IT COULD HAVE SAVED THE FILM!!! (Rent Alternate Ending) — Page 5

The alternate ending is 14000x better than the one in the actual movie. I watched all the deleted scenes with my sister last night, and when they were over we were both like..."Um...WHAT WAS HE THINKING??????" What a huge mistake.

---

"and the reason i back up those scenes beign cut from the movie is because they come out of NO WHERE"

I think you are right here. I think that the director just couldn't justify the musical numbers in the film - the why people just start singing out of nowhere.
He did a good job of re-creating the period, and, in the actual spoken scenes, the performances were overall well achieved.
I think the big mistake was to keep it all in a realistic setting without having the film being all song.
He got rid of one very important element of the show, those funky and funny musical transitions, and replaced them with spoken scenes.
Then it became a a strange and uncohesive mix of movie and musical.

---

Actually, getting a director with some sense and a feel for the material might have SAVED THE FILM. The film was doomed to mediocrity the minute they hired Chris Columbus.

---

Here's my theory on the film. If the Larson family liked it, and the original cast liked it, than that's all that matters

That's a very narrow viewpoint.

I've also heard rumblings that the family didn't care for it off the record as much as they did on the record.

---

Again, I haven't read all the replies, but some responses:

"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."

All but two are theatre majors. Only four of the theatre majors have seen it on stage. I watched it once with one other person, then again with 8, the ending only with 6, the ending only with one, and the entire film plus alternate ending again with three (so it was 19, including me). I'm watching it again with four more people tonight, two of which saw it with me already and two who haven't seen the DVD yet. AND - one of those people hasn't seen it on stage OR the film in theatres! So I am quite interested to hear her opinion.

In regards to this comment:

"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."

No, I have not seen it on stage. However, I do not need to. All my remarks about the film are based on the film alone. People may have seen the stage version, but when we're talking about the movie, we're talking about ONLY the movie. So I only "know" what is on film and that is what counts - because that is what we are talking about.

---

The producers were just trying to show the ending in the play so they made the actual ending and the alternate one. On stage both of those happen. When i think of how the move was made i want to think about how Johnathan Larson would have wanted it because this was totally his creation. The producers of the movie worked closely with his family so i think that the final product is most likely what Larson would have wanted.

Also some one needs to tell Chris Columbus that only being able to see half of a persons face for 90% of a movie is NOT artistic. It is annoying

Not really. They have to feel cohesive. It has to feel like it's... normal, for lack of a better term, to just break into song in whatever world you've created in the musical.

---

At the END.

"Cold, cold, would you light my candle...."
"Yes, we'll -- oh, God -- find a candle..."

Am I crazy, or were those lines in the movie? It all just blends together...

My DVD is still in the plastic, and I'm attempting to leave it there until I finish a very big paper. I can't put it on and check!

---

Updated On: 2/24/06 at 10:33 AM

No...I don't think so. She just starts with "I should tell you..."

---

"The point is, nothing would have made 90% of the critics like this film because if you read the negative ones, THEY HATED THESE SONGS! They hate these characters, the music, the basic storyline so it wouldn't have matered who directed, a lot of these critics flat out said they hate the material. Which pisses me off more than anything."

EverythingIsRent, I think I've told the story several times on here about the first time I saw RENT on stage, and I really didn't like it at all. I didn't care for a single character, I thought the score was average--perhaps a bit catchy at times. I felt it was overly sentimental, lacking in character development, inauthentic...I could go on.

Then, a year or so later a saw a...video of the original cast, and I was basically speechless by the end because of its power. Because of everything that was there that didn't exist the last time because of a CAST change. Not much else was different.

Now, if the film was the first time I had seen Rent, I'm pretty darn sure I would have come out feeling very much the same way as I did th first time I saw the show. Point being, good material can be misconstrued by bad film-making, and this film was oozing with it.

Of course, there probably would have been a few that wouln't budge no matter what (for example, those who saw the show on Broadway when it opened and hated it), but I absolutely think it could have been better recevied quite easily.

Also....why does their hating the material piss you off? Aren't they entitled to their opinions as much as you are?

I think so much of whether or not you fall in love with Rent (or how fast it happens) has to do with who you see play the parts.

I think I blame some of how long it took me to catch on on the fact that I went in knowing nothing about the show, other than that it involved drugs and AIDS and things my parents had tried to shelter me from. But I've talked to so many people who have had so many different experiences with various casts that I think that *absolutely* has something to do with it. People have got to carry the material in a *way* that makes you fall in love with it. As good as Rent is, and as well as the material stands by itself, the vehicle, I think, is the difference between good, great and life-changing.

---

Very nicely said, Emcee. I think that there is no doubt that the material does have flaws, and if you don't have a cast that can carry through and tell the story well, those flaws ending up being much more evident than if you see it with a great cast. The experience of the show does often depend on the cast for many people, no doubt. And I think that goes for almost any work, no matter how wonderful. An amatuer performance of a great piece can really prevent an audience member from experience the piece as a whole the way he or she should.

EverythingISRent, I get that. I have to admit, that's part of my problem with this film. With so many people feeling that it wasn't well made or that it didn't capture Larson's vision...it upsets me a bit. I know you feel differently about the film than I do, but it disappoints me to see that the film has not been so well-received because Jonathon was not here to say whether or not the film captured the spirit of his piece, or if it is what he would have wanted. Instead of being angry at the opinion, I'm angry at the film making that I personally feel caused the reaction...does that make sense? I just wanted to clarify where I and I think some of the others are coming from on the issue of this whole film.

Anyway, I personally believe a lot of the negative reaction towards the film is not because of the piece itself, but because of the way the film itself was made. Perhaps that's just my loyalty to Larson's actual work.