Talk:Rent (musical)

Definately a disambiguation -- "Rent" would be an important economics article, for classical and socialist theories, as well as many others. -- Sam

There is a disamiguation for "rent" and "Rent". It only redirects to the musical page if you search "RENT" in all-caps, which is fairly appropriate since that is how many Rentheads distinguish the work.

(One set of new comments had been incorrectly placed well above EARLIER comments, which is not appropriate for a Talk page. Please note that "I don't get it" and its replies have not been deleted, but simply moved to their chronological place in the discussion. --Lawikitejana 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Needs cleanup

The plot summary is much too long and rambling. A concise summary with spoiler warning would be optimal. I have not seen the musical, so if someone else is ready & willing to do it, I would appreciate it. After an acceptable amount of time, I'll do it myself, the necessary information is already contained within the article, it just needs to be hunted down & gathered. -- Zenosparadox

(Note: I have restored Zenosparadox' original comments of 6 November 2005. For some reason in May, 2006, the same address User:70.185.191.59 was used to vandalize the paragraph twice and then was used to replace the blatant vandalism with three more subtle changes: (1) Renaming "Needs cleanup" to "The Best Musical Ever," (2) Changing "The plot summary is much too long and rambling" to "The best summary is not too long," and (3) "I have not seen the musical" to "I have seen the musical." These changes have gone unnoticed until now, but while I was going through the history and fixing things, I figured I'd restore this. I've made a note so that no one thinks I'm vandalizing. --Lawikitejana 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

I shortened the plot synopsis - does the new version work? ewok37 06:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the touch ups ewok37 06:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Good stuff. --Zenosparadox

Still a bit too long and gives away quite a bit. Yeah, there's a spoiler warning, but the entire play shouldn't be put up there--people might actually want to see it, y'know. And there's a bit of grammatical issues that need fixing. 158.123.178.2 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away a lot, as long as there's a spoiler warning -- I actually came to the page to try to find out the ending. Maybe there could be a non-spoiler summary as well as a complete one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.7 (talk) 7 February 2006

I just seriously edited the plot summary, including reworking a bunch of the Act Two summary. Better than it was, I hope? Hbackman 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of despoiling the intro to the article ("Spoilers End Here" is somewhat painful, and hard to avoid if you really are trying to avoid spoilers) I've moved the character summary down into the plot synopsis, which consolidates the two spoilery sections. I think it still reads pretty well this way. -- Metahacker 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The plot summary is still too long, to the point of being too much to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.48.180 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nederlander information (heading added Sept 2006)

The opening comments imply it opened at the Nederlander which is incorrect. it opened and ran at the NYTW before moving uptown. Facts should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.175.73 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the introduction, but on the whole a section about the NYTW should be added since it was a very significant part of the musical's history. I think a noting of the original NYTW cast as well as a track listing is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hours (talk • contribs)

Too critical?

I really enjoyed it. It was vibrant, moving, original. The songs worked at many levels (as did the staging, and other aspects) and I especially appreciated the social/economic criticism (love the song on living in America at the end of the Millenium, as well as the homeless interventions on Christmas). Yet I was disappointed that while it was one of the first representations of LGBT characters on Broadway, the gay (male) love story is ended by death while the equally HIV-infected heterosexuals (Roger & Mimi) don't have their love story shortened in this way (though the threat looms). I know, another reading is possible: the romantic value of the gay relationship is elevated (made equal?) to that of Mimi's in Puccini's La Bohème through Angel's death (and heterosexual sympathy is aroused perhaps, and possibly equal respect for such relationships); also, the lesbian relationship doesn't end in this way. RENT was written when AIDS was a death-sentence, not a chronic, manageable illness as it is today (*if* you have access to meds and aren't fighting a secondary disease or condition like addiction or homelessness), so someone dying is inevitable (and in keeping with operatic tradition). Perhaps it was meant to honor, recognize, publicize the number of gay men who had died due to AIDS-related complications from the early 1980's until RENT's production in the mid-1990's. Yet, as a gay man living with AIDS, I admit I felt cheated after an initial flush of pleasure at *finally* seeing something on stage that didn't require me to translate culturally or romantically. Why couldn't Mimi (or Roger) be the one to die? Not to mention other questions I had... Was Angel's relationship with another man palatable because he did drag and the presumably majority-straight audience could sustain a fiction and avoid the reality that this was a male-male love relationship? Or was it more radical because of this? Does it simply reaffirm gender stereotypes (and assumptions about same-sex relationships that they must parrot these terms) or upset them completely? I don't know... Perhaps I'm just too critical or thinking too much about it. I know, being starved for representation affects this for me. I also know it's a work of art, not a political statement (or, rather, not solely a political statement, and not necessarily one that must support any of my pet ideologies, though it comes close).  :) No matter; I would see it again and recommend it to others. -- Kamal

