Rosario singing - Without You — Page 4

*hands Wax Lion a mojito*

(Emcee's too young to drink.)

---

YAY FOR WAX LION!!!!!

---

You go Wax Lion! You may be 3 inches tall and made of wax... but you sure can stand up for yourself in a fight!

---

He's four inches!

---

So Wax Lion, was Rosario called for the part or was it a lark?

And when people began discrediting Daphne here why no defense of her? Daphne IS Mimi Marquez. Mimi's outfits were designed from the clothes that Daphne wore. Without Daphne there would be no Mimi Marquez. And Daphne did it LIVE eight times a week, not as many takes as she needed to get it right. That's the difference between Broadway and film. Yet when it comes time to put "Rent" on film the easy work goes to someone who paid zero dues, has zero Broadway credits, and zero training.

Let me see Rosario do it eight times a week for as long as Daphne did, and as well as Daphne did, then let her have her "lark".

So people read these boards, huh? Do you people ever stop to think that Daphne might read them too? But you're all in a rush to defend some Hollywood starlet out on a "lark" (her words, not mine) and ignore people as they insult Daphne.

And I never said Rosario is an insult. I said auditioning for this role as a "lark" is an insult to the Broadway performers who paid their dues.

Updated On: 8/17/05 at 04:24 PM

Without Daphne there would be no Mimi Marquez.

Oh, please. There you go with your extreme statements again.

If Daphne didn't play it, someone else would have.

How are people insulting Daphne? Simply by trying to embrace something new? By that logic, then every other person to play Mimi on Broadway, on tour and internationally is an insult to Daphne? Please.

People don't just show up to auditions. Maybe she meant she went in feeling unprepared, but I'm sure she didn't just wake up in the morning and say "I think I'm gonna audition for RENT today!" Not that kind of lark. She was called in for that audition.

I keep talking about looking at Rent the show and Rent the film as two totally separate entities; that's the only way to be able to see it without being angry over changes and differences. That said - this is RENT the MOVIE. It's written in blood nowhere, nor carved in stone that these roles had to go to Broadway actors; it's a movie. Rosario is an actress. She isn't Daphne, and she's done no theatre, but she had the right to the part just as much as anybody else did, and she got it, fair and square.

Think logically. Just for a minute. It would do you well.

---

No one here is insulting Daphne or denying the fact that all Mimi's have big shoes to fill because of her performance as the original
but how anyone could anyone make any judgement of Rosario's performance in the film based solely off that bootleg recording?
Could you at least give her a chance until you actually see the movie when it opens?

Yes! I got a "Bangarang!"

---

Updated On: 8/17/05 at 04:32 PM

Slacker,

You're argument is not without merit, but I'm afraid that you cause yourself to go in a very dizzying circle. It seems to me that you are very upset that Daphne is not in the movie. Yes, Daphne was the *original* Mimi, but she is not *the* Mimi. The only "real" Mimi lived inside Jonathan's head. To conclude that Daphne is the "real" deal would discount some amazing performers who have taken on this role, including Rosario. Daphne is a friend of Wax Lion's, and although she starred in RENT on/off broadway for over 2 years and appeared on the cast recording, it doesn't give her exclusive rights to the role. Hell, no one involved with the original production had exclusive ANYTHING. Everyone was just completely satisfied with just working at the time. Nobody knew it was going to take off like it did and still is. Wax Lion has never felt the need to defend Daphne because it was a FACT early on that she wasn't playing Mimi in the movie. She *does* have opinions which Wax Lion is not at liberty to share, but he can tell you that she does read the online boards. What bugs the ****e out of wax lion are staunch fans who make obnoxious assumptions based on something they *think* they know. The movie is a very different entity than the show, and everyone involved has tried to make it's translation as beautiful as possible without losing any of the original vision. And your costuming point? Sure Angela went through some of the OBC's closets for ideas, but it was more or less a budget issue. Few pieces were actually bought the first go-round, and when the show moved downtown with a much bigger budget, things were slightly redesigned. Angela actually *took* Anthony shopping to find his original "Free People" shirt that he still owns. Although Aggie used many of Angela's original designs for inspiration in the movie, everything was redesigned from square one and only a *few* pieces appear that are replica's of the original. The movie version is NOT your same old RENT, and neither are the costumes. From what I gather, you're suggesting that Rosario not wear anything remotely similar to what Daphne wore since she is "THE" Mimi. How ludicrous?! Well, this would discredit about 95% of what the RENT movie is, since there has been a production team in the THOUSANDS that had absolutely nothing to do with the broadway show. In their defense, the very core of their existence on the movie wouldn't be without most of the original cast members, The Larsons and an *AMAZING* director named Christopher Columbus. It was NOT easy work. It was not produced by ANYONE who has paid zero dues, broadway credits or training INCLUDING Rosario. Such comments should make one ashamed. So SHAME on you, Slacker. Shame for discrediting things with your ass on sideways and shame for your points which I find to lack merit. Wax Lion finds Slacker to be the *real* "lark", here and as far as he's concerned, this issue is completely done-in.

