RENT SCREENPLAY- Page 17
RENT SCREENPLAY
YAY#400
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:52pmthat's EXACTLY what i said. idk if larson actually gave rent a time setting, but if we're sicking to the late 80's/early 90's, then gay marriage shouldn't be in the movie. if larson wanted gay marriage, he would have written gay marriage into his original. DON'T MESS WITH THE ORIGINAL!
YAY#401
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:53pmMaybe Taye could sing a new song written by the cast? I don't know, just trying to come up with ideas lol
YAY#402
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:54pm::whines:: WHY CAN'T THE MOVIE JUST BE A RECORDING OF THE SHOW ON STAGE???? THE STAGE SHOW IS PERFECT.
YAY#403
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:54pm
But messing with the original is so much fun!
::continues to look innocent::
It has to be before 2000 because of What You Own.
YAY#404
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:56pm
I know, it's perfect, Beka.
Sadly, things that work on stage do not work on film. Meaning the "Moo" is getting cut. *sobs* Unless they throw it in there for some odd reason
YAY#405
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:57pmIs there not a recording for the archives? I thought they did one of the OBC, but I know very little of the matter so I'm problbly wrong. But if one does exist... lets just use that!
YAY#406
Posted: 11/29/04 at 5:58pm
"It has to be before 2000 because of What You Own."
true. and i'm sure that if what you own was cut (or changed to "we're dying in america/at the beginning of the millenium), rentheads of the world would unite and personally throw columbus off the golden gate bridge.
what you own definitely isn't my favorite song (TAKE ME OR LEAVE ME = MY LIFEE), but i do love it. and i would be very upset if it was cut/changed.
YAY#407
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:03pm
yes, oneblaze, fredi said there is a recording of the OBC in the archive.
fabala - if "moo" (i'm assuming you mean over the moon) is cut, *I* will personally throw columbus off the golden gate bridge. also (we already touched on this before) but over the moon is the launch pad for the entire second act. it is needed for reasons i don't feel like typing again.
YAY#408
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:07pmWhy are we talking about the mooing being cut? It's in the Columbus draft...
YAY#409
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:09pmi have no idea, i'm just defending it cause fabala mentioned it. I HEART OVER THE MOON! (and idina, but lets not get into that)
YAY#410
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:09pm
And I don't think gay marriage should play a part in the movie... I mean I'm not against it, but I think such an extreme topic might turn people away from the movie, and also away from the show itself. So are Angel and Collins that might get married? Thats sort of pointless I think, its so obvious that they are very much in love with eachother (just as long as they don't cut I'll Cover You).
'true. and i'm sure that if what you own was cut (or changed to "we're dying in america/at the beginning of the millenium), rentheads of the world would unite and personally throw columbus off the golden gate bridge.'
And I'd be one of them.. that doesn't even fit correctly in the line. Plus enough is being changed would it really hurt that much to have it take place a couple years ago?
YAY#411
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:12pm
Let me just say that although it wasn't getting as much publicity, gay marriage most definitely *was* an issue several years ago. I remember going to a gay marriage rally when I was in 5th grade. That was back in '98.
Not really advocating for it being in the movie or not being in the movie, just saying...
YAY#412
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:16pm
Yea I know it was still an issue but it HAS gotten to be a bigger issue now than is was in '98. Plus, I live in TX, I just don't want another reason for someone to ban the movie from playing in the state or to throw heavy objects at me while I'm buying my ticket...
YAY#413
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:25pm
Haha!
In that case...
YAY#414
Posted: 11/29/04 at 6:53pm
My thoughts:
- Christmas Bells would work perfectly on screen. One possible way would be to quick edit from one scene (ex. Collins and angel looking at coats, Mimi, Roger and Mark, etc) to another, and then during the "and it's beginning tooooo.. *musical interlude* snow! part, have the camera quickly pan back on an ariel view, thus allowing a huge shot of the vacinity, and then pan in quickly down to a tight shot of Maureen's face.