I sincerely doubt that the fact Angel dies and not Mimi or Roger is somehow a statement against gays. In the 80s, the Reagan era in NYC, AIDS was a serious problem for gays, heteros and drug users alike. The purpose of Angel's death in the play is to illuminate the fact that Collins and Angel had the purest love of all of them. They admitted openly that they had AIDS, that they loved each other, and that they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Mimi and Roger spent too much time doing this complicated dance around each other because they were too closed up. Angel's death was necessary to shed light on their petty problems. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were gay and Roger and Mimi were straight. Megan 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Kamal that one of the reason that Angel dresses in drag is to make it understandable to heterosexuals that male-male love is just like male-female love by having one of the men equate himself to women. Fllmtlchcb 08:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The death of Angel is to illustrate a point- Angel was arguably the most vibrant and loving character who introduces the rest of them to the "No Day But Today" lifestyle. He (or she) lived life to the fullest. I think it was almost a tribute to LGBT relations that Collins and Angel were considered the most pure and true love out of the three couples- shown throughout the text in lines such as "I'd be happy to die for a taste of what Angel had- someone to live for, unafraid to say I love you!" and more.

Her (or his) death was to show someone who lived life to the fullest, who lived with the thought that just because they were dying didn't mean they were dead, and Angel lived it up until the last possible moment (in the movie, her nails were painted like always, she smiled, etc.; and in the musical, she sings her "Today 4 U" song in her final moments). Angel was really the most beloved character with the best heart- yet AIDS can make anyone a victim, and it took some of the best and brightest. In the original La Boheme, Mimi did die- but Jon Larson said himself that he had Mimi survive because he wanted his play to end with life, not death.

--Julia528 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, eventually, they'll all die. angel wasnt the first. seriously.Dragon queen4ever 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that "Since its first run on Broadway, "Rent" has caused over 15,000 people from all walks of life to claw their own eyes out in despair and then jump into oncoming traffic." is not exactly part of RENT's cultural impact.

Nope, it's called vandalism. Thanks for removing it, and why not go ahead and sign up for a user account? It's a lot of fun! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fun, well that is EP's POV of courseJayKeaton 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rent had a huge cultural impact. Rent, which is one of Broadway's longest running musical teaches its audiences over and over again about taboo subjects such as AIDS and homosexuality. It focuses on tolence and acceptance of everyone. This play/movie (although much better play ... if I could add on) opened up new avenues for many people by introducing them to support groups, encouraging them to learn about the AIDS virus, attend seminars. Also, in the movie, people see a variation from the original Broadway play, where the characters Mimi and Maureen get married. There "wedding" is broken up when they decide to split up, but one can see the political comentary of this director, struggling with the real life controversy of approving gay marriage.

