#26
Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:23pm
roquat said it better than I could.
I heart roquat
I heart roquat
What can we attribute to the lack of success ? (RENT MOVIE RELATED) — Page 2
#27
Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:28pm
Competition at time of release; purposely vague marketing technique; poor directoral choices and editing; no sincere attempt to fill in the holes in the story, and in fact creating more. I agree that there was probably no year when this movie would have been well received even without the above problems. Still love it though.
#28
Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:35pm
SorryGrateful- I understand that other movies deal with similar elements, but you have people like Tom Hanks in the ones that succeed. I started off by saying it lacked mass appeal and then went into the content. A lot of people have no interest in seeing a movie musical that has a bunch of people they have never heard of singing songs that they don't know. Add the content to that and it adds up to a not so successful venture.
#29
Posted: 12/14/05 at 8:03pm
Bottom line: most people don't like musicals. Yes, we all do, but even if we all go see this film 15 times in the theater, it will not compare to the sucess of your run-of-the-mill Hollywood blockbuster. Sure, there will be the odd person who is dragged to see it by a RENThead, likes it, and goes again. But these people unfortunately not so common. The sad fact is that most people just aren't interested - and I'm not sure that there's anything we as a community can do about it, other than give our support to those who made the film and others like it and wait for the rest of the world to come around.
#30
Posted: 12/14/05 at 9:40pm
Have you READ any of the threads about this film? Just about ALL of them have gone into discussion about this...
#31
Posted: 12/14/05 at 9:48pm
If you meant that for me, I just want to let you know that I just joined yesterday and haven't been able to read EVERYTHING that has been posted in less than 24 hours. Sorry to be repetitive or annoying, but that's kind of the nature of message boards - or at least the ones I've been on before.
#32
Posted: 12/14/05 at 9:49pm
No, not you. More the person who began this thread.
#33
Posted: 12/14/05 at 9:53pm
Ahh. Yeah, from the other boards where I've poked around, it looks like a lot of that has been going on lately.
#34
Posted: 12/14/05 at 10:06pm
Have you READ any of the threads about this film? Just about ALL of them have gone into discussion about this...
No BroadwayGirl107, they just continue to beat the proverbial dead horse looking for answers where there aren't any.
As if starting a completely new thread is going to provide any new insight.
No BroadwayGirl107, they just continue to beat the proverbial dead horse looking for answers where there aren't any.
As if starting a completely new thread is going to provide any new insight.
#35
Posted: 12/14/05 at 10:31pm
Here's some new insight:
All the socks have been darned!
All the socks have been darned!
#36
Posted: 12/14/05 at 10:33pm
well i'll be
clutch the pearls mary!
i cannot believe it!
hallelujah and praise jeesus!
we can make our way to the promised land after all!
clutch the pearls mary!
i cannot believe it!
hallelujah and praise jeesus!
we can make our way to the promised land after all!
#37
Posted: 12/14/05 at 10:34pm
...with warm feet, too!
Updated On: 12/14/05 at 10:34 PM
#38
Posted: 12/15/05 at 6:48am
I agree with the earlier post that mentions the fact that movie audiences are not that into musicals anymore. CHICAGO was an exception, in that it was actually better than the stage show. I think that is due to the fact that the camera allows for different views and effects that the stage doesn't. The subject matter resembled an old movie, but was done with quite a flair. These allowances worked well for CHICAGO.
However, movie musicals in general are not as popular as they once were, without the added feature that RENT was originally done on stage and a lot of people don't care to see live theatre in the first place or "theatre" in a movie. Compound that with subject matter that a lot of people prefer to ignore.
However much I personally enjoy RENT, both the stage and movie versions, they are definitely two different entities. Going into the movie as a totally new experience, rather than compare it to the stage production worked well for me personally; and in fact, allowed for an interesting discussion afterward about the strengths and weaknesses of the production.
