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

[rowers unite]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:37pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:37pm

*HEADDESK*

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:38pm

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

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:39pm

this board is making me extremely sick of anything having to do with RENT. the movie. the songs, the stage show, the cast, jonathan larson...just EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING IS NOT RENT.

STOP. JUST STOP IT!

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:41pm

Reason 1: Crabby People on chatboards complaining about it.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:42pm

does this really need to have its own thread? did you SEE what happened in the other thread?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:42pm

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*

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:43pm

pobrecita emcee...

stop doing that to your noggin muchacha...

[Atrias]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:44pm

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

[rowers unite]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:46pm

My intentions are not to bash the movie, I loved the movie, and have nothing but respect for the people who made and stared in the movie. I believe this was an honest question, a valid question….

If this movie was remade a few years from now or conversely a few years ago would it have been regarded differently

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:47pm

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*

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:49pm

there are a million-and-one threads (trust me)...couldn't you just sit back, do a nice search and read up...


and let this confounded thread die the death it so richly deserves...

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:53pm

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.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:58pm

I find it funny that 12 posts before me here are complaining about the complaining they've done about people who come on here to bash the movie -- or predicting the bashing of the movie -- and yet no one has bothered to come onto this thread and actually DO that. It's so self-perpetuating that it just makes me laugh.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:59pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:00pm

'cause it's inevitable. Obviously so. This thread isn't going to magically ward it off; the same thing has happened in 8 BILLION other threads.

*head explodes*

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 07:00 PM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:02pm

*sigh*

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:07pm

*picks up pieces of em's head and places them in a Ziplock bag*

*places bag in freezer so they'll stay fresh for later reassembling*

[roquat]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:07pm

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?

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:13pm

Everyone repeat after me:

It's just a movie.

It's just a MOVIE.

Good or bad, there are lots of movies that aren't huge successes. Get a grip and enjoy it while you can and while it's still in theatres.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:13pm

thank you roquat for actually responding to the post title.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:15pm

yeah thanks for repeating everything that's been said only a thousand times over on a gazillion other threads on thsi board.

NO NEW LIGHT SHED

[michelle4]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:18pm

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.

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:22pm

Heaven help me, here goes:

They waited way too long to make the movie (though some would argue that it would have never gotten made pre-"Chicago")

It was poorly directed. Columbus discovered very little in the material and chose to shoot it rather bland and boring. Living with HIV/AIDS, drug addiction, etc was not glamourous in the late 80's (nor today). Where was the grit, the real heartache, suffering, etc....things that would make more dramatic statements and a more compelling film.

There was nary an original, new cinematic idea to really bring the story to life. There were questionable choices in adding/subtracting things from the musical.

They should have taken an arthouse approach, and not make it such a big screen 'extravaganza'. It would have played better as a smaller, more intimate film.

Oh, and did I mention bad choice of director?


[let the pelting commence]

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 7:23pm

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