Anyways, thats just my 2 cents, everyone feel free to add on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.230.39 (talk)

Something I was thinking as I looked on the page is that I would have liked to see some information on Rent's reception. Obviously, the show covers some controversial topics and viewpoints, which I'm sure must have attracted some praise/criticism, and I think "cultural impact" is a good place to put some information. Anyone have an opinion on this? Theaterdude88 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the information that would go under cultural impact is mentioned in the introduction right now, but it should be discussed more thoroughly in the "Cultural impact" section too. --Drenched 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Schulman

The charges she lists on the source (Slate.com) seem somewhat vague. Is this factual enough to be included? Perhaps someone who has read her book (Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America) could elaborate?--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.146.219 (talk) 11 December 2005

I haven't read the book, but her charge is overstated regardless. She told Slate, " The gay part of Rent is basically the plot of my novel, but with a slight shift. [Larson] has the same triangle between the married couple and the woman's lover, but he made the straight man the protagonist, whereas in my version he was the secondary character." Or perhaps, Jonathan Larson is telling a different story? One told from a different point of view? Nevertheless, I can't evaluate the claim that "there are scenes in Rent, and events in Rent, that come right out of my actual life, via the novel." To clarify the accusation, just before it I added information about plot elements taken from La Boheme and from actual events in the East Village. I also deleted the word "significant" from the accusation. Even if you were to grant that the accusation is true, and say Larson lifted the Mark-Maureen-Joanne love triangle from Schulman, ultimitely it's just a romantic subplot that comprises not more than two songs (Tango Maureen and Take me or leave me). mike 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Angel

Throughout Wikipedia's articles about Rent, I have seen instances of male pronouns being used for Angel. Angel is a woman in mind, and that overrides her male body. Please try to fix this wherever you can.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Devahn58 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2006

Angel may have been a gender-bending, drag-queen kind of man, but he was still male. Rent itself acknowledges this. For example, this exchange from the song Goodbye Love - "At least now if you try, Angel's death won't be in vain. - His death is in vain!" Note use of the masculine pronoun. While feminine pronouns can certainly be playfully used to refer to Angel, their use on Wikipedia is unnecessarily confusing to people who are not familiar with Angel's character or with Rent in general. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be thinking too much about, you know, a fictional character, but Angel identified as a female. While Goodbye Love refers to him/her several times as "he", during the funeral s/he is referred to as "she". Also, Angel would be Collins' queen, implying femininity. It's a tricky part of dealing with transvesteded people, but since this is a Wikipedia article dealing with a fictional person, let's go with "he" to avoid confusion.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.119.42 (talk) 15 January 2006

Please discern the facts from the story. We know Angel thought of himself as a woman in the story, but, in fact, he was male. The previous two repliers make good and valid points as well.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by No1cubfan (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006

Collins also comments "And you should hear her beat" at the beginning of "Today 4 U", even though during "Goodbye Love" he says "I can't believe he's gone." Apparently even in the lyrics there is no agreement on the proper pronoun for Angel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.141.188 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

What happened?

the summary is ok, I guess... but there are TWO acts in rent, so where is the summary of the second act? The pointer outer 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea if this is really what was intended, but when I read it I asked myself the same thing and figured it was this way to simply provide a teaser communicating the basic idea of the play and creating a longing for more, presumably to get people to watch it. On second thought, that may not be the right way do to it on an encylopedic entry (as opposed to promotional material). Michael%Sappir 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that bit, clearly labelled both acts, and added an expand tag. Turnstep 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

how to cite bonus DVD?

In the section on Rent's creative process, it says, "... until one lone voice said "Thank you, Jonathan Larson," which broke the spell[citation needed]." This fact was mentioned on the bonus DVD that came with Rent, the movie. There was a documentary on the creation of Rent. How would one go about citing that source? Robin Chen 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea.. but it was mentioned on the No Day But Today documentary in the Without You segment.. I dont remember who was first talking about it.. I'll have to check and see...