It's a fact that not all movie audiences are interested in certain subject matter as their form of entertainment, including both the musical genre itself; and in the case of RENT, uncomfortable material. It is obvious the publicists are aware of this as evidenced by the way the movie is marketed. The trailers play it up more as a love story between Roger and Mimi, rather than an equally if not more compelling love story between Angel and Collins. Unfortunately, some audiences don't consider the subject matter as relevant as in the 80s. These are the people who either think that AIDS isn't still a problem, or they just don't care to see it included in their entertainment. Whatever the case may be, no movie or stage production is perfect, and people don't all like the same things. That's what keeps life interesting.
Anyway, as far as those people who are tired of discussing RENT go, no one is twisting your arm to read any of these threads. If you are tired of them, just ignore them and they will eventually go away. But in the meantime, allow the rest of us who have not read the other threads to discuss this one.
Movies and stage productions are definitely not always received the same way. In the end, it is just a movie; and hey, thanks to technology and the movie studios need to make as much money as possible on it, you are going to be able to own it in a few months or so, and then watch it whenever you please
. I can't wait.
Sorry to ramble on, but I don't get to read and respond to these things very often.
However, movie musicals in general are not as popular as they once were, without the added feature that RENT was originally done on stage and a lot of people don't care to see live theatre in the first place or "theatre" in a movie. Compound that with subject matter that a lot of people prefer to ignore.
However much I personally enjoy RENT, both the stage and movie versions, they are definitely two different entities. Going into the movie as a totally new experience, rather than compare it to the stage production worked well for me personally; and in fact, allowed for an interesting discussion afterward about the strengths and weaknesses of the production.
It's a fact that not all movie audiences are interested in certain subject matter as their form of entertainment, including both the musical genre itself; and in the case of RENT, uncomfortable material. It is obvious the publicists are aware of this as evidenced by the way the movie is marketed. The trailers play it up more as a love story between Roger and Mimi, rather than an equally if not more compelling love story between Angel and Collins. Unfortunately, some audiences don't consider the subject matter as relevant as in the 80s. These are the people who either think that AIDS isn't still a problem, or they just don't care to see it included in their entertainment. Whatever the case may be, no movie or stage production is perfect, and people don't all like the same things. That's what keeps life interesting.
Anyway, as far as those people who are tired of discussing RENT go, no one is twisting your arm to read any of these threads. If you are tired of them, just ignore them and they will eventually go away. But in the meantime, allow the rest of us who have not read the other threads to discuss this one.
Movies and stage productions are definitely not always received the same way. In the end, it is just a movie; and hey, thanks to technology and the movie studios need to make as much money as possible on it, you are going to be able to own it in a few months or so, and then watch it whenever you please
. I can't wait. Sorry to ramble on, but I don't get to read and respond to these things very often.
#39
Posted: 12/15/05 at 7:58am
Sorry in advance if I repeat anything said. I think the reasons that this movie was not done well was
1)Poor timing, it had no way of beating Harry Potter..I think they should have planned a release when no major movies were coming out, I think that they were way to confident.
2)It wasn't *real* enough. If your going to make a movie about the east village in the 80's, and about drug addiction and HID/AIDS, you need to go all the way. And I think that things were lacking in that area, one that comes to mind is the Cat Scratch Club
3)There were times in the film after certain songs where literally nothing happend for maybe 5 seconds (which is a long time when watching a movie) and you could hear people move in there seats. And you kinda were just like ..whens the next scene coming?..
4)Another thing for timing is that this movie would have been so much better a few years ago, though i'm happy it waited because I only saw the broadway show two years ago for the first time, but it would have had a bigger effect when AIDS was still very new (not that it is any less of a huge deal now, thats not what im saying at all), and when the east village was still a bad place.
i love this movie more then anything, but I think its harder to fall inlove with it if you haven't loved the show. And I think a lot of the new 'movie fans' only really say that they love the movie (and i cant speak for everyone) only because its a musical thats been playing for 10 years and they might feel that they are expected to love it. There are a million and one reasons as to why the movie failed to do well, I was actually thinking about this last night..but it doesn't matter what other people think, as long as you liked it.. just take that with you and be happy that this movie happend at all, bc if it didnt happen, everyone knows what would have happend to rent (the made for tv thing).
