New Rent "For Your Consideration" Poster — Page 3
#52
Posted: 1/16/06 at 12:36am
That's it? Oy? You had to know where this was going to go!
I don't know if that means you're over this argument, or too good to have it because you know you're right, or if you're going to come back with a really long post, but I *really* think that we should just agree to disagree on this already. Everything that needs to be said has been said, I think. The dead horse of you not liking Adam's acting does not further need to be beaten, because it only calls people to his defense, and makes all of us go around in circles.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I don't know if that means you're over this argument, or too good to have it because you know you're right, or if you're going to come back with a really long post, but I *really* think that we should just agree to disagree on this already. Everything that needs to be said has been said, I think. The dead horse of you not liking Adam's acting does not further need to be beaten, because it only calls people to his defense, and makes all of us go around in circles.
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 12:36 AM
#53
Posted: 1/16/06 at 12:44am
Yes, OY. Not because I'm too good to have this argument, but because my words keep getting twisted.
#54
Posted: 1/16/06 at 12:51am
In my own defense, much of what I said was not to you specifically, and if that's what looks like your words twisted, it's not. I tried to make that very clear. A lot of what you said made me think of other things, and much more than I was addressing you, I was speaking generally on the topic. Your words are going to lead to other things -- I don't think what they started should come as a surprise. I think it's obvious when I was addressing you specifically, though -- and the bottom line is that Adam's performance didn't work for you. But it works for other people. And because it didn't work for you doesn't make it ultimately wrong. There's nothing to twist there. Can't we just drop it there, almost two months after the fact? Seriously. Because it somehow always comes down to you and I, and we constantly run itno the same wall.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 12:51 AM
#55
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:09am
"And because it didn't work for you doesn't make it ultimately wrong."
Exactly why I say my words are getting twisted. HOW many times did I say "I think..." in those posts? I never said what he did was "wrong."I was stating what I think, and I was responding to somebody who asked for somebody to explain why we were finding him to be the weakest link. So I explained. Because besides saying I found him weak in the film, I don't think I even touched on it otherwise on this board at all.
Anyway. Drop it? Indeed.
Exactly why I say my words are getting twisted. HOW many times did I say "I think..." in those posts? I never said what he did was "wrong."I was stating what I think, and I was responding to somebody who asked for somebody to explain why we were finding him to be the weakest link. So I explained. Because besides saying I found him weak in the film, I don't think I even touched on it otherwise on this board at all.
Anyway. Drop it? Indeed.
#56
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:12am
I think it goes without saying that tone can say a lot that words don't. But either way, it's moot. This is really, really ridiculous already.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#57
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:01am
I think its stupid to say arguing about someone's acting or character development is ridiculous, that's why we have critics and casting directors. Anyways, I didn't care for the film at all. I think some of the "bad" acting in the film should be placed on the director. A good director should be able to pull the best performances out of their actors as possible. I felt the entire movie lots all its edge and grittiness. As for the acting, I think Rosario was amazing. I think her vocals were great. I don't think Mimi - on film at least - needs to be a huge big belter with a big strong voice. She's going through addiction problems and is diganosed with AIDS, I think Rosario's voice was a great fit for this. I love the way her voice sounds on Another Day. Idina really surprised me as well. I thought she played the part of Joanne perfectly. She played the party girl perfectly, and her vocals were amazing, as expected. I know there's a lot of hate for her out on this board, and I'm not judging anyone, but I would say her part was right on, she knew her character and knew how she wanted it to be. Adam was good, but I felt like he could have been given more to work with - I think the addition of 'Halloween' would have helped his character develop more instead of being the "narrator" type character. As for Adam, was not a fan of his in the film. I usually like his voice and whatnot, though I think some ppl have built him up to be some kind of GOD for some reason. I mean he's okay, not my favorite, but not horrible. In the movie, I thought he was the weakest link. In my acting class, my teacher always talks about looking for the highest stakes possible. Though Adam's take might have worked for you, it wasn't all it could be, which is the problem. He seemed to take the safe route, when he could have been more exploisve and angry, which would have given Rosario more to work off of. At the end when Mimi is dying and Adam yells "MiMiiii" it just felt out of place and akward. I didnt feel he worked up the right kind of emotion prior to that, so that whole sequence felt out of place, which could be blamed on the director. As for the rest of the cast, they def. were the highlest, which I think their characters are written to the be the lovable couple that loves life and whatnot. Taye's vocals were great, but felt that he didnt get much to do. It seemed like the rest of the charcaters outcasted him moreso in the film and hated him. I think the director could have showed the others being more friendly to him, or maybe shown Taye yearning to be like it was or whatnot. Anyways, just an opinon. That's what they're for.