There's a template for it: Template:Cite_video. My understanding is that features on a DVD count as films in their own right, so just include the name of the documentary etc. -- Metahacker 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Casts

About the organization of cast lists: I think there should be a separate section for casts, and include both the OBC and the current broadway cast in it as subheadings. The current setup is a tad illogical. Also, I think the cast section should include celebrity cast members and replacement cast members as well. i.e.:

Cast section

*OBC

*CBC

*famous people who were in rent ever

*replacement broadway casts (this maybe too long, but they pull it off on the Wicked site)

*possibly tour casts

what do you all think? Drenched 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Drenched

I changed my mind; now I think the article should only include the OBC and the current Broadway cast because it already has too many long lists. There are so many tour/international casts that I don't think cast lists of those productions should be included. And over the years, so many people have been in the Broadway production that I'm feeling wary of making a replacement cast section due to length and organizational messiness. What are your opinions of what cast lists should be included/excluded? --Drenched 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's such a big section, maybe split it into its own page, and just keep the OBC cast in place. That way the casual reader gets a little bit of info, and folks that want more detail can click through to it. -- Metahacker 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that could work. Do you know of any other musical theatre article that does this? Or, I know there are some external sites that have pretty comprehensive lists of previous and touring cast members like [1] (although I don't know how reliable it is...probably not that reputable). And there is another site whose link I can't find right now that has the cast list of every single show on Broadway until pretty recently. Maybe we can link those sites as a "see also" type deal in the cast section? --Drenched 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Organizing sections

I think we have somewhat redundant sections (i.e. the introduction, theatrical run, cultural impact). Could we perhaps just have a general "History" section that would include 1. Creative process 2. Theatrical Run 3. Impact all in one place instead of scattered all over the article? Also, I think the contents of the Trivia section right now is basically the same as in cultural impact. Couldn't we more explicitly just have a section called "References to Rent in Pop culture" or something that would just take care if it all? Then trivia could be reserved more for stuff like "Hey, Taye & Idina are married, awesome!" What do you guys think? Drenched 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Drenched

I don't get it, somone please explain, seriously

This unsigned comment was moved on 17 September 2006 from the top of the page to its correct place in the chronology of the discussion, and the correct attribution for the unsigned comment was added.

I watched the movie "rent" yesterday. It was the movie version, but I have heard that that was fairly unchanged from the original (Is that true?).

And, I can't NOT understand how it was ever popular!? Is the stage version so different in plot from the movie?

The story is basically a bunch of ungrateful twerps who think the world owes them something and yet are unwilling to even say "thank you" for it when they get it. Not even unwilling to say "thank you", but actually ask for MORE while at the same time going out of their way to call you names. The entire play is filled with horrible, mean, nasty, cruel, jealous, hypocritical, self centered people who are considered the "heroes" and reasonable, generous, mild-mannered, *extraordinarily patient* "villains".

Like the very first scene the group is getting *free rent* on a entire building, in the middle of New York, for a YEAR (worth, what, well over a million dollars a year? I mean this is an entire building, right?) and then they decide to stage a protest against the very people giving them free rent...

So basically, the guy who owns the building is like, "Hey, either pay rent or stop protesting against me you ungrateful jerks!" and then they proceed to demonize that guy through the whole thing... Not one thank you. Just a lot of nasty incrimination and sarcasm towards him.

The theme of "I deserve special treatment and free stuff for no reason, but I want to be self-righteous about it and at the same time slap you across the face for not hurrying up with the gifts" is basically the theme. Even their internal relationships are like that.

One guy has a cheating girlfriend who decides to be a lesbian who gets "married" to another lesbian and then attempts to cheat on THAT girl her wedding day and finally has the audacity to sing a song about how, "So what, I lied to your face, and insulted you and your family. This is who I am, and obviously there is nothing wrong with *me*, so YOU need to get over it". Basically the same theme... Give me what I want, give it to me now, but I don't care what you want.

One guy eventually gets a job, the most amazing DREAM JOB of his life (he is a "film maker", and he films stuff all day long, and the company wants to pay him to just keep doing what he is doing), and calls it "selling out", gets all angry about it, stays just long enough to pay for rent for a month and quits.

