Open YOUR mind. Did I say that they were the only special people in the world? Or that they were the only people capable playing the part? Or the only people talented enough? Or even the ones with the MOST talent?
No. I made none of those sweeping statements. Not a single one.
If talented people in 2005 were cast. What is that supposed to mean? That the OBC was talented in '96, but that because it's 2005 their talent just evaporated?
Don't you dare compare what I'm saying to the people who say that Rent is only special and successful because of Jonathan's death. Those are the people who *don't* believe in or like the show. They're the people who think it's a piece of garbage that didn't deserve to make it to Broadway, and only did so because of Jonathan's death. The people who think that are not *fans* of the work. They're dissenters of it. What I am saying is not comparable to that. I'm sorry, it's just not. I always feel like I need to spell out my arguments 29384039849 times because people are too dense to read carefully: the OBC bonded because of what they went through; they are STILL friends, and that puts a huge impact on the work they did/do together. That's not the same as saying the show is only successful because of Jonathan's death. At all. That's a twisted conflation.
I believe that the piece being everything it can be is extremely dependent upon who plays the parts, but I also believe that it is an extraordinary (yet flawed) work of art. All great works are flawed, but do not tell me that by saying that, I don't believe in it, in some kind of rant of insecurity.
What? Did you audition and not get a part in the movie? Why so much spite?
A work of art is an invitation to love.