1)Poor timing, it had no way of beating Harry Potter..I think they should have planned a release when no major movies were coming out, I think that they were way to confident.
2)It wasn't *real* enough. If your going to make a movie about the east village in the 80's, and about drug addiction and HID/AIDS, you need to go all the way. And I think that things were lacking in that area, one that comes to mind is the Cat Scratch Club
3)There were times in the film after certain songs where literally nothing happend for maybe 5 seconds (which is a long time when watching a movie) and you could hear people move in there seats. And you kinda were just like ..whens the next scene coming?..
4)Another thing for timing is that this movie would have been so much better a few years ago, though i'm happy it waited because I only saw the broadway show two years ago for the first time, but it would have had a bigger effect when AIDS was still very new (not that it is any less of a huge deal now, thats not what im saying at all), and when the east village was still a bad place.
i love this movie more then anything, but I think its harder to fall inlove with it if you haven't loved the show. And I think a lot of the new 'movie fans' only really say that they love the movie (and i cant speak for everyone) only because its a musical thats been playing for 10 years and they might feel that they are expected to love it. There are a million and one reasons as to why the movie failed to do well, I was actually thinking about this last night..but it doesn't matter what other people think, as long as you liked it.. just take that with you and be happy that this movie happend at all, bc if it didnt happen, everyone knows what would have happend to rent (the made for tv thing).
#40
Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:21am
The actual qualitry of the movie had NOTHING to do with the poor box office performance. Ticketbuyers stayed away because:
1. It was a MUSICAL.
2. It was a ROCK musical.
3. It was a rock musical with HOMOS.
4. It was arock musical with COLORED homos.
5. It was a rock musical with colored homos who have AIDS.
6. The above represents the mindset of the majority of Americans - narrow-minded fundamentalist bigots who voted for George Bush.
1. It was a MUSICAL.
2. It was a ROCK musical.
3. It was a rock musical with HOMOS.
4. It was arock musical with COLORED homos.
5. It was a rock musical with colored homos who have AIDS.
6. The above represents the mindset of the majority of Americans - narrow-minded fundamentalist bigots who voted for George Bush.
#41
Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:48am
One local movie go'er, age 49, in Columbia, SC had this to say about RENT: "What do you know....even squatting bums and thieves get AIDS and die. Who would of guessed? And to music too! WOW!"
And then he went on to praise "SAW II" in his respected review. I'll let you form your own opinion there.
Here is another review from our local "village voice" type paper, THE FREE TIMES. It's not "glowing", but does point out a few objectives from someone who had never seen the show:
movie reviews
by James Scott
Bohemians Scoff at Paying Rent
I used to enjoy Broadway shows, but I haven't seen the Tony-winning Rent. If you haven't either, now's your chance ‹ at least via the inevitable big-screen adaptation.
It's problematic to synopsize a musical that would almost qualify as modern opera, excluding a few snatches of dialogue that are spoken instead of sung. Rent bears more than a passing resemblance to Puccini's La Boheme, extolling the bohemian lifestyle of artists over us creatively challenged people who have to work for a living. The plot revolves around a tenement full of friends ‹ many of whom have slept with each other and about half of whom have AIDS ‹ as their cozy, creative lifestyle is threatened by an evil landlord who has the temerity to ask them to pay their ‹ you guessed it ‹ rent.
If people want to shoot heroin and contract AIDS, that's their business. I don't hold anyone's lifestyle against them as long as it doesn't involve sacrificing kittens. But what gets me about these artists is that I hardly see any of them actually doing anything creative, except creatively whine ‹ in song, no less ‹ about how miserable they are and about how their genius is stifled by their landlord (Taye Diggs), who used to be one of the friends until he decided to pay his bills. One character (played by Anthony Rapp) does drag around his 16mm, shooting impromptu song and dance numbers, and I guess there's a certain amount of artistry in erotic dance, the avocation of Rosario Dawson's character. I recall Dawson did some fairly, um, artistic stripping in Alexander and near-stripping in Sin City, but she seems to have lost about 30 pounds in all the wrong places ‹ necessary, I presume, to portray an emaciated heroin addict.