Seriously, what was the message in this thing: Human trash is great? Aspire to make the most hyper-left-wing commune-living teaching-killer-whale-stolen-from-sf-oceneographic-society-to-eat-pure-vegan hippies look like industrious, clean-living upstanding members of society by comparison? Being a diseased, drug-addicted talentless loser with no means of income nor any redeeming qualities whatsoever is no reason you shouldn't expect the world to bow to your every whim?

Why would New Yorkers watch this thing and leave without throwing rotten fruit? Are we to believe that they are so unintelligent? Do they like people going home with the impression that, "New Yorkers are vapid, worthless dregs of human trash who can't think past their own self-centered egos, and we are proud of that impression. And, before you go, give us money, you stupid jerk."

Like you end up thinking, a city where something this THIS kind of retarded monkey message in what many consider one of the "high class" art form is revered with SUCH high acclaim must NOT be a great loss if someone took a match to the whole place.

To that end, the only saving grace, and what I *assume* is the reason why everyone liked this musical so much, because there is no other reason that makes sense, is that they *all* seem to have AIDS, and even if they don't it's reasonable to assume they will catch it soon... and at least one of them dies outright and another comes close enough for you to cheer... And I suppose we are left to hope the rest will die soon?

I guess the message of the musical, in the end, is: "You wouldn't think that watching people dying of a horrible wasting disease could make you happy, but it really can happen... Don't believe me? Here let me give you an example." --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.227.60 (talk) 5 July 2006

First and foremost, I would like to say that the stage version is far, far superior to that of the movie version in my opinion. This is because, if nothing else, of the energy that one gets from having it performed live. As well, the movie cut out several of my favorite songs such as "Christmas Bells" and "Happy New Year" as well as cropping "Goodbye Love" and "La Vie Boheme" (the beginning). At this point I will say that though I am an ardent believer in RENT, I was not totally appalled at what you said, though it wasn't exactly a pragmatic questioning (i.e. "ungrateful twerps" and the name-calling). I think your flaw is looking too much at the superficial aspects of the story. As [Fredi Walker], the original broadway "Joanne" once said, the movie is about people. This means that they are like us. Jonathan Larson's characters are designed for all of us to see a little bit of ourselves in them. I think that is why it is so popular. People relate to it. People see how to put ASIDE the issues of drug addiction, sexuality, wealth, etc., and see that things like love, trust, and living for the now are just more important in life. Listen to the lyrics a few times and it's a good thing to listen to when you are feeling bad. --kubfann 14:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you misunderstand the musical which is far superior to the movie in my opinion, although of course you are entitled to your views as well. I'd be happy to explain the musical to you, and if you really do want to have this conversation, leave me a message on my page. But this is really not the place for such a discussion; this page is for discussing issues about the Rent (musical) Wikipedia article, not the topic itself. Instead, I'd suggest you post your query or opinion at the Rent movie page on imdb.com, or at www.compulsivebowlers.com. Drenched 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All of you people are crazy. This is the BEST musical ever. Each character has a strong inner struggle. Roger a man in his 20s who has already peaked in his musical career which was always his dream, not to mention he has AIDS, the worst diseas in the world. Mark a film maker who is doing whatever he can to live, stay true to his passion, and not sell out to the corporate world.Maureen is the one person who dosen't really have a problem other than the fact she has problems with committment. Joanne like Maureen has relationship probs and has no personality. These are just some examples of the wonderful deep characters. Along with these characters the score is great and sad and happy all at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiyero554 (talk • contribs)