Love,
Wax Lion

*applauds wildly*

I'm not discounting any Broadway performers who played Mimi. I'm saying any one of them should have had this role but as usual some Hollywood starlet who doesn't even know the role requires her to sing winds up with the movie credits and the big pay day -- and all "on a lark".

Ridiculous.

Now ask yourselves this; why wouldn't Rosario know she'd be expected to sing in the movie version of a Broadway musical? Because it just didn't matter. The fix was in before she ever auditioned.

I'll wait until the film is released to make any further remarks on her vocal abilities. But by the same token, how are any of the rest of you so sure she's good until the film is released too? If you want to make blanket statements about her abilities based on the sketchy evidence at hand then I can too.

And as to where could she have sung to defuse all of this? The Today Show. Regis Philbin. Any of the publicity spots she's been doing. But she hasn't sung and that can't help but leave me wondering, why not?

And for the last time, Broadway is always ready to accept some "American Idol" version of "talent" to replace real legit Broadway performers, always ready to accept anyone from "Tinseltown" without the credentials, but let a bona-fide Broadway actor try to cross over to Hollywood and we're told they just don't have what it takes for film.

And you people actually believe them.

LOL

PS The argument about acting is acting doesn't extend to singing. If you can't sing live it's glaringly apparent immediately. There's no faking it here like they do on film. Someone mentioned "Chicago" earlier. Good example. Who could have played the role of Velma Kelly better than Bebe Neuwirth? Why wasn't Bebe in the film? Or any of the original cast?

Because Hollywood made another huge payday off the backs of LEGITIMATE BROADWAY PERFORMERS as they froze those performers out. You can heap praise on anyone you like but please don't even try to infer that some neophyte with camera tricks and dubbing on steroids can begin to compare to the genuine article.

spider, honey, be careful - you might break me, I'm very small.

who doesn't even know the role requires her to sing winds up with the movie credits

How are you SO SURE that's what she meant? You know, right?

If the "fix" was in for the audition, or if something like that were to be employed, don't you think it would've been employed with an even bigger star, if it were truly all about the box office? Why not milk the tactic for all it's worth?

But she hasn't sung and that can't help but leave me wondering, why not?

She's required to? To prove it to YOU? Nobody else has gotten their big moment to sing on television yet, either, but somehow that's not an issue for you. Should she come to your home and do a private concert for you, just so you'll shut up?

And for the last time, Broadway is always ready to accept some "American Idol" version of "talent" to replace real legit Broadway performers, always ready to accept anyone from "Tinseltown" without the credentials, but let a bona-fide Broadway actor try to cross over to Hollywood and we're told they just don't have what it takes for film.

And again and again - how can you say that she can't do it - that she's one of "those types" with such conviction?! You CAN'T. Stop going on and on about how it's about the singing, as though you know for a fact that she can't sing. I hate the American Idolization of theatre just as much as you do, but I trust this. I trust these people.

Your posts are illogical, quite dense, and horribly, INCREDIBLY infuriating. This is getting totally out of hand. Wax Lion found the correct term in "dizzying."

---

Updated On: 8/17/05 at 05:50 PM

hooray! *flies*

---