#58
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:04am
Oh, please, I'm not saying arguing about acting and character development. I'm saying that THIS particular argument is ridiculous, because BroadwayGirl107 and I have it fairly often, and we always end up in the same place. That makes it not worth having. I think it's ridiculous to present your opinion with so much audacity in the tone that you sound like you're insisting that the way it IS, not the way you THINK it is, when the "it" is something so subjective as this.
Seriously, read what I say before you accuse me of making SUCH generalizations.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Seriously, read what I say before you accuse me of making SUCH generalizations.
#59
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:16am
Woah, calm it down Emcee, did you see your name written anywhere in my post? It just a general overview of some of the posts in this thread. To be honest, I didn't read all you're posts in this thread. Its obvious that you like Adam, which is cool, I have my favorites too, but I think you should be open to other ppl's views. I'm a HUGE Patrick Wilson fan, but if someone were to say he was bad in Phantom, I'd probably agree. I think sometimes ppl get jaded and think that their fav. actor/actress can't do wrong. Which is cool, not saying you can't think Adam's performance in RENT was good, it worked for you, just saying it didn't work for me because of everything I've learned in my acting class, I didn't see any of it used in his character. It's cool, we're have diff. opionions, that's what makes this board great and fun to read. Opinions are good.
#60
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:36am
Oy vey.
No, but I was the one who said this argument was ridiculous.
If you're going to call me out on my opinions, at least read what I'm saying -- or at least don't admit that you haven't! You're addressing things that haven't even come up here. I'm not being closed minded simply because I like Adam. Seriously, I'm smarter than that. And not that shallow. You say it like I can't recnognize that the man has flaws. I never, ever said I thought his performance was even near perfect. I said that it worked. For me. I learned a long time ago that you either love Adam or you hate him, for the most part, and that there is no use in duking it out over the merits of Adam Pascal. This isn't about me not being open to others' opinions simply because I like him -- people can have their opinions all they want to. I'm not going to shut down to people who dislike him, or pretend that negative opinions don't exist -- but just like I can't influence them, they're not going to influence me. So, I don't know why you're saying I need to be "open" to other people's opinions about him. This just isn't about that. It's about the fact that nobody is "right" or "wrong" here, and it's getting on my nerves that there's this need to act like that's even possible. I'm not going to eat someone if they don't like Adam. Really. My problem is with the way it's all stated, and with a lot of things inherent to *this particular* argument.
Yes, opinions are lovely. But to me, asking me to be "open" to someone else's opinion means that I might be open to letting it influence mine -- and while I fully support the whole sharing of opinions thing, this isn't something about which I'm going to change my mind.
See what I'm saying?
A work of art is an invitation to love.
No, but I was the one who said this argument was ridiculous.