Other than Diggs and Dawson, the only other cast member readily recognizable is Jesse L. Martin, who patrolled for several seasons in Law and Order. If any stars are born of this film, it'll be Wilson Heredia as Angel, the most dynamic screen transvestite since Tim Curry, and Idina Menzel as Maureen, a bisexual determined to protest the friends' impending eviction so loudly that Diggs will be forced to renounce capitalism. Heredia could end up a one-hit wonder like The Crying Game's Jaye David, but Menzel should least get an offer from Saturday Night Live.
Rent is a very handsome film, thanks to director Chris Columbus, known for Home Alone and the first two Harry Potter installments. If you're a fan of the play, it's a must-see; if not, think of it as Friends meets Philadelphia.
The Consensus
imdb.com (users): 7.6 out of 10
Metacritic.com (critics): 54 out of 100
And then he went on to praise "SAW II" in his respected review. I'll let you form your own opinion there.
Here is another review from our local "village voice" type paper, THE FREE TIMES. It's not "glowing", but does point out a few objectives from someone who had never seen the show:
movie reviews
by James Scott
Bohemians Scoff at Paying Rent
I used to enjoy Broadway shows, but I haven't seen the Tony-winning Rent. If you haven't either, now's your chance ‹ at least via the inevitable big-screen adaptation.
It's problematic to synopsize a musical that would almost qualify as modern opera, excluding a few snatches of dialogue that are spoken instead of sung. Rent bears more than a passing resemblance to Puccini's La Boheme, extolling the bohemian lifestyle of artists over us creatively challenged people who have to work for a living. The plot revolves around a tenement full of friends ‹ many of whom have slept with each other and about half of whom have AIDS ‹ as their cozy, creative lifestyle is threatened by an evil landlord who has the temerity to ask them to pay their ‹ you guessed it ‹ rent.
If people want to shoot heroin and contract AIDS, that's their business. I don't hold anyone's lifestyle against them as long as it doesn't involve sacrificing kittens. But what gets me about these artists is that I hardly see any of them actually doing anything creative, except creatively whine ‹ in song, no less ‹ about how miserable they are and about how their genius is stifled by their landlord (Taye Diggs), who used to be one of the friends until he decided to pay his bills. One character (played by Anthony Rapp) does drag around his 16mm, shooting impromptu song and dance numbers, and I guess there's a certain amount of artistry in erotic dance, the avocation of Rosario Dawson's character. I recall Dawson did some fairly, um, artistic stripping in Alexander and near-stripping in Sin City, but she seems to have lost about 30 pounds in all the wrong places ‹ necessary, I presume, to portray an emaciated heroin addict.
Other than Diggs and Dawson, the only other cast member readily recognizable is Jesse L. Martin, who patrolled for several seasons in Law and Order. If any stars are born of this film, it'll be Wilson Heredia as Angel, the most dynamic screen transvestite since Tim Curry, and Idina Menzel as Maureen, a bisexual determined to protest the friends' impending eviction so loudly that Diggs will be forced to renounce capitalism. Heredia could end up a one-hit wonder like The Crying Game's Jaye David, but Menzel should least get an offer from Saturday Night Live.
Rent is a very handsome film, thanks to director Chris Columbus, known for Home Alone and the first two Harry Potter installments. If you're a fan of the play, it's a must-see; if not, think of it as Friends meets Philadelphia.
The Consensus
imdb.com (users): 7.6 out of 10
Metacritic.com (critics): 54 out of 100
#42
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:06am
My belief is that this movie was marketed and released all wrong.
They tried to market this as a "main stream" movie. From watching many of the TV ads you would never have known this was a musical. Other ads were very static and didn't show the dynamic quality of many of the music numbers. It looked like your typical romance or “boring” musical with people just standing around singing. They didn’t do the movie a service by using the opening number with the overhead lights and the cast standing singing on stage in the trailer.
