best12bars "offended" by PRODUCERS movie...- Page 2

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:37pm

I believe it was removed because movie audiences might not "get it". Plus it's not even funny. It barely registers a response in at the St. James, since not many people outside the theatre community are familiar with Show Boat to see it's a take on it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:44pm

I don't think most people "got" that De Bris is spoofing Judy Garland and her "born in a trunk" concert moments during Springtime for Hitler. Average audiences are just laughing at a big gay queen. I don't see the difference, really. Both are funny. Both are "dated" jokes. One was cut.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 01:44 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:45pm

Just to chime in:

BwayBaby18--Actually, there are more straight people in RENT that have AIDS than gay people. And the Angel/Collins relationship is the best relationship within the show/movie . . . so how does it offend you?

Well, I am used to racist/stereotype double standards in film, music, etc. so it doesn't really even affect me anymore. I mean, if the movie WHITE CHICKS was made with a diffent color cast and called BLACK CHICKS it would have been run in the ground by civil rights groups, etc. It's the way it is . . . which isn't a good thing . . . but it is.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 01:45 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:50pm

You are missing a critical point here: Universal and their staff had say in what stayed and what was edited, as well. And, yes they did a lot of screening in New York, and L.A. to see what was working and what was not.

I too noticed that the black irish and black accountant bits were cut but so were a number of other things, including King of Broadway. I don't think there was any hidden agenda here. Brooks is perfectly willing to offend all races, creeds and religions.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:55pm

SamIAm --- You actually just proved my point. So, the TWO black jokes were cut. Not one random one. Even more proving there might have been a biased "agenda" here.

Black jokes just aren't funny anymore. But gay jokes are a riot!

I know it's not Mel Brooks. I know what he originally wrote for the stage (we all do).

Somebody (don't know who... and don't care) edited the black jokes out. What's bothering me is "why" this was done.

You're actually helping prove my point, though.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 01:55 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:56pm

I haven't seen the show or the movie so I can't put any input on that. I was just saying for other films, etc.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:01pm

I said above that I "don't care" who made the edit... but I actually do. I would love to hear why they cut the two black jokes out. I would never in a million years get any answer other than "they were trimmed for time." I'm sure they wouldn't even try to say "they weren't funny," since "funny" is in the eye of the beholder.

spiderdj82 -- You raised a very good point, and I would love to hear BwayBaby18's answer to your question.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:50pm

I didn't know we were all still so "offended" these days. If you are go pick on the idiot in the white house, he deserves the criticism.

Happy Hols!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:56pm

I hope we are all still offended by hypocrisy until the end of time. Didn't know that had gone out of fashion.

Also... didn't know George Bush edited "The Producers," but if you say so...

Happy Hols, to you too.

Didn't mean to "bring the room down." Just me getting bugged by the "hidden biggots" in the world. At least Bush stands at a podium and says what's on his mind (boy, was THAT an oxymoron)...

I still wanna know who "slithered" into the edit bay unobtrusively, with the best of intentions, and cut these "touchy" black jokes. They should be held accountable as to "why." What "values of humor and taste" are they upholding, while not giving a crap about others.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 02:56 PM

[LorelaiGilmore]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:06pm

First, I'm going to tell you that i don't remember the black irish joke in the second act, so this post might not make complete sense
Now, I'm going to say that I agree with a few points. I do think that this is cut for time. I recently did a project involving the acting out of a scene in Romeo & Juliet. We were allowed to cut anything as long as the story makes sense. My group ended up cutting a lot of monolauges, but also some lines. We basically cut out whatever we could in order to make it easier to act out, and make it a bit less work. Now, I'm also going to say that the reason they probably cut this particular piece out was because very little people who don't know too much about musical theatre, might not understand the joke.

I could possibly have more "evidence" for this post, but I have not seen the movie, so, my post will end there.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:06pm

My problem with this whole thread is reason for cutting. This thread is assuming these 2 jokes were cut because they were offensive. But that is only one opinion. They could have been cut for millions of reasons, just like every other joke, song, scene, or character that was cut in making the musical originally and now making the movie. LSD was cut when making the musical so was Mel Brooks trying not to offend the drug addicts? No, it just didnt work in that media, he wanted less characters, etc etc etc. My point is who knows why things were cut and why they were not cut, why jump the gun and try and guess why each joke was cut, esp when you say yourself that you enjoyed the movie.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:23pm

You're right. There will be no "proven" explanation at all as to why these jokes were cut. Everyone who has weighed in on this has made assumptions... including me.

None of us will ever get a "straight answer" (no pun intended) as to why the only two black stereotype jokes were taken out of the film.

But cut, they were. And that's as far as we will ever get with "facts."

Even if a Universal spokesperson came forward to address this "minor issue" (which would never happen)... we would definitely hear that they were cut for time, and time alone. That's a no-brainer.

So, I will have to be content that I enjoyed the movie a lot... that I hated the selective editing applied to it... that I will never know the truth about why it happened... and move on.

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 03:23 PM

[jimmirae]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:26pm

Let's get Gary Beach in drag as Barbara Bush and put in the song "Great White Father of the Year" from "Purlie, Only change it to "Great White Mother of the Year"! Now THAT is FUNNY! Oh no, I'm wrong, It's just TRUE! LOL!
I wasn't dissing your way 12Bars, You know that. I have this style of just "thinking in type" and - well, My mind goes on the CD Shuffle mode and any old thing can pop out, But this Barbara Bush thing has great potential and the only ones offended will be working for Haliburton, LOL!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:37pm

jimmirae --- I take no offense to your post, and I got what you meant. I enjoy reading what you have to say, too.

