Chicago passes Rent in performances- Page 2

[fellfromthesun]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 3:27pm

That's your opinion. I disagree, but i can respect what your saying. I think Chicago is a great representation on scandal in the Jazz era, and even though Kander and Ebb scores aren't my favorite, i still am aware of how good their scores are. Chicago just never appealed to me.

Some can say Rent is "sophisticated, brilliant theater". I, personally love Rent, but wouldn't say that. Does that mean i'm wrong? No. Does it mean the person that says Rent is sophisticated and brilliant is wrong? Also no.

So while you say Chicago is sophisticated and brilliant, i say it's not. Either way we're both right

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 3:35pm

It's not an opinion, it's fact.

[TheCharleston]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 3:37pm

LOL

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 3:44pm

They're not even in the same category, but, oh well. Let's see when it runs longer than Beauty and the Beast or *gasp* A Chorus Line.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 4:41pm

Chicago is one of the most well written/crafted musicals in broadway history. It is very muhc sophisticated/brilliant IMO. The music is sensational, the book is marvelous, the coreography is legendary, it's a broadway classic. This show is fantastic and I'm glad to see that it's still going strong.

Rent is a gorgeous piece of rock theatre with a classic score. It's truly moving and wonderful. I adore both these shows

Updated On: 3/24/09 at 04:41 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/24/09 at 5:00pm

CHICAGO is going to be around for many years to come. The show's themes are timeless.

[jv92]

Posted: 3/25/09 at 6:07pm

Chicago is timeless and will run forever. Enough said.

[Sant]

Posted: 3/25/09 at 6:38pm

Congrats to CHICAGO!!!!!! Well deserved!!!!!

As for RENT and bashing it, though it's never been my favorite show, it was a good show and introduced A LOT of people not interested in musicals to musicals and Broadway! Let's remember that having a 10+ -year run on Broadway is very respectable achievement that most shows (and producers) can only dream of! May be wrong to do compare these two very different shows, but just take a look of THE PRODUCERS and all the Tonys it won, it didn't last as long as RENT.

[Lea]

Posted: 3/25/09 at 7:17pm

First of all I have never seen Rent. Not even once. It reminds me too much of grunge. I did see Chicago last Jan when I was in NYC, Cause John Schneider was in the lead role. And since I have always liked him, I brought the good seats and saw the play. It was good, the time period was a hard to get into. Not much into the 1930's Ganster ERA. The dancers were good.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 3/25/09 at 11:41pm

I think Rent was hurt quite a bit by Larson's early passing. I still feel that Act II is very disjointed and episodic, especially when compared to Act I, but everyone was too unwilling to make the changes and fixes needed because he was no longer there to "approve" them.

Plus, the show goes on for just a couple minutes too long. Puccini was absolutely correct in the way Boheme ended.

"MIMMMIIIII!"
*CURTAIN*