If you're going to call me out on my opinions, at least read what I'm saying -- or at least don't admit that you haven't! You're addressing things that haven't even come up here. I'm not being closed minded simply because I like Adam. Seriously, I'm smarter than that. And not that shallow. You say it like I can't recnognize that the man has flaws. I never, ever said I thought his performance was even near perfect. I said that it worked. For me. I learned a long time ago that you either love Adam or you hate him, for the most part, and that there is no use in duking it out over the merits of Adam Pascal. This isn't about me not being open to others' opinions simply because I like him -- people can have their opinions all they want to. I'm not going to shut down to people who dislike him, or pretend that negative opinions don't exist -- but just like I can't influence them, they're not going to influence me. So, I don't know why you're saying I need to be "open" to other people's opinions about him. This just isn't about that. It's about the fact that nobody is "right" or "wrong" here, and it's getting on my nerves that there's this need to act like that's even possible. I'm not going to eat someone if they don't like Adam. Really. My problem is with the way it's all stated, and with a lot of things inherent to *this particular* argument.
Yes, opinions are lovely. But to me, asking me to be "open" to someone else's opinion means that I might be open to letting it influence mine -- and while I fully support the whole sharing of opinions thing, this isn't something about which I'm going to change my mind.
See what I'm saying?
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 02:36 AM
#61
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:49am
Yeah, I guess I sorta do. I mean, i think its good to be open to other people's views and to see their points, I think its helps to strenghten your agrument as well. But yeah, whatever. I think the reason i'm not a HUGE Adam fan is because I saw in some interview where he said something very big headed, which I thought was ridiculous. He said something about how he wouldn't return to Broadway until he read something that was good enough for him or something like that. Just pissed me off because he's in no way a good actor. I think he thinks he can ride on the fact that he has a unique voice; instead, he needs to get some acting lessons. I just don't see the big craze over him at all, I think he's too into himself, which is annoying. Its like, someone is good until they know their good. Or someone is funny until they know they're being funny. Its just annoying.
#62
Posted: 1/16/06 at 2:55am
He says a lot of stuff that's a little big-headed, or that's misinterpreted as such. And honestly, whatever. This comes up all the time, but I think he says things a lot of people think and just aren't bold enough to say. Nobody wants to do work they don't like, or have interest in. He's just kind of blunt. That's one of the reasons I *am* a big fan.
Just another case of something working for some people and not for others. Aside from the fact that he's far from the worst actor on the planet.
See, this is an example of a discussion that is not ridiculous, for... reasons I'm too tired to articulate. No presentation of opinion with the air of fact, I guess. I suppose it falls into the "agree to disagree" category, still.
For the record, I didn't feel the need to back up my argument with tons of things because like I said, people know perfectly well where I stand on the issue. But if you didn't read my posts, how do you know I didn't back it up?
I mean, bottom line, I'm not telling people they're not allowed to have opinions that are different from mine just because they don't like my beloved actor and all that jazz.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Just another case of something working for some people and not for others. Aside from the fact that he's far from the worst actor on the planet.
See, this is an example of a discussion that is not ridiculous, for... reasons I'm too tired to articulate. No presentation of opinion with the air of fact, I guess. I suppose it falls into the "agree to disagree" category, still.
For the record, I didn't feel the need to back up my argument with tons of things because like I said, people know perfectly well where I stand on the issue. But if you didn't read my posts, how do you know I didn't back it up?
I mean, bottom line, I'm not telling people they're not allowed to have opinions that are different from mine just because they don't like my beloved actor and all that jazz.
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 02:55 AM
#63
Posted: 1/16/06 at 3:21am
*is beginning to get very, very scared of this thread*
RentBoy86, I find it hard to even address your posts when you seemed unable to differentiate certain characters. Idina playing JOANNE as the party girl? The addition of 'Halloween' helping ADAM'S character?
Anyway, I came here to revise my statement that Adam was the weakest link after reading through the argument between luvtheemcee and and BroadwayGirl. I don't like his interpretation of the character, and therefore my opinion of Adam as an actor may be clouded. I still don't think he's the best, but I'm biases, just like I'm biased against Matt Caplin. Although that's actually quite different, because lately he's been fooling around with his performances, because he got bored with the character.
Ahem. But let's not open up that can of worms. My point is that I may be projecting my feelings of his interpretation of Roger onto Adam's acting ability. I'd really have to see Rent again before trying to form an opinion.