Actualy, as New Yorker who has been going to Broadway musicals since the sixties, RENT is a good musical but I and most other critics wouldn't call it the best musical ever. I would reserve that for the original Showboat, Oklahoma, Caberet, A Chorus Line or Ragtime. But RENT was interesting concept of lifting the plot line from La Boheme, orchestrating it with a grunge inspired rock score and marketing it to Generation X, much like Hair was marketed in the sixties. Similar to the opera it was based on, the plot is a trite contrivance and mostly an excuse for a nice sung-through score. Also, those who think it was first musical to feature a gay lifestyle obviously have overlooked La Cage Au Folles from the 1980's. But youngsters infatuated with RENT probably wouldn't appreciate a singable Jerry Herman score GCW50 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome newcomers. Please don't forget to sign your comments! --Drenched 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the whole discussion does not belong in the page at all, as it's about the musical and not the Wikipedia article, but I thought it would be too big a violation of this Talk page's history to pull out these comments on the musical after all the replies and discussion. After all, equally off-topic pro-RENT comments have stayed. I did, however, move it from the top of the page, not because of the content, but because usual Wikipedia Talk-page etiquette seems to call for new sections always to be added at the end. Normally only replies are posted in the middle of other parts of the discussion. Hope this helps. Going to do a little more of added "unsigned comment" lines to sort out the discussion. --Lawikitejana 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I, like Lawikitejana, would like to point out that you are arguing over how good the musical is, something that has nothing to do with its Wiki page. And if it comes down to it, what does it matter if you have conflicting interests? Not everyone is going to feel the same about RENT, and saying that your point of view is the only right one is juvenile. Yes, you can be juvenile even when you have the ability to type and use a computer. I'm sorry that I posted so long after the last post, but I just felt like this was stupid. -- Venerated 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Detail Question

In the pop culture section, it says there are references to Rent in Avenue Q. I (think I) know Avenue Q] well, but I can't find a direct reference. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1cubfan (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006

You know, I was actually thinking the same thing when I read that. I've seen Avenue Q and have the cast recording, but I don't know of any Rent references in Avenue Q. I didn't delete the pop culture bullet though, because I figured I just missed something. Drenched 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact they both take place in Alphabet City, there isn't a direct connection. Fllmtlchcb 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no direct references in Avenue Q. The connection is more that Avenue Q contains similar themes, though I agree that is more of an opinion. I know it definitely reminded ME of rent when I first listened to it. Theaterdude88 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New York Theatre Workshop

I feel like the part of the NYTW in RENT's history is not given sufficient attention. I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge than me, but I feel like we should at least include the 1994 cast as well as the prototype song list, with acknowledgements as to each song's update in the finished musical (Splatter = RENT, Right Brain = One Song Glory, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hours (talk • contribs)

That would be very interesting information, but I don't think it belongs in this article. One characteristic that prevents articles from reaching Featured status is the presence of too many lists since Wikipedia:Manual of Style preferse prose to lists. At the moment, I feel that we may already have too many lists and would definitely hesitate to add more. Also, most of the other articles on musicals don't include extensive workshop info. It makes for interesting trivia, but it's probably not encyclopedic. Furthermore, it'd be very difficult to find reputable published sources to reference such information (most of it isn't even in the Rent bible, and personal websites etc. aren't really acceptable sources). Just my 2 cents. But if this is really important to you, I guess you could always create a new page and see how it does. --Drenched 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Touring Cast Out of Date

I don't know who took over for them, but I know that Bryce Ryness, Jed Resnick, Arianda Fernandez, and Ben Roseberry have all left the tour, along with others. If anyone could do research and see who took over for them it'd be much appreciated. 152.163.100.68 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast lists

The cast lists were mentioned in July; I'm revisiting the topic here. Other than the original cast list (and maybe the current Broadway cast list), these aren't really useful and are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain and document with reliable sources. (Who has access to documentation for the Japan tour cast, for example? The Rent website doesn't stay current on cast lists; it means constant trivial updates to the article, and isn't really encyclopedic. To list well-known actors and actresses who have done "guest turns" in the various casts is one thing; listing every actor and actress who has ever appeared in the show is another. If there are articles on individual performers, those articles can include the information that they were in Rent and link to the article(s) (movie and stage; not everyone in the film has been in a stage production).

I'm not even sure I'm in favor of including cast lists for tours that have ended. Which list do you use? The original? The closing? Mention everyone who was ever in the cast while it was on tour? Just doesn't make sense.

As for splitting the information off into a separate article, see What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a directory.