Many movies need time to build as "a cultural phenomenon". They don't burst out on 2500+ scenes. They do a platform release (5 theatres one week, 20 theatres the next week, 50 theatres the following week, and so on). This has worked extremely well for many smaller movies (My Big, Fat Greek Wedding was a good example of this) and to a certain extent Chicago followed a modified platform release. It wasn't in 2000+ theatres until it had developed a cultural consensus that it was an interesting movie to see. A wide release doesn’t allow this to happen. It’s make or break the first week. Most movies without some hook (i.e. horror movies, sequels, etc.) or big stars can’t support a wide release. Also, the marketing of the movie did nothing to build any intrigue or interest in the film which may have helped the wide release (see above).
It’s hard to know in hindsight if a platform release would have worked, but it may have allowed the film to develop some buzz and mystic. This may have allowed the movie to develop better legs for a longer release cycle. This certainly would have helped in combating the Harry Potter juggernaut. I believe there were enough Rentheads to feed this type of release cycle. Keep people excited and let them bring their friends to the movie. Most people that I know (with a few exceptions on this board - your opinions duly noted) either loved or liked the film a lot.
Studios have consistently botched the marketing of niche films. So for my money, this is just another example. Too bad, because this movie (even with its, to my mind minor, faults) really had something to say to people.
They tried to market this as a "main stream" movie. From watching many of the TV ads you would never have known this was a musical. Other ads were very static and didn't show the dynamic quality of many of the music numbers. It looked like your typical romance or “boring” musical with people just standing around singing. They didn’t do the movie a service by using the opening number with the overhead lights and the cast standing singing on stage in the trailer.
Many movies need time to build as "a cultural phenomenon". They don't burst out on 2500+ scenes. They do a platform release (5 theatres one week, 20 theatres the next week, 50 theatres the following week, and so on). This has worked extremely well for many smaller movies (My Big, Fat Greek Wedding was a good example of this) and to a certain extent Chicago followed a modified platform release. It wasn't in 2000+ theatres until it had developed a cultural consensus that it was an interesting movie to see. A wide release doesn’t allow this to happen. It’s make or break the first week. Most movies without some hook (i.e. horror movies, sequels, etc.) or big stars can’t support a wide release. Also, the marketing of the movie did nothing to build any intrigue or interest in the film which may have helped the wide release (see above).
It’s hard to know in hindsight if a platform release would have worked, but it may have allowed the film to develop some buzz and mystic. This may have allowed the movie to develop better legs for a longer release cycle. This certainly would have helped in combating the Harry Potter juggernaut. I believe there were enough Rentheads to feed this type of release cycle. Keep people excited and let them bring their friends to the movie. Most people that I know (with a few exceptions on this board - your opinions duly noted) either loved or liked the film a lot.
Studios have consistently botched the marketing of niche films. So for my money, this is just another example. Too bad, because this movie (even with its, to my mind minor, faults) really had something to say to people.
#43
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:15am
That James Scott review is full of intelligent observations.
He points out what has always been uncomfortable about RENT: that we are asked to accept the wonderfulness and "humanity" of these characters at face value, without their ever demonstrating those qualities before our eyes.
This is about dramatic shortcomings, exposed, magnified, on film, not political. It has nothing to do with empathy for HIV infected.
But take Angel -- a sweet-faced, poor cross-dresser ... who is eulogized late in the story for a loving heart and demonstrated actions we aren't privvy to. All we DO hear about is his cajoling a dog to jump out of a window. Driving a barking Akita to suicide isn't high on most people's list of loving, life-embracing activities, just because the dog was owned by a piggy Republican. (I kinda like Akitas, and prefer my drag queens who are at least pet-friendly--and most are, by the way.)
So we are left to love him because Tom Collins loves him. It's all handed down feeling, not actual, not presented so that WE might love him. On the big screen, it's just music video wash, and we are denied access to the very people we're asked to care about for two hours.
Then, when you add 35 year old actors, rather than fresh faced kids whose vulnerability might help make the characters' case, you have another distancing factor. It's just too arch, ultimately, to pull people in for a universal experience. And don't beat me up -- I love the score.
He points out what has always been uncomfortable about RENT: that we are asked to accept the wonderfulness and "humanity" of these characters at face value, without their ever demonstrating those qualities before our eyes.