RentBoy86, I find it hard to even address your posts when you seemed unable to differentiate certain characters. Idina playing JOANNE as the party girl? The addition of 'Halloween' helping ADAM'S character?
Anyway, I came here to revise my statement that Adam was the weakest link after reading through the argument between luvtheemcee and and BroadwayGirl. I don't like his interpretation of the character, and therefore my opinion of Adam as an actor may be clouded. I still don't think he's the best, but I'm biases, just like I'm biased against Matt Caplin. Although that's actually quite different, because lately he's been fooling around with his performances, because he got bored with the character.
Ahem. But let's not open up that can of worms. My point is that I may be projecting my feelings of his interpretation of Roger onto Adam's acting ability. I'd really have to see Rent again before trying to form an opinion.
Grief does not expire like a candle or the beacon on a lighthouse. It simply changes temperature. -Nocturne
#64
Posted: 1/16/06 at 3:24am
Re: Matt Caplan -- I can't stand the way he plays Mark, but I've been hearing that having Will Chase in the show has calmed him down a TON. I'm glad to hear it.
I think what you said is interesting, though -- about the distinction between thinking the *acting* was poor and between simply disliking the interpretation. Granted, a great number of the people who disliked Adam's performance in the movie are undoubtedly in the camp of thinking he's a crappy actor.
Hell, *I* didn't even think he was the best in the movie. I'd be a little deluded to think so. And I love the man to death.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I think what you said is interesting, though -- about the distinction between thinking the *acting* was poor and between simply disliking the interpretation. Granted, a great number of the people who disliked Adam's performance in the movie are undoubtedly in the camp of thinking he's a crappy actor.
Hell, *I* didn't even think he was the best in the movie. I'd be a little deluded to think so. And I love the man to death.
#65
Posted: 1/16/06 at 3:35am
I have to admit, I'm pretty sure that Adam's still my least favorite, although like I said before, I'd have to see the movie again. But he's my least favorite through process of elimination.
Let's just say they all took my breath away, singing *and* acting-wise and leave it at that, kay?
I can't stand Matt Caplin, either. I was being generous in my previous post. It's a shame, too, because he *was* pretty good, in the beginning. He was my first impression of Mark (other than the OBC recording, of course), and, while he doesn't even *begin* to compare to Anthony Rapp, he didn't leave me emotionally scarred or anything. But, like I said, he got bored, or something, and by the next time I got to see the show, he'd started "experimenting" with his character, and it went to hell in a handbasket.
Good to know that Will Chase has calmed him down. I'd really like to see RENT soon on Broadway, and, frankly, I was scared to.
Let's just say they all took my breath away, singing *and* acting-wise and leave it at that, kay?
I can't stand Matt Caplin, either. I was being generous in my previous post. It's a shame, too, because he *was* pretty good, in the beginning. He was my first impression of Mark (other than the OBC recording, of course), and, while he doesn't even *begin* to compare to Anthony Rapp, he didn't leave me emotionally scarred or anything. But, like I said, he got bored, or something, and by the next time I got to see the show, he'd started "experimenting" with his character, and it went to hell in a handbasket.
Good to know that Will Chase has calmed him down. I'd really like to see RENT soon on Broadway, and, frankly, I was scared to.
Grief does not expire like a candle or the beacon on a lighthouse. It simply changes temperature. -Nocturne
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 03:35 AM
#66
Posted: 1/16/06 at 3:54am
That’s weird that so many of you didn't enjoy Adam. While his performance wasn't my favorite out of the eight. It made me an Adam fan. I used to think he was mediocre, but I think he was really great in the movie. I think he had so many great, subtle moments. I think he was great.
All eight of them really nailed their roles, in my opinion.
BUT, I personally think that the girl who played Pam was the best! She looked so breakable! So sad! It made me tear up!
All eight of them really nailed their roles, in my opinion.
BUT, I personally think that the girl who played Pam was the best!