Also see the subpage about this article being nominated to be a Featured article; one of the specific mentions is the long lists.—Chidom ^talk  17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there are a bazillion productions listed in the infobox and it'd be impractical to try to list the cast lists of every production of Rent ever. I think we should just have the Original Broadway Cast and maybe the current Broadway cast. --Drenched 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Productions

It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to include information on amateur productions of a muscial; and none of the entries were sourced. I deleted the section.—Chidom ^talk  17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

It's generally accepted that Featured articles shouldn't have Trivia sections. If the information is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia, it should be included in the text of the article, not as a list. I'm not sure that much of this information is necessary, but when I have time I'll try to convert this into more of a narrative, unless someone else wants to do it. (Hint, hint. Please?)—Chidom ^talk  19:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and removed the trivia section, transferring one relevant statement to the Inspiration section. The majority of all trivia is, well, trivial, and this was no exception. It was also tagged and unsourced. María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If somebody else can find it, I read in an old review of RENT that two of the main cast members were actually gay. I know one of them is Anthony Rapp, and I'm positive it's not Adam Pascal, Taye Diggs, or Idina Mendzel. --68.51.88.109 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the review you're talking about, but I do know that the wikipedia article on Anthony Rapp states that he's bisexual, although the statement is currently unsourced. I couldn't tell you about the other castmembers, though. —Mears man 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

International productions

This section does not need the level of detail that an editor keeps restoring. The individual productions are listed in the info box at the top right of the article under "Productions"; lists in articles are one of the things that get evaluated in reviews for Featured Article status. This article needs to be tightened and shortened, not expanded with additional detail that can be summarized and still get the point across. In this case, it's that the musical has been produced all over the world. Whene exactly is was produced in each location, and what the cast there was, is just unnecessary information for this article. Maybe a separate article is needed, but that information doesn't belong here.—Chidom ^talk  12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Plays

Shouldnt this go under the catergory of LGBT plays

Broadway Cast Edits

I've just gone through and edited the Broadway cast, which had Matt Caplan credited as Mark Cohen instead of Chris J Hanke. But, another thing that stood out to me, is that Karmine Alers is credited as playing Mimi; as well as being understudy for the role of Maureen. I'm just not sure whether that was right? Is anyone able to clarify?

Michael Potts

The hyperlink for Michael Potts in the section about the New York Theater Workshop staged reading is incorrect. The Michael Potts who played Benny is a black actor currently teaching at NYU. He has no Wikipedia page. Tischman 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the link to Michael Potts (actor). María (críticame) 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Various Casts

Can someone who is a rent fanatic and knows the jargon, please add explanation in the article as to the various cast names. Why are they called the "Collins tour", the "Benny tour," etc? As someone who enjoys the show, but is not part of the fan culture, I find these insider terms confusing, and no effort has yet been made to explain them.24.165.188.30 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

These are North American tours, in alphabetical order according to chronology. I.e. "Angel" tour first, then Benny, then Collins etc. but it gets a bit more complex. --Drenched 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review?

This article seems pretty complete. Why not nominate it as a Good Article and see what comments you get? Or else put it up for comment? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We could. I think the plot section is still too long to be successful as a GA, tho. But, hey, the worst that could happen is that it doesn't get promoted and we get some useful ideas.... —  MusicMaker5376 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

My watchlist keeps popping up with 192.138.89.235 as deleting an entire reference and other text. Quite frankly, I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to report a user (the user has MANY warnings). Can someone either give me a quick reporting tutorial or actually go ahead and do it yourself? It would be greatly appreciated. Anonymous~Source (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Celeb casting

I think we're playing a little fast and loose with the definition of the word "Celebrity". I think I've heard of all of two people on that list. One of the listees doesn't even have a WP article! Most of those people wouldn't even qualify to be on Dancing with the Stars. I'm all for deleting it. —  MusicMaker5376 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'm probably being dumb, but why is it called Rent? Shouldn't there be an explanation in the article? 86.133.214.216 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)