RENT movie garners exactly zero Golden Globe nods! — Page 7

Since Phantom of the Opera could get Golden Globe nods, I think Rent deserve too. At least, Rent is better than Phantom.

"And I am truely sorry it did not deliver for you, Marquise. But to be fair ,could ANYTHING live up to ten or TWENTY years of expectation? I'm just trying to be realistic. I haven't loved the show as long as you, but I told myself not to get my espectations too high, maybe thats why I appreciated the movie for what it was....

No EverythingisRENT my expectations weren't too high at all. I certainly wasn't expecting an epic on the scale of BEN HUR. I went seeing this film with an open mind. I know that in adapting a stage musical for the screen changes are made, that's just a given. Hell, I wasn't even going to let my love for Rosario Dawson blind me. Some of the most highly regarded movie musicals of all time differ from their stage counterparts in one way or the other. But do the changes help or hinder the material is the big question. And in RENT's case, in my opinion the changes hurt it.

I just got back from the 4:05 pm showing of the film. I wanted to at least see it up there one last time on the big screen, for whatever it was worth. I have now seen this film 5 times.

It's not the worst film I have ever seen. Not by a long shot. I guess I just envisioned it differently. Ultimately the stage show is a far superior than this attempt to film it and open it.
I'm appreciative of the effort of the cast, crew and Columbus for making the attempt.

If one good thing comes out of this film at least the core message and Jonathan Larson's beautiful words and music have touched a whole new generation of people.

This is really my last post on the film. For the record I don't have a problem with anybody liking or disliking this film and I'm certainly not dancing a jig that it didn't get any Golden Globe nominations. If anything I was rooting for this film not only to be better but to be an award winning effort like it's stage counterpart.

Well, I think last year there were a lot of movies who deserved a nod more than POTO but didn't get it as well.

Anyway, Golden Globe nod isn't a big deal.

Well, POTO's nod didn't help a lot for its box, did it?

Well, I can't tell. I only know the movie isn't a hit, even it got a nod. So you can tell it helped a lot?

I am not a rent fan. But I think the movie do the justice of the show and I quite like it.

*HEAD.DESK*

---

smartpenguin is gonna wake up in the morning with a shrunken head.

---

MB wrote --

"Isn't being blind sided the same as being delusional?"

Semantics, don't you think? By definition, being blindsided means you didn't see something coming. All indicators were pointing to us getting a much more universally warm reception than the one we got. I've done enough films and plays over the years to recognize when audiences are responding warmly and when they're not. So, no, I don't think I or any of us was delusional. We were responding to the comments and feedback we were receiving.

MB wrote --

"I don't need to contact you privately to share my opinion that the people closest to the production of this film - from the cast to the die hard fans have had a difficult time separating the forest from the proverbial tree. "

I wasn't suggesting you contact me privately. I was just underlining the fact that you facetiously referred to the actors who post on this website without naming me or addressing me directly, as if I wasn't the only one who posts. And the forests and trees appear differently to different people. I have never denied that the film is receiving a divided reception. Are you suggesting that Owen Gleiberman in EW, A.O. Scott in the New York Times, Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter, and the other critics who loved the film, or who praised it, were delusional and didn't see the forest for the trees?

"Perhaps if you had been less dismissive of the naysayers on this board and others who - starting over a year ago - expressed major reservations about the script, the casting, and the production, the overall critical and box office reaction to the finished project would have come as less of a surprise to you. "

You point me to a post in which I was dismissive and I will answer this charge. It was certainly never my intention to dismiss anyone. It has always been my intention to engage in discussions and debate, to stand up for what I believe, and to clear up misinformation and rumors.

Again, the surprise comes from such events as an Academy Award-winning producer I know going out of his way to find me at a screening -- I wasn't aware he was there -- to tell me how much he loved it. He thought it would be a big hit, and right up the Academy's alley. I take people at face value when they say stuff like that. I wouldn't call him a friend; he's someone I've met a few times; and as I said, I would never have known he was there if he hadn't approached me, so he had no obligation to say what he said. That sort of response gave me the impression that maybe we had that kind of reception on our hands. And that response was multiplied many times over.

"I respect the work and effort, and in particular your invested interest in preserving Jonathan Larson's legacy. But I can't help but imagine a scenario ten years from now, when you are really able to look at the film objectively to take it's faults at face value and not personally."

I appreciate you saying this, but I don't take the film's faults personally. I take personal attacks or mischaracterizations of my words and/or intentions and references to being "delusional" personally.

I'll say it again: I understand and accept that there are many people out there who dislike or hate or are disappointed with the film. I got it. I also understand and accept that there are many people out there who like or love it. In both groups, there are Rentheads, and in both groups there are people who never even heard of Rent before. I don't think either group is delusional. I think both groups are filled with people expressing themselves. I do wish that people on both sides would conduct their discussions with more respect for one another.

"Huge finacial Loss", "failure", excuse me but do you all live on another planet ? Last time I checked, those characterizations came with films that made 5-6 million grosses. RENT will make a final tally of $30 million and I don't think it that expensive a film so it can be labelled a financial disaster !"

-- A $30 million dollar profit on a $75-80 million dollar investment (RENT's total budget including advertising) is a huge loss. Enormous.

The film could conceivably turn a profit when International grosses are factored in along with dvd sales and television distribution deals, but as it stands now -- the film is probably one of the biggest financial flops of the year.

Smartpenguin, I'll take that. You have enormous powers! (Hello, Anthony.) Perhaps we shall all now run and hide.

---

Updated On: 12/13/05 at 08:24 PM

I don't know if nobody's responding because Anthony scared them away(I doubt) or if everyone is in the process of responding. But, I think it's time everyone agrees to disagree. Btw...thanks Anthony. Can I give you a virtual high-five or something?

---

I'll send the mini Adam over as soon as I figure out how to mail him.

---