She looked so breakable! So sad! It made me tear up!
#67
Posted: 1/16/06 at 4:00am
I think you mean Mimi, not Pam But yes, Rosario was excellent. She's tied with Tracie for my third favorite (no one can beat Anthony and Jesse in my book).
I think one reason a lot of people don't like Adam was that he *was* so subtle. I, for one, think his facial expressions were great. I just didn't like his delivery of lines. It felt too stiff at times, and he didn't look wholly comfortable with the camera. Also, like I've covered in my last two posts, I don't like how he interpreted the character. But this whole thread has spiralled into long, drawn-out arguments, so I think I'll just shut up.
But yes, Rosario was excellent. She's tied with Tracie for my third favorite (no one can beat Anthony and Jesse in my book). I think one reason a lot of people don't like Adam was that he *was* so subtle. I, for one, think his facial expressions were great. I just didn't like his delivery of lines. It felt too stiff at times, and he didn't look wholly comfortable with the camera. Also, like I've covered in my last two posts, I don't like how he interpreted the character. But this whole thread has spiralled into long, drawn-out arguments, so I think I'll just shut up.
Grief does not expire like a candle or the beacon on a lighthouse. It simply changes temperature. -Nocturne
#68
Posted: 1/16/06 at 11:18am
rosario is hot and rocks.
thats all i have to say...
thats all i have to say...
#69
Posted: 1/16/06 at 12:18pm
Well, now I need to explain myself, because clearly a hell of a lot flew righ over some heads.
There are an ENDLESS number of interpretations that work for Roger. That's GIVEN. ALL I was getting at is that higher stakes make better acting. There are PLENTY of ways to perform the role with high stakes. Within THAT realm, there are an endless number of different ways to perform the role, and one might prefer one actor's interpretation over another.
I was FINE with Adam's interpretation; I was NOT fine with his acting. That's an opinion, and I'm absolutely allowed to have it, and no, I'm not passing it off as fact.
There are an ENDLESS number of interpretations that work for Roger. That's GIVEN. ALL I was getting at is that higher stakes make better acting. There are PLENTY of ways to perform the role with high stakes. Within THAT realm, there are an endless number of different ways to perform the role, and one might prefer one actor's interpretation over another.
I was FINE with Adam's interpretation; I was NOT fine with his acting. That's an opinion, and I'm absolutely allowed to have it, and no, I'm not passing it off as fact.
#70
Posted: 1/16/06 at 12:49pm
I don't get what you're saying. You posted an entire laundry list of things that he did wrong. That he wasn't angry enough, wasn't emotional enough, etc, etc. Those are things in his *interpretation*. He could've acted poorly too, which I realize is what you think -- but to say that you didn't find issue with his interpretation? Covering by saying that there ARE endless ways doesn't mean you're OKAY with all of them. That's fine, nobody likes them all, but it's like you have to legitimize that by repeating yet again that he's a bad actor -- one can't stand without the other. That entire list says you didn't like his interpretation, with all of those things he didn't do right. Go look at it.
I am entirely too argumentative for my own good.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I am entirely too argumentative for my own good.
Updated On: 1/16/06 at 12:49 PM
#71
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:26pm
I think whatdoIneedwithlove was being fasetious when she said The actress playing Pam was her favorite. :) I'm pretty sure she wasn't talking about Rosario :)
*Krissy*
**Support the use of illegal wood burning stoves. Get your own metal trash can today!**
#72
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:34pm
AGAIN, I was talking about STAKES. I was giving examples of a way something could be done because there SHOULD be higher stakes. Yes, "should." It's the difference between acing a calculus test or a third grade math test. Which is a bigger deal? THAT's what I was getting at. That essentially a larger transformation makes for more interesting drama, and that while his interpretatiion was believable and legitimate, the stakes of his performance were NOT high. Well, certainly not to me.
Now, that may work for some people. Fine. But I find it to be poor acting. The annoying part to me is that I think he was perfectly capable of doing much better.
