Broadway Legend Joined: 10/6/04
when in the lyrics to What You Own they talk about the end of the millennium... i'm pretty sure that' not 89, right? and Entertainment Weekly pointed out that in the lyrics when they mention Thelma and Louise... the movie came out in the 90s... so... why did they choose to change the year to 89 for the movie.. just wondering
Because that's what the powers that be decided. After much thought, for many reasons. I mean, can't we just be at peace with their decisions by now? It's been over a month since the movie hit the screens, and MANY months since people started hearing about the choices.
Yes. Thelma and Louise being in the lyrics creates an anachronism. Oh. Well.
How is 11 years away from the end of a MILLENNIUM not almost there? The first part of Angels in America is titled "Millennium Approaches," and it's set around 1985. A THOUSAND years. 11 is not a hell of a lot in terms of a thousand. That's sure as hell the end if you ask me.
I'm sorry, but I'm just so irritated by the fact that this movie has now come and gone, and people still can't just handle the fact that decisions were made and that's the way they are. Can't we just accept them yet?
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
This movie came and went even quicker than I expected.
Your title should be:
"why was the RENT movie made?"
That would be more appropriate.
Em, the beauty of art is that it remains. Ever to be enjoyed or questioned or adored, for all eternity, or until it is in fact "lost."
The movie is not lost, those who enjoy it will, those who question some of the shoddy decisions will as well.
The creators must have known that making the decisions they did would create controversy. The choice had many reasons I am sure, and hopefully the DVD will explain them.
ETA: I see I must disassociate myself, once again, from some "others."
There is no need for the ridiculous bashing this movie gets, I know many love it obsessively and some hated it. I have no patience for those who come simply to bash, and no patience for those who refuse to discuss the flaws of the film at all.
I truthfully think that ANY choice they could've made WHATSOEVER would've generated controversy. If the movie had been nothing but a cinematic release of Lincoln Center's video of the OBC, people would've had what to say about THAT, too.
No, it's not dead, and it will remain, but this has just been discussed. to. death. At this point, I'm just like... it's imperfect, deal with it. The why's don't matter anymore, because that's the way it is. For all eternity.
there is no one in the world who could've made a movie version of RENT that everyone would be happy with. Yes some of the mistakes and decisions bother me but I'm just happy it will be around for me to pop in my dvd player whenever I need to watch the "La Vie Boheme" scene.
No one has answered Eatlasagna's very legitimate question. Saying they did it "after much thought, for many reasons" doesn't tell me anything.
To answer this question very specifically, my understanding is that the filmmakers wanted the date to best reflect the main concerns of the story - AIDS and the East Village riots and gentrification. Since RENT was written over the course of several years, none of them fits *exactly,* but 1989/1990 seemed the best compromise to them.
By the way, although everyone talks about 1989, the *year* of the story really only includes one week of '89. The rest is 1990.
Basically, the AIDs epidemic was more profound in 1989 and Columbus felt setting the movie at that time would be more appropriate for the story. It worked and didn't work.
Well, I can't claim to be privy to the thought process. But the things they considered included what might end up being anachronistic, LIKE Thelma and Louise, as well as the time frame for the spread of AIDS, the conditions of the East Village, the availability of AZT, etc. Obviously, very few people on this board can provide much insight into the exact process of why what was chosen, but I'm SURE it was addressed on the blogs, somewhere. (rentmovieblog.com)
The fact that the show doesn't have a specific year, but rather an in-limbo time *frame* made the anachronistic stuff able to slide. Any year that could've been chosen might have posed a problem in one or more of the above categories.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What can I say?
I wish they had just chosen not to set it in a specific year, just "in the 90's"
The "why's" always matter to me.
I just think there has always been an effort on both sides to quash real discussion of this movie. I think that attitude is unhelpful and in many cases inapropriate.
Certainly there will always be controversy around these decisions.
And many people are just trying to stir up trouble. Yet often the questioning is from an honest and heartfelt place.
None of this is specific to the RENT movie, and questioning the director's vision is a common thing. Just because there is no "answer" and we can't change anything doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/6/04
geez.... some people... i was just wondering why it was set in 89... damn... i didn't even make a comment about the movie itself and if i did or didn't like it (i did actually)... can some people accept the fact that people like me just want to know??? damn again... or that some people (regardless of the movie) will always be bugged by these types of things??? it doesn't make or break a movie for me... it's just one of those "why didn't the creative team catch that" mistakes that we so often see in movies...
and FYI... the song to me is about the END of the millennium... which to me is NOT 89... but if you're APPROACHIN the millnium... than 89 would make sense...
Now on that "end of the millenium" thing, I agree with Emcee totally. 11 years is just as accurately "the end" of a thousand year period, as four or five.
Well, clearly Mr. Larson thought that his time frame was near enough to the end. Who knows? Maybe if he were around to make the movie, he would've dictated that it should have been set in 1992.
Surely the creative team *did* catch it, but had to make the best choice they could given the problems. It wasn't going to be perfect, no matter what. Why? Because. I guess they decided that the Thelma and Louise thing would just have to slide, for the sake of the big picture.
Like I said, I'm fairly sure this is addressed by the cast/creative powers themselves on the Rent blog. Unless one of us is an actor or otherwise made this movie, you're looking in the wrong place if you want specific answers.
We could sit here and study the timeline for the availability of AZT, and how likely it would be that people like Mimi and Roger could get it in 1989, or we could try to find out when the East Village would most likely be as it should be in Rent, but the fact of the matter remains that if one fits, another is going to contradict.
I'm sure they didn't just pull 1989 out of a hat.
I'm sorry, but 1000 years is a helluva long time. 1% of the millineum is left, for god's sake, that's definitely a short enough time period to be referred to as "the end". Give it up.
It was set in 1989 because the film makers thought that having the East Village riots, AIDS epidemic and pre-gentrification of NYC in the correct time period was more important than changing the entire movie's timeline because of one line with a movie reference.
I tend to think that the movie exists in it's own universe. In the world in which Mark, Roger, et all are existing the film THELMA AND LOUSISE had come out before 1989.
(That is honestly how I deal with this type of junk that is meaningless to the overall story.)
I second smartypenguin's notion. Plus, as someone pointed out in another thread, Mark at least clearly knows about La Boheme. Surely the characters would have realized they were living out the opera to the T in their own lives. Maybe it was a fun comedy in their universe lol
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/7/04
Who. Cares.
This is not remotely important. You will never be happy if you say you won't be. It's just a movie. It's not even a bad one. In every detail of your life, there will be discrepancies.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/27/05
This is not remotely important.
It's no more or less important than any other thread on this board.
I like penguin's thought, too. i also think that since the music is overwhelmingly 80's, it makes sense to have it set in the 80's. Since the show never pinpoints a year, i always assumed it was the 80's, anachronisms notwithstanding.
I always thought of Rent being set in the mid 90s, just because that's the time frame I think of the show in, since that's when it was created. True, there is no year pinpointed in the show. It leaves things a little more vague. Maybe they should have just left the year out of the beginning of the movie. But who cares that much? I don't. I wondered why they set in 89 though too.
Broadway Star Joined: 10/22/05
A millenium is 100 yrs not 1,000.
Swing Joined: 1/2/06
Wow. You are really wrong! A century is 100, millenium (mill means 1,000) is 1,000 years.
Videos