This is about dramatic shortcomings, exposed, magnified, on film, not political. It has nothing to do with empathy for HIV infected.
But take Angel -- a sweet-faced, poor cross-dresser ... who is eulogized late in the story for a loving heart and demonstrated actions we aren't privvy to. All we DO hear about is his cajoling a dog to jump out of a window. Driving a barking Akita to suicide isn't high on most people's list of loving, life-embracing activities, just because the dog was owned by a piggy Republican. (I kinda like Akitas, and prefer my drag queens who are at least pet-friendly--and most are, by the way.)
So we are left to love him because Tom Collins loves him. It's all handed down feeling, not actual, not presented so that WE might love him. On the big screen, it's just music video wash, and we are denied access to the very people we're asked to care about for two hours.
Then, when you add 35 year old actors, rather than fresh faced kids whose vulnerability might help make the characters' case, you have another distancing factor. It's just too arch, ultimately, to pull people in for a universal experience. And don't beat me up -- I love the score.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#44
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:32am
I think that it is because the movie came out around the same time as Harry Potter.
- I might be smart
- No day but today
#45
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:35am
Auggie27, mlsheehan, JHartnow - - -
all i have to say is i'm glad you three chimed in.
you three actually brought a new persepective and new insight to the topic.
it was interesting to read all three of your views on the subject.
what a nice surprise.
these are the kinds of thoughts and expressions and ideas and opinions i love to read on a message board.
all i have to say is i'm glad you three chimed in.
you three actually brought a new persepective and new insight to the topic.
it was interesting to read all three of your views on the subject.
what a nice surprise.
these are the kinds of thoughts and expressions and ideas and opinions i love to read on a message board.
Updated On: 12/15/05 at 10:35 AM
#46
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:41am
First, I am going to say that I agree with what has already been said: it came out at the wrong time, the commercials were slightly misleading, the public feels a general apathy towards musicals, and there exists a lack of relevance nowadays for the subject matter, given the seriousness of what happened in the 80s and the actual material, which is musical (and we don't normally picture AIDS and bursting into song going hand in hand...so if they are going to go hand in hand, the "hook" has got to be better and meatier than it was.)
But I am also going to point out something that will probably have Rent-heads up in arms. But so be it. I love Rent as much as the next person, but I am going to say it anyway.
If you look at the review posted in this thread, and if you look at about 90% of the other reviews, you'll notice a similarity in the general critical disdain for this film. And that the disdain lies with the source material; on other words, critics who don't like this movie are NOT saying it is a badly made movie--they are saying that they don't understand why the material is written the way it was written. Roger Ebert didn't care for the lyrics and found them not at all melodic. Other critics (and including Ebert) don't get why all of the characters whine about having no money and then refuse to work, or why Maureen is so popular with Mark and Joanne when she treats them like crap, or why Mimi lives at the end, or why Mimi goes off her AZT... I could go on and on.
My point? This movie is an adaptation of an UNFINISHED piece. And the piece is unfinished because Jonathan Larson died before he could finish it. So there are plot holes the size of canyons in the movie because there are plot holes the size of canyons in the source material. And yes, I understand that Chris Columbus and crew could have "fixed" them, but you guys tell me this... with all the hype and "magic" surrounding the original RENT phenomenon, with the target audience being the huge swarm of Rent-heads, was any director or screenwriter on Earth REALLY going to mess with Larson's story? With his family producing the movie? Was Columbus going to allow Mimi to die at the end (as she should,) or flesh out some of the characters so they don't come off, on screen (not necessarily on stage, but on screen) as whiny and completely illogical? Was anyone really going to screw with the original book, given the manner and circumstances of the death of Jonathan Larson?
I am not saying that the movie was without its own added flaws. But if you ask me, the movie (because it is a MOVIE) simply opened our eyes up to what was wrong with the stage production in the first place. I mean, like I said, I love Rent, but the first time I saw it on stage? I was confused out of my skull. And I could NOT, for the life of me, understand why these characters were making the decisions they were making, and I was ENRAGED that Mimi suddenly sprung back to life at the end when she should have died.