And yes, I am okay with even radically different interpretations of Roger. But if there is nothing at stake for Roger, what is so moving about what he goes through? Where is there anything dynamic about his character?
You see, I'm not saying that numb isn't a valid way to play Roger. It is. In fact, I feel like most Rogers, to an extent, are a bit numb. But within that, if we don't see the suffering that comes from it, I don't think we can see that there is much at stake. And what I'm saying is that I didn't feel that Adam was able to show that suffering that is--in some complex way--there with the numbness of his character. For me, I was watching someone going from kind of expressionless to almost kinda sorta grateful. And I think that is a fault in acting, not necessarily interpretation--though that's a very thin, blurred line. Because, as they say, "You're talent lies in your choice."
Now, that may work for some people. Fine. But I find it to be poor acting. The annoying part to me is that I think he was perfectly capable of doing much better.
And yes, I am okay with even radically different interpretations of Roger. But if there is nothing at stake for Roger, what is so moving about what he goes through? Where is there anything dynamic about his character?
You see, I'm not saying that numb isn't a valid way to play Roger. It is. In fact, I feel like most Rogers, to an extent, are a bit numb. But within that, if we don't see the suffering that comes from it, I don't think we can see that there is much at stake. And what I'm saying is that I didn't feel that Adam was able to show that suffering that is--in some complex way--there with the numbness of his character. For me, I was watching someone going from kind of expressionless to almost kinda sorta grateful. And I think that is a fault in acting, not necessarily interpretation--though that's a very thin, blurred line. Because, as they say, "You're talent lies in your choice."
#73
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:38pm
Still subjective, which I think you know -- as in that the stakes can be had in many different ways *via* interpretation -- so, point taken.
On a separate note, I think it's kind of ironic (and surprising) that people aren't placing blame for choices and the like on Columbus, since there's usually so much love for the actors, and so much hatred for Columbus.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
On a separate note, I think it's kind of ironic (and surprising) that people aren't placing blame for choices and the like on Columbus, since there's usually so much love for the actors, and so much hatred for Columbus.
#74
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:47pm
No, that actually occurred to me. The first thing I thought was "I wonder if I would have liked Adam more if Columbus hadn't directed." Or if perhaps April had still died of suicide, not just of AIDS. I found myself blaming Chris for most of the problems I saw, but that's a whole 'nother story, lol.
But I hope what I meant by all those "shoulds" makes more sense now. I was referring to the stakes of a performance, and just suggesting things that I essentially felt would work--things that should be kept in mind; I was not saying that Roger had to specifically be played one way. Now, you may have felt somethng from his performance that I didn't, and that's perfectly valid. If we all saw the same thing, wouldn't life be boring?
But I hope what I meant by all those "shoulds" makes more sense now. I was referring to the stakes of a performance, and just suggesting things that I essentially felt would work--things that should be kept in mind; I was not saying that Roger had to specifically be played one way. Now, you may have felt somethng from his performance that I didn't, and that's perfectly valid. If we all saw the same thing, wouldn't life be boring?
#75
Posted: 1/16/06 at 1:49pm
Lack of emotion in the "I'll Cover You" reprise?? Are you serious??? That part was the most emotional in the movie. It made me cry all 3 times!!!! I thought Jesse was amazing. Y'all know I LOVE Idina Menzel but acting-wise, she wasn't on the top of my list. My list goes like this:
1) Jesse
2) Tracy
3) Wilson
4) Adam
5) Rosario
6) Anthony
7) Idina
Taye -- since he wasn't much in the movie
Even though I listed them, I think the entire cast was great and that there were no weak links! I thought the ensemble worked GREAT together!
1) Jesse
2) Tracy
3) Wilson
4) Adam
5) Rosario
6) Anthony
7) Idina
Taye -- since he wasn't much in the movie Even though I listed them, I think the entire cast was great and that there were no weak links! I thought the ensemble worked GREAT together!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95