason or another. Of course she later edited her post to say it's because she doubts the current cast's talent as you do, but frankly since she apparently said she hasn't seen the cast since 1999, I personally don't think she has reason to simply latch onto your argument; at least you've seen a cast in this millenium. At any rate, once she edited her post, my posts seemed much more like digression than actually addressing any topic at hand in this post (although I've seen this come up time to time on other Rent-related threads).

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:54pm

See NOW I follow what's been going on. I just wasn't sure what points you were trying to make. And now I do.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:01am

For example, misschung claimed that the reason she hasn't seen Rent lately is because she cannot wait the requisite amount of time for lottery, which I really don't believe is a valid excuse for not seeing Rent provided you truly want to go for one reason or another. Of course she later edited her post to say it's because she doubts the current cast's talent as you do, but frankly since she apparently said she hasn't seen the cast since 1999, I personally don't think she has reason to simply latch onto your argument; at least you've seen a cast in this millenium. At any rate, once she edited her post, my posts seemed much more like digression than actually addressing any topic at hand in this post (although I've seen this come up time to time on other Rent-related threads).

Okay, to clear things up -- when I spoke of financial reasons as to why people can't see Rent, I was not simply talking about myself and pulling the "feel sorry for me, I cant go see Rent" card. As I said before, I was only proposing that it might be a reason for other people who haven't been able to see multiple casts of the same show over the years.

Secondly, the last time I saw Rent was in 2001, so it actually was in this millenium. Third, if I appeared to "latch onto" Broadwaygirl's argument, I apologize. I was only agreeing with her because I have seen (not live) casts of Rent from the past 4 years or so that I shared her opinion about.

Sorry for any confusion

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:13am

misschung, look, I don't know your reasons for not having seen Rent over the last few years (you made a post saying you saw it twice in 1997 and once in 1999, which is why I assumed the last time you saw it was then). If you didn't want to see it because you legitimately were scared away by the other casts, fine. If you didn't want to see it because you just didn't feel up to it, fine.

When you made the statement that you weren't able to see Rent because you couldn't wait for the lottery, I still hadn't seen your edit where you apparently said it was because you were disappointed in later-day casts, so I replied stating that I'm sure you, along with others who say they're dying to see the show but just can't, could have managed to see the show at some point if you were truly gunning to see it. Frankly, I thought your posts were confusing enough in this thread to warrant my confusion, but it doesn't truly matter at this point. I think this thread has really run its course, provided no one has anything to add about the original topic...

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:15am

Yes, we are now officially beating a horse that has been dead for quite a while now.

I'd still love to see VIETgirl's response to her post a few pages back, but alas...