- Theatre is the "Tell me" medium, film is the "show me" medium. Accepting this, we have to know that something made for one medium won't transfer without some alterations. The film should, ideally, build off of the stage version. While I will probably beat the poor horse to death, I still maintain that Chbosky's original draft is the best way to transfer the point of Rent from one medium to the other. Don't add intentions to the show. The addition of the entire engagement morphs the intented character arcs. I fear the current Columbus script leaves too many options open for expansions of the stage show, and it fails because of it.
- Why morph "songs" (tune up, voice mails, etc) into dialogue, but still retain the form of the lyrics? It's Dr. Seuss with an underscore.
Rent was always intended to be a Rock Opera. While I never met Jonathan Larson, and I don't pretend to be someone who is omnipotent, I do think that the general heart of Rent is missing in the version of the screenplay leaked to us. Now, the script has undoubtedly changed since that draft, so I cannot comment on it too specifically. However, I do think that cutting parts of known material (the opening, for example) is a bad, bad idea. Honestly, I think that if you think a rock opera cannot work as a rock opera on film, then it's already heading in the wrong direction!
- Faces projected onto buildings in NYC. Other tenants dancing on the fire escape during the title song. Losing the point as to who Joanne and Maureen are. These are important failures.
Now, I know Mr. Columbus seems to have his heart and intention in the right place, but with the materials I have seen.. it seems to be lacking. I don't want another "Tommy"! For a musical like Rent to work on film, you have to present it in a way that makes its language - the musical idiom - entirely truthful and acceptable. I'm assuming its planned have a TON of underscore music, which I suppose will help it a bit. But I think the reason the newer musicals have been accepted by the masses is that they are presented over-the-top. Moulin Rouge, I don't even need to describe it! Chicago - it was all presented as segments in Roxie's head. Rent, in this state, is moon-lighting in the literal world. The musical form has to be presented honestly, and without pretension, on film. Things like putting One Song Glory on the roof.... if-fy.
I should add that I "did" find some of the material in the Columbus screenplay fun and humorous. The segment where Mark comments on a voicemail from Mom was quite funny. But, I keep thinking that the best movies ever have a script that is just as high-quality. A movie with a sub-par script, but a fantastic cast and creative team still fails.
Oh yeah, the character descriptions scare me significantly.
Mark: "...He is almost the narrator of the show."
Mimi: "...Gloria Estefan with a touch of Sinead O'Conner."
Benny: "...Wants to be the next Quincy Jones."
By now I've written entirely too much, and probably have come across arrogant and confusing! I'd love to have the chance to get involved with the film (don't see that happening,though) just to have the chance to witness the amazing talents on display - that includes Mr. Columbus. I just feel, as a musical theatre director, this may not be the right script and set of situations to be successful. I sincerely hope I am wrong!
Oh yeah, I still maintain that the show has more of a lasting edge if it's presented with the literal/imaginative juxtoposition. Meaning, it is presented as literal, but we *know* its still a presentational piece. The stage show has actors walk out and tune-up, and we see stage hands moving about. The Chbosky draft had it as a book-ended "making-of." Just my thoughts, take them for what they're worth.
Charlie
magicpiane@kc.rr.com
YAY#415
Posted: 11/29/04 at 7:08pm
Hey Beka, we oughta PM each other's locations if Columbus does cut out those parts. We can go for him together heh heh 
YAY#416
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:12pmAnyone here? Up for a conversation..?
YAY#417
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:15pmTo backtrack a lot, I agree with throwing Colombus off a bridge if Over The Moon or What You Own is cut!
YAY#418
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:19pm
NEITHER ONE IS CUT!
Okay sorry...end of rant. Let's just try not to start unnecessary panic, ok?
YAY#419
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:20pm
THANK YOU IHEART! we should form a some sort of group, and if anything major is cut, columbus is gettin' wet!
members -
me
fabala
iheart
yayy 3!! anyone else?
magic, i read your novel, but i dont have time to respond to it right now. i basically agree with most, but not all, of it, which i promise ill get in to. look forward to it
~ rebecca
YAY#421
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:22pmI'm so glad they're there!!
YAY#423
Posted: 11/29/04 at 9:26pmI've read the second draft, is there a more recent one..?
Videos