Who knows what would have been, if Jonathan Larson had lived to make the move to Broadway with the show. I imagine MANY things about the production would be different--including the hype and the way it translated to audiences.
But I don't think this film is a failure, and I don't think it is awful, and I don't think will damage the genre for future ventures. I think the studio knew this was not going to be a megahit, but were, in spite of that, HOPING it would be. And it was not a megahit, nor was it a flop. Some people liked it, some people hated it, and reviews were split down the middle. It happens. Wouldn't be the first movie-musical to do only moderate business, and won't be the last.
But I am also going to point out something that will probably have Rent-heads up in arms. But so be it. I love Rent as much as the next person, but I am going to say it anyway.
If you look at the review posted in this thread, and if you look at about 90% of the other reviews, you'll notice a similarity in the general critical disdain for this film. And that the disdain lies with the source material; on other words, critics who don't like this movie are NOT saying it is a badly made movie--they are saying that they don't understand why the material is written the way it was written. Roger Ebert didn't care for the lyrics and found them not at all melodic. Other critics (and including Ebert) don't get why all of the characters whine about having no money and then refuse to work, or why Maureen is so popular with Mark and Joanne when she treats them like crap, or why Mimi lives at the end, or why Mimi goes off her AZT... I could go on and on.
My point? This movie is an adaptation of an UNFINISHED piece. And the piece is unfinished because Jonathan Larson died before he could finish it. So there are plot holes the size of canyons in the movie because there are plot holes the size of canyons in the source material. And yes, I understand that Chris Columbus and crew could have "fixed" them, but you guys tell me this... with all the hype and "magic" surrounding the original RENT phenomenon, with the target audience being the huge swarm of Rent-heads, was any director or screenwriter on Earth REALLY going to mess with Larson's story? With his family producing the movie? Was Columbus going to allow Mimi to die at the end (as she should,) or flesh out some of the characters so they don't come off, on screen (not necessarily on stage, but on screen) as whiny and completely illogical? Was anyone really going to screw with the original book, given the manner and circumstances of the death of Jonathan Larson?
I am not saying that the movie was without its own added flaws. But if you ask me, the movie (because it is a MOVIE) simply opened our eyes up to what was wrong with the stage production in the first place. I mean, like I said, I love Rent, but the first time I saw it on stage? I was confused out of my skull. And I could NOT, for the life of me, understand why these characters were making the decisions they were making, and I was ENRAGED that Mimi suddenly sprung back to life at the end when she should have died.
Who knows what would have been, if Jonathan Larson had lived to make the move to Broadway with the show. I imagine MANY things about the production would be different--including the hype and the way it translated to audiences.
But I don't think this film is a failure, and I don't think it is awful, and I don't think will damage the genre for future ventures. I think the studio knew this was not going to be a megahit, but were, in spite of that, HOPING it would be. And it was not a megahit, nor was it a flop. Some people liked it, some people hated it, and reviews were split down the middle. It happens. Wouldn't be the first movie-musical to do only moderate business, and won't be the last.
#47
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:42am
Marquise,
Thanks for your kind comments. I've stayed out of the Rent brouhaha for a while as the dominance of this board was very annoying, but it seemed time to voice an opinion no matter how belated.
BTW - love your Santa Tom.
Cheers...
Thanks for your kind comments. I've stayed out of the Rent brouhaha for a while as the dominance of this board was very annoying, but it seemed time to voice an opinion no matter how belated.
BTW - love your Santa Tom.
Cheers...
#48
Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:54am
well, i just felt i had to chime in here even though i swore i wasn't going to discuss this film any longer.
crazyfangirl wrote in her post:
"with the target audience being the huge swarm of Rent-heads, was any director or screenwriter on Earth REALLY going to mess with Larson's story?
but they did mess with Larson's story. huge chunk of recitative (which could have easily been converted to dialogue) that explained some of these characters relations with one another as well as a huge portion of one musical number which justified situations that happened during the last quarter of the story were either not used or edited out of the finished product. so, as you say the show was already one that was "unfinished with huge gaping plot holes the size of canyons" then the movie did the show a great disservice by making those holes that much bigger and more glaring, to these eyes at least.