Gary Beach as "Barbara" would be hilarious. I actually DO like un-PC humor. And I know I'll get crucified for saying it, but Amos & Andy were damn funny, back in the day. Very talented men. I also "get" the history of the world they thrived and were stars in. I look forward to comics and writers who "put it out there" and hold back no punches. They make us think and laugh. At least they shoot from the hip, and they aren't selectively edited. God, Richard Pryor would last 2 minutes in today's hypersensitive world, and that seems so backward to me. It's the censorship that bothers me, and the randomness of it, not the writing or joke-tellers.

[leefowler]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:41pm

best12bars,

You say that no one will ever give you a "proven" reason why the two "black" jokes were edited out of the film. I was there, and this is the "real" reason, honestly.

They were both edited out for time reasons. When the original cut of the movie was too long, anything that COULD be cut was cut. This included both of the jokes that you mention. The were easy cuts, as neither has anything to do with the plot of the movie. You might question the wisdom of cutting these moments rather than some others, but that is the reason. Honestly. No political agenda.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 3:43pm

i was offended when i saw the show ....so i understand you best12bars

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 4:24pm

best12bars, agreed.

I just bid on a brain on ebay, so, start getting a life

PS - it is gonna take a long, long, long, long time!!!

Have fun

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 4:24pm

best12bars, agreed.

I just bid on a brain on ebay, so, start getting a life

PS - it is gonna take a long, long, long, long time!!!

Have fun

[SamIAm]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 5:10pm

best12, I'm not trying to prove ANY point or place the blame anywhere. I'm just saying that King of Broadway and several other things that were NOT black related were also cut. So, I'm not sure there is any agenda here.

We don't know how the test audiences reacted to this before the final edit, so we have no idea whether the cuts were in response to their preferences or Universals. It is what it is. I miss the jokes, but I don't think the movie suffers all that much because of their being cut.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 5:28pm

Thank you SamIAm, exactly!

[iliketheater]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 5:45pm

best12, I'm sorry you were offended by the selective cuts made in the film. Having never seen the play or the movie, I have to say, I believe what leefowler said.

If they weren't important to the plot, I would cut them too. Someone earlier made the comment that they weren't even all that funny, which I believe. Black jokes have been done for sooooooooo long in this country, I don't find most of the recent ones to be all that funny anymore, simply becuase they've all been done 50million times. If the joke was a black person speaking in that broken elglish, then it's even less funny, because to the majority of American movie viewers (regardless of race), that isn't a Showboat reference, that's just another joke based on the old views of African-Americans.

African-American sterotypes are still all over entertainment. I can't even think of a show/movie with Black characters where there isn't a big black scary man, loud ghetto girls, 'thugs' or any of the other ones.

I'm sorry if the potrayal of homosexuals offended you, but I highly doubt that the cuts of the black jokes was due to PC (especially in a Mel Brooks film!).

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 9:52pm

But best2bars - there still is a "black joke" in the Sing Sing scene. It's much more offensive (and funnier) than the bits from the Broadway musical that are not in the film.

Posted: 12/21/05 at 1:18am

So offensiveness aside, I think that the removal of the 2 black jokes and many of the jew jokes (Jewish American Princess, all of King of Broadway, "A Rabbi Without a Shul") was what made me like this movie less than the broadway show. The broadway show seemed to constantly do what Mel Brooks keeps calling "ringing the bell"; offending groups left and right. The fact that this movie only seemed to make fun of homosexuality seemed to lessen the movie's humor to me.
Made me feel like it was less of a Mel Brooks piece than the musical.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:28am

I, too, think this is much ado about nothing (though I'm puzzled by thesbijean's deliberately offensive manner), but I will note that when 'Blazing Saddles' was on network tv, "n*" was bleeped (or oddly shortened to nnnnn-)every time, but Dom Deluise's "Watch me, faggots," was kept intact.

Having said that, I do believe the lines in question were cut because of time constraints. The fact that the lines might be considered more offensive than others might have made it easier to do so.

Or maybe they were cut because Robert Fowler was out and he has no understudy, just like on Broadway

[SamIAm]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:40am

In general both the critics and many of the audience members who saw the stage version seem to vacillate in their expectations of this movie. First of all the movie was conceived as a comedy/musical (not a movie musical) but it was supposed to be a love letter to the old movie musicals with rich color, broad borscht belt comedic performances and a lot of close-ups (so it is pure Mel Brooks)

What did the critics expect? Secondly, when I walked out of the 3:30 saturday show at the Ziegfeld with lots of happy audience members, I heard one young woman complain that it was too much LIKE the stage version, and she had expected new material. ???
Brooks never said he was rewriting this show.

Finally, you can't have it both ways. There are those who are complaining that the show is TOO much like the stage version and those that want every piece and hair in place to look JUST like the stage version (which is impossible, given the fact that the studio has some say on what goes into the final edited film and the fact that some exceptions must be made for the screen).

The intermission line would make NO sense to a movie audience for example (nor did the 'why Bloom go so far down camera right' line seem to fit as modified from the original, but they did TRY to keep that one in)

All things considered, I thought the movie was a good representation and I applaud Brooks for preserving these performances on screen.

The larger problem for this movie getting off the ground may relate to the transit strike in NYC and the fact that no one can get to the theater to see the film.

Let's hope the other cities make up for it in per screen take so that Universal doesn't get a case of the jitters and decide not to spend a lot of advertising money for the nation wide opening.

Updated On: 12/21/05 at 09:40 AM