IT COULD HAVE SAVED THE FILM!!! (Rent Alternate Ending)- Page 4

[today4u:proofpositiv]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 7:30pm

The alternate ending was nice, but I don't think it would have saved the movie. I think Angel coming back would have just confused the audience; not that I'm saying the audience it stupid, but I did find alot of people who didn't understand the "I've got baggage" lines ("Where are these bags they keep talking about?")

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 7:30pm

I loved the alternate ending.

I was just taken back by the whole thing. When I saw Angel walk back on the stage I had the chills, to me, the alternate ending was more moving and emotional(especially when Angel took Collins hand). But I did loved the idea of ending the movie with Marks film.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 8:21pm

Of course I think that a not-so-realistic approach works with modern audiences when it comes to movie musicals.
Look at the crazy surreal speed that Moulin Rouge's fantastic setting begins with, or the justification of Chicago's songs in Roxie's head.
Having these RENT people just start singing just doesn't work in the realistic environment and setting and it looks very incoherent and not very cohesive to me.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 8:23pm

But would Rent work as a surrealist movie, a la Moulin Rouge and Chicago? I don't really think it would, even if that's what's working with contemporary audiences.

[kas]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 8:41pm

i liked the alternate ending so much better. things came full circle (with the opening) and it paid wonderful homage to the play. and yes, i cried when angel walked back onto the stage. plus, it gave a little nod back to the audience, saying "this is our show." if that makes any sense.

also, on a side note - i scrutinized adam's performance, and i don;t think he was as bad as the critics made him out to be. he had some great moments. just wanted to throw that out there.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:06pm

"But would Rent work as a surrealist movie, a la Moulin Rouge and Chicago? I don't really think it would, even if that's what's working with contemporary audiences."

I think it would, if you have a strong vision behind it.
For example, Micheal Greif's staging of the show. He opted for a more concert-staging, very Brechtian and minimalist, instead of going with full sets or realistic environments, which works very well for the musical.
This is what the movie, I THINK, could've found benefit in.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:08pm

I guess. But to me, that goes right back to the discrepancy between what works on stage and what works on film. What Greif did works on stage. Would it necessarily work on film? I don't know that I'm sure of that.

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:10pm

I honestly liked the alternate ending... better? yes, probably. It wasn't my decision to make. at first when I saw there was going to be an alternate ending... I thought it was going to be the version where MiMi died...

and the other topic of conversation... I don't think it would have worked as a surrealist movie. Moulin Rouge and Chicago were very easy to make in that type of setting... I think RENT is trying to more connected, considering it was set in a time period that actually occured. (I know the 1920's occured, but 1989-1990 is a lot closer than the 20s... and easier to relate to.) I have no idea if that made sense... but that's my take on it

Jkor

[bwaylover86]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:11pm

Okay, I was not overly thrilled with the film, but for what it was it was okay. The deleted scenes would have made a difference in my opinion. I always did not like how at the end of the movie you don't feel that emotional tug that you do at the end of the show when Angel comes back out on stage (PS: that always makes me get teary )
When he came back out on stage in the movie I thought that was great, the first time I saw it I cried, especially at the hand holding moment. But the second time it still felt a bit eh I don't know just empty. Like during the show all the cast memebers look to the right to show specific emphasis on Angel coming back out.
Personally, I liked both endings in the movie, this was more emotional, but they should have zoomed up more on the empty space on stage, I didn't even really notice it at first. Angel's space should have been in the middle, with Collins on one side of him and the all should have looked towards the middle and then he should have come right up the center and held hands with Collins.

Okay that was long, and just my opinion, no one jump on me please haha

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:11pm

I'm not implying to put Greif's vision on film, but give an example of an approach that works for the piece.
I think a more radical approach would have done the film more justice, because I think the piece calls for it, than what Columbus went for.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:29pm

The entire movie was crap. It made charecters look over blown and stupid. Angel merely looks like a flaming drag queen and not an actual person.....unlike the stage show were you care for the charecters.

the ending would not have saved this travistey.....

Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:46pm

I loved both endings and either one was good for the movie!!

[faithanytwo]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:27pm

I'm just glad I get the choice to look at both of them, I like them both for their own reasons, but I'm glad with what was picked for the ending. Plus the last image of Angel in the movie really stays with you, I think that's the point.

[downtowndiva84]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 4:35am

"also, on a side note - i scrutinized adam's performance, and i don;t think he was as bad as the critics made him out to be. he had some great moments. just wanted to throw that out there."

Agreed. Actually, every time I see it I like his performance more and more. It was certainly a different take on the role than he had on the stage, but who's to say that's a bad thing? I actually liked that we saw something other than the Angry!Roger we're used to...he seemed so much more depressed and withdrawn in the film. Some people don't understand that an understated performance can work. In this case I think it did very nicely.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:14am

They honestly didn't make him out to be THAT BAD.