crazyfangirl wrote in her post:
"with the target audience being the huge swarm of Rent-heads, was any director or screenwriter on Earth REALLY going to mess with Larson's story?
but they did mess with Larson's story. huge chunk of recitative (which could have easily been converted to dialogue) that explained some of these characters relations with one another as well as a huge portion of one musical number which justified situations that happened during the last quarter of the story were either not used or edited out of the finished product. so, as you say the show was already one that was "unfinished with huge gaping plot holes the size of canyons" then the movie did the show a great disservice by making those holes that much bigger and more glaring, to these eyes at least.
Updated On: 12/15/05 at 10:54 AM
#49
Posted: 12/15/05 at 11:11am
Yeah, but we knew how they related to each other. That wasn't the issue. The problem critics had wasn't in knowing how they related to each other, but understanding WHY they were making these ludicrous decisions that seemed completely illogical. On stage, these decisions and characters are very immediate and passionate. On stage, characters can make all the assinine decisions they want because it is obviously an operetta (a rock operetta, but an operetta nonetheless) and live, and designed to be melodramatic and not an exact representation of real-life. But on screen? Much different. The material loses immediacy by default, because it is not live, and movie audiences don't want to see melodramatic operetta--they want to see characters who are supposed to be real. These characters were never meant to be real; they're like walking metaphors.
As someone said (or kind of said) earlier, there are issues with the characters that make them lovable to rentheads, but slightly inaccessible to the general non-musical-theater-loving public. For example, what is Angel's redeeming quality? He's supposed to be the hero, but his biggest accomplishment in his big introduction number is getting a dog to plummet to its death. Not really heroic. Why is Benny the assh*le because he bought the building and doesn't want homeless people living on his street? Would YOU want homeless people living on your street? And if someone offered YOU a place to live rent-free? You would probably take it. Collins rewires the ATM at the food emporium, which is completely illegal. And why? He has a job. He teaches computers and then wonders why his students are more interested in computers than going outdoors? Well DUH. And why don't the rest of them work instead of whining all the time?
Yeah, songs and dialogue were shuffled around, but nothing MAJOR was added or erased from this movie, and that is my point. In MY mind, for this to translate well to a general audience unfamiliar with Rent, some MAJOR MAJOR changes needed to be made to the material to make it not only acessible, but relevant. And that was never going to happen.
As someone said (or kind of said) earlier, there are issues with the characters that make them lovable to rentheads, but slightly inaccessible to the general non-musical-theater-loving public. For example, what is Angel's redeeming quality? He's supposed to be the hero, but his biggest accomplishment in his big introduction number is getting a dog to plummet to its death. Not really heroic. Why is Benny the assh*le because he bought the building and doesn't want homeless people living on his street? Would YOU want homeless people living on your street? And if someone offered YOU a place to live rent-free? You would probably take it. Collins rewires the ATM at the food emporium, which is completely illegal. And why? He has a job. He teaches computers and then wonders why his students are more interested in computers than going outdoors? Well DUH. And why don't the rest of them work instead of whining all the time?
Yeah, songs and dialogue were shuffled around, but nothing MAJOR was added or erased from this movie, and that is my point. In MY mind, for this to translate well to a general audience unfamiliar with Rent, some MAJOR MAJOR changes needed to be made to the material to make it not only acessible, but relevant. And that was never going to happen.
#50
Posted: 12/15/05 at 11:24am
well i do undersatnd where you're coming from. and i definitely agree with most of what you wrote.
you wrote that critics had a problem with "...understanding WHY they were making these ludicrous decisions that seemed completely illogical...
and i agree with that. i happen to think one of the things that attributed to this lack of understanding was the decision to cut most of GOODBYE, LOVE out. and this is just one example that i believe hurt the movie.
you wrote that critics had a problem with "...understanding WHY they were making these ludicrous decisions that seemed completely illogical...
and i agree with that. i happen to think one of the things that attributed to this lack of understanding was the decision to cut most of GOODBYE, LOVE out. and this is just one example that i believe hurt the movie.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95