RENT Film Set News- Page 2

[Alix]

Posted: 11/12/04 at 11:12pm

I agree with camerangel. There is no reason the interiors can't be shot in San Fran. However, if the exterior shots are not done in NY there will just really be something missing from the film. It is about New York, and I don't see how it could be replicated well enough to really pass as a place as unique as the East Village. Plus, why bother building sets of places that exist?

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 11/12/04 at 11:13pm

For me, were I the director of this movie, I would at least try and shoot much of it on NY. The interiors, I understand could be shot anywhre, no arguments there. Thats just me, Id want it to be as realistic to the piece of work as possible.

In response to the filming of Gangs in NY in Europe, that works because its supposed to be about NY in the Late 1800s (if memory serves, I only saw the movie once and hated it) so they can make the sets anywhere.

It also irratates me that in those few reviews they're like "ROSARIO DAWSON as Mimi!" blah blah. Im surprised they even threw in Adam's name.

[TGIF]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 12:10am

Am I the only one who is all over the place in how they feel about the movie. Thinking back on what I said/thought I first was saying how they should get the OBC, then unknowns, then stars but only if they can handle the roles. Then I was worried about the OBC in it (for many reasons), then I was so excited.

I realized that I posted how I was feeling htat moment, in that current day, and that current mood. And because of that I have no clear opinion! Anyone else feel this way?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 12:13am

Yeah, me too... but you knew that. The whole "half-assed yay" thing. I don't know. I'm just gonna wait and see...

[insomniak]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 12:17am

Exactly like that, TGIF.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 1:27am

I hate it when people say things like:
J Larson would never have approved of his film being shot in California.

Here is my question to you- how do you know? Did you know Mr. Larson yourself?

I am sure that certain people would not have signed on board do such a project had they thought Jon would disaprove.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 1:42am

Mimi, that bothers me too. I get the impression that people who immediately write off ideas and decisions with "Jonathan Larson would never approve" are simply too lazy to come up with their own arguments. Anyway, it's useless to talk about how Jonathan Larson would have reacted to something that may have been inconceivable in his lifetime - unless there are quotes by him delineating his views on these issues. He was a visionary, after all... Updated On: 11/13/04 at 01:42 AM

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 2:42am

::reads through posts:: Did I miss that? I don't remember saying Jonathan wouldnt approve..

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 3:06am

"::reads through posts:: Did I miss that? I don't remember saying Jonathan wouldnt approve.."

Right. We're not talking about you.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 3:24am

I didnt mean me, I just left out the "anyone".

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 3:37am

Look through the first page here, and then search for "Jonathan Larson" in the main engine. It was said here... and you'll find that it's been said about a thousand times this year.

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 3:42am

I do hate that argument.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 11:15am

Here is the thing, my friends who are composers aside from their personal goals of what their music might sound like, all want to be succesful. It's been a while since I read the RENT book, but doesn't it say something to the affect that he dreamt of the day he could quit his job and just live off of the success of his music? He would have wanted as many people as possible to hear his music.

My whole take on the RENT movie is this. I don't care for arguements that RENT should close or arguements that a movie is only an attempt to revive ticket sales, or that the movie should be one way or another. The reality is that its a new fresh interpertation of a wonderful piece of work. No matter how much we want it to, we'll never have the magic of the original months of RENT on broadway. We can argue that RENT is sad, slopy, and "not as good" these days, but I simply have this to say: Every performance is a new one. You can't compare it with the past. You can't hold one thing to anothers standards. We should rejoice that the movie musical is being revived. We should rejoice that more people will hear/see RENT who havent seen it before (and maybe never would) We should rejoice that we'll have a new recording to listen to. We should rejoice that good people have signed on to work on this.

LASTLY:
We should rejoice that once the movie is made there will be more more false rumors or false starts about a RENT movie being made. Justin Timberlake anyone?

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 11:24am

a big AMEN to everything you said, Mimi! Bravo!!

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 11:27am

thank you.

[synchrogirl]

Posted: 11/13/04 at 3:23pm

The location of filming isn't important, capturing the characters, emotions, and being true to the essence of the play are. It's a silly argument, kind of like being bent out of shape that a large portion of Titanic was filmed in Mexico and on sound stages and not on the North Atlantic. ;o)

I think they'll do fine invoking New York whether they film in NorCal or NYC...that's the magic of the movies.

[camerangel]

Posted: 11/15/04 at 1:32pm

I too agree with Mimi.. We all have to keep in mind that all but two of the main characters cast in the movie worked closely with Jonathan Larson. They better than most would have an idea what Jonathan would hope for. With the impact that working with and becoming friends with Jonathan had on many of them I can't see them "selling out". If the script, the concept or the location were really all that horrible, would they have really signed on?

I have high hopes for the movie, but I will have to wait to form any sort of opinion until I have seen it. I'm just trusting that everyone involved will try to make it the best adaptation they can.. Call me an optimist.

Updated On: 11/15/04 at 01:32 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/15/04 at 3:13pm

Unless Jonathan were producing the film, it probably would not have mattered much whether he approved or not. It seems to me, he might be happy that the film is getting made with most of the original cast. How much of Chicago was actually filmed in Chicago? The cost of filming in Manhattan is insane, especially exterior shots. Interiors can be filmed anywhere, but are considered expensive because there is usually a lot more time spent in the lighting and actual camera time. Exterior shots include closing off the streets, for which in Manhattan, is of great expense.

[Agreengem]

Posted: 11/15/04 at 10:08pm

Shooting costs in NYC or SF are comparable. Treasure Island with its own difficulties works because Columbus and company want to work closer to home. Not my money, somebody else's budget but as a New Yorker it would have been nice to have seen the jobs and money spent here... in the end, how the movie turns out is what really matters.

I have worked with Mayor's Office closing down streets for NY shoots and it has never cost a cent as it brings in business. What costs is union labor, equipment, rentals and security for people and property under your insurance.