I saw the show again this weekend, and Roger is so completely different. It took a little getting used to.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:30am

I finally watched this alternate ending and there is NO WAY the general movie audiences and critics would have bought this. I am reading so many things about that say "Oh it was beautiful when Angel walked back" but that is mostly coming from people who have seen the stage production. Sure, it is beautiful to you because it pays homage to that. But you have to think of this from a individual who has never seen the show's point of view. I feel certain that this would have gotten even worse reviews with this ending. People are forgetting that this is not theater, this is a movie. You just can't get away with certain things.

Goodbye Love being cut was a huge mistake. Out of all of the scenes and the ending, this is the one that could have had the largest impact on helping the film. And his reason for cutting it is absolutely absurd. I hope he is now sitting there wondering what would have happen if he left that in.

Halloween was a disaster the way it was shot. The way it stands I agree that it was smart to have cut it. But better than that, it should have been re-shot.

[kas]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:46am

yeah, but emcee, they definitely gave him the shaft in reviews. i liked him more than some of the other performers. what is the show like now, as far as interpretations of roger?

i too thought halloween was weird on film. but goodbye love could have easily been in there; it would have made the tranbsition to what you own smoother.

wasn't it funny in the commentary how adam and anthony made hair jokes, as well as referred to people's comments about Britney Spears and Blaze of Glory? I got a good laugh out of that one. and when they were drooling over rosario at out tonight. funny stuff.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:47am

Wow, I'm gone for a day and there are four pages of replies.

I'll only respond to this:

"CapnHook, how can you seriously believe that of all the negative things critics had to say about the film that this one scene is something that would have caused them to "love" it?"

Before I get into my bold statement about saving the film, let me first say that I have shown the ending to several of my friends. Last night, we watched the film and then stopped it before Mark turns on the projector to put on the alternate ending. Worked SOO much better. Everyone agreed - the alternate ending was better suited for the film. Not ONE of the ~20 people who saw it said the one in theatres was better.

I like the original one, however it does not provide closure to the film. If they wanted to keep it, "Seasons of Love" should have been cut. If you're going to have the actors on the stage, you can't open the film that way and then not reference back to them or say what that was all about.

Choosing the alternate ending would not have saved RENT from all it's other problems, however, it is the final moment of the film. It's what makes people go out of the theatre and stamp their opinion of it. The beginning, middle, and the end of a movie are important - however the beginning and end are key. The ending in theatres didn't make me feel complete. The one on the DVD did and made me ball tears.

Therefore, it could have saved the movie in the sense that more people would have felt better about it and it would have gotten more word of mouth from non-theatre folks. And yes, I believe critics would have liked the film better with the alternate ending. Would it change their number of stars given or thumbs up or down? Who knows.

After seeing the film and deleted scenes with the commentary, I now hate one of my (former) favorite directors.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:55am

The part about your friends is interesting. Are they generally theater people? Because there are plenty of people here who say that this ending would not have worked. I know plenty of people who have seen it (who are not theater people) and actually thought it was ridiculous. So it is difficult to understand how a group of 20 of your friends could have come to a unanimous decision that this ending was better.
Updated On: 2/23/06 at 09:55 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 9:59am

But are you saying this as someone who has seen the show, and "knows," for lack of a better term, the characters, as well as what the show makes you feel on stage? Do your friends know the stage show?

I think what it's about is the people who don't know the show as an entity separate from the film.

The alternate ending gave you chills, but what would it do to someone unfamiliar with Rent? I think *that's* the issue.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 10:23am

Yes, Emcee that is what I was trying to say. I also talk with film buffs on a site much like this, and those people think it is ridiculous. So you definitely get a different answer depending on who you ask.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 10:35am

I think sticking with the ending they used was smart. It's more movie audience friendly. I also, like everyone else it seems, thing Goodbye Love should have been left in, but for a different reason. I don't get why they cut all of Benny's redeeming scenes. He paid for the funeral then met with Roger and both scenes hit the cutting room floor. Eh, guess that's why I am not a filmmaker.

As for the alternate ending, I like that Mimi looked to Angel and Collins took his hand, but don't you think everyone should have acknowledged his return with at least a look?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 10:37am

I think the entire process was a vicious cycle of discepancies between making a movie that would please Rentheads and making the best movie it could be... or at least one that would've been a wider success.

I can see why they cut the Benny/Roger meeting scene. It's awkward. I like the idea, but... it just felt really weird. The one about the funeral was good, though.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 10:57am

Today for You, Out Tonight, What You Own and Seasons of Love should all have been cut out of the film. None of them worked.

This terrible film made me respect Johnathan Larson's show which was slaughtered on the big screen.

Ps. Adam was vocally not at his top. I feel like they told him they only had one take to do his songs. he sounds like **** in all of them.

[faithanytwo]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 11:37am

I completely disagree with you except for what you own, shouldn't be cut, but the scenes in santa fe were ridiculous.