What can we attribute to the lack of success ? (RENT MOVIE RELATED)

Sorry for yet another Rent movie thread, yet this question has been playing in my head for some time now: What can once account the, I hate to use this phrase, lack of success of this movie?
Before you answer this question, please “it just sucked” isn’t a valid excuse; there are other threads for that.
Could it be that general audiences were just not ready for this type of movie to be made? Or was is the hesitation of this movie caused by political ramifications? I’m not an American citizen so, and I do not pretend to know the politics of the United States; however I think this has a lot to do with it…

Anyone else?

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 06:37 PM

There has GOT to be a dent in that desk now!

Reason 1: Crabby People on chatboards complaining about it.

---

More like a crater, BSo.

Look. I'm sure there are like 1000000000000001 reasons why things turned out the way they did: subject matter, lack of star power, timing, WHATEVER. But even if not the intention, this is only BEGGING for an excuse to bash the movie even more.

*headdesk*

---

Em, forget about the desk, I'm worried about you cracking your skull!

I know that. And that's what I said -- I'm sure your intentions were wonderful. But you're basically inviting people to talk about how awful it was.

Nevermind. It's here.

*lays head down peacefully*

---

All of this crap on this board, frankly, is making me not want to see it. Can we just move on? Please? Yes, it is crabby, but there's a limit to how much the sane ones on this board can take.

---

I guess we're all just anticipating whats to come.

---

*sigh*

---

As sanely as possible--

The film was made too late. The time period it depicts (late '80s) is far gone. The effect is similar to what happened when "Hair" and "The Who's Tommy" (also wildly popular pop phenomenons that had run their course) were filmed.

Chris Columbus is extremely literal-minded and unimaginative. He shot the movie in an impersonal style that failed to draw in an audience and was often confusing. While individual sequences ("Tango Maureen" and "La Vie Boheme" for me) were brilliant, the overall effect was alienating. Remember when people complained about the fast, MTV-style editing of "Chicago" and "Moulin Rouge"? You couldn't make that same complaint about "Rent"--the camera just SAT there, statically, for AGES.

Yes, the cast was brilliant ON STAGE. That doesn't always translate. Jesse L. Martin, Tracie Thoms, Rosario Dawson, and Wilson Jermaine Herida were the only ones who came across on film. Adam Pascal had no charisma; Idina Menzel had far too much (in closeup).

Realistic details were not this film's strength. Everyone looked too old, too healthy, too robust, and too middle-class. No one looked on the verge of death.

Was that restrained enough?

---

thank you roquat for actually responding to the post title.

---

I think that it just lacks mass appeal. Plus,it deals with subject matter that unfortunately, makes much of this country uncomfortable. It wouldn't have worked 10 yrs. ago and sadly it probably wouldn't work 10 yrs from now.

michelle4 -- There are a lot of movies that deal with controversial and uncomfortable areas of life and they aren't always flops. I don't think America is perfect in its openness at all, but give us some credit.

edit: I guess my point is that I don't think it's always legitimate or accurate to jump on the "America wasn't ready for this" bandwagon for every little thing.

---

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 07:23 PM