RENT SCREENPLAY — Page 7

Novaya, once again, I can see where you're coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree. Roger, Mimi, and Mark are the three most developed characters in the show. While it is more of an ensemble show than most, they are the three leads. And the other five are the supporting characters. That's the way Larson wrote it, and I (personally) think that's the way it should be. While a little more balance (such as there was in the Chbosky version) might be nice, I think cutting characters would be an outright abomination. I don't think I'd go to see the movie if they cut characters. It needs to stay true to Larson's vision, however flawed that might be, and not go too far out of the way to correct that.

---

oo, deep NTG lol. I think Mimi's "death" is a combination of what you said, NTG. I think its an OD, which kills her. But, the angel watching over Mimi sent her back.

That being said, I'm not the biggest fan of the whole "coming back to life" thing. What's that saying? Feel free to do all the drugs you want, Roger's playing a song, so you won't die. lol

"I can't imagine going to see a two hour made-for-the-big-screen movie where the characters sang all but a few words of dialogue."

Worked for EVITA, and that won Madonna and the film a couple of Golden Globes.

normally, that would bring several Evita movie bashing. I am trying to come up with a comeback, but I just can't do it. I love that movie lol

ok, back to topic...

timote, that's why I see it as her going through withdrawal...to me, the fact that she is willing to risk her life to change and get back on the right track is what saves her...she gets a second chance.

Although I did always think her death scene was particularly corny...the hopeless romantic in me still loves it though.

And I'm not saying your interpretation isn't equally valid...just sharing my take on it

Beka, I missed what you said about Mimi being complex and being whittled down in the Columbus version. I agree, but I think if Rosario does a good job (and from what I've seen of her, I thinks he will), I think the character can still be pulled off. After all, the Mimi in the Columbus version still has more depth than show Mimi. I've seen Rent (legally) twice. The first Mimi I saw on Broadway played it as all-out-tough-wild-chick. And I hated it. I had *no* idea why Roger fell for her, or why she got a second chance at the end. Then I saw the tour last year, and saw Jaime Lee, who played it much more like the Mimi in the Chbosky script (and my fics, for whatever that's worth). I liked that a lot more. Daphne is somewhere in between. So I think the moral of this whole long schpiel is that it depends more on the acting than on anything else how well the characters come across...and I have every confidence in the cast.


Wow, sorry that was so long. Am I talking too much? I'll shut up if I am...

---

Updated On: 11/22/04 at 07:59 PM

ok...

What does everyone think of the whole engagement thing?

I personally think it plays too much on modern-day happenings, but maybe its just me...

I was hoping to see the movie just like the Broadway, but I guess that's not going to happen. That really disappoints me, becuase I wanted to see everyone like Adam and Idina sing the songs that once made them famous. Maybe that's just me.

---

Anyone else have a topic to discuss?

---

I am looking for the official eligibility rules for Academy Awards. I was reading the IMDb boards earlier, and they said the "Move On" was originally written for the original Chicago. If that is true, Larson could indeed win an Oscar for a song...

What's in five days? I'm confused...

From the Academy's website:
"An original song consists of words and music, both of which are original and written specifically for the film. There must be a clearly audible, intelligible, substantive rendition (not necessarily visually presented) of both lyric and melody, used in the body of the film or as the first music cue in the end credits."

Now I'm really confused...