Did The Producers Deserve the Tonys?

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 1:29pm

I haven't seen The Producers yet, but do you really think they deserve the most TONY awards ever? Or do you think that they just had little competition that year so they were bound to win?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 1:32pm

see link:
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=194191#199428

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 1:32pm

I think that the original production when it first opened deserved it. Some think its over-rated and I do wish in retrospective that The Full Monty got SOMETHING.

[DAME]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 1:34pm

It is not that I don't feel it deserved its tony. But it did not deserve all that hoopla. And also this is a show that has been marred by bad decisions. From Nathans first replacement to the Casting of Jason Alexander in Los Angeles to the over charging of tickets. All bad decisions.

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 01:34 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 4:00pm

Not all of them.

And I'll leave it at that. :)

-Plum, way too tired to go into this.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 8:15pm

Some will say 'yes' and some will say 'no'...it's a matter of opinion really and now that there are so many other shows out there...and it's several years later I'm sure that even the boosters of the show (among whose number I count myself) will say that there's no point in discussing it anymore

If you haven't seen it yet and you do see it now, you will probably not GET why they won so many awards since the show has lost some of its luster and excitement...but it's still a great show.

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 9:27pm

Actually, this discussion can go on for YEARS, since THE PRODUCERS has the record for the most Tony Awards. Keep in mind that future shows are going to have to try to break that record. If THE PRODUCERS did not have such a drop-off in business since Lane and Broderick left, it would have been much more easier to accept the fact that the show deserved ALL 12 Tonys. If you read the recent internet columns by people like Peter Filichia and Ken Mandelbaum, you will see that they are already talking about how the show might have been over-hyped.

Trust me, you haven't even BEGUN to hear the end of this topic yet!

[RadioTV2]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 9:47pm

It really is one of the best shows I have ever seen. The lyrics, book, directions, score, and acting are some of the strongest I have ever seen. Anyone who saw it with Nathan and Matthew, or with anyone, will understand this.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 9:52pm

"Springtime for Hitler" was the funniest thing I've ever seen on a Broadway stage.

I saw the originals as well as Lewis J. Stadlen and Don Stephenson, and even without Lane & Broderick, I still thought the show was excellent. Lane & Broderick were complete gems, though.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 9:57pm

I haven't seen the show, but plan to see the tour. I wonder if people would have cared about it at first if Nathan and Matthew had decided NOT to be in it and they just casted and random person fit for the part. It still is doing very successful, though, without Lane and Broderick.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 10:43pm

We've argued this in another thread, but since I finally got to see The Producers last week, I finally have an informed opinion about this!

Now having seen both The Full Monty and The Producers, I think The Producers DID deserve the Award for Best Musical (though I loved The Full Monty too), but didn't deserve all 12 record-breaking Tonys. (For example: as someone pointed out, the lighting for the show is pretty basic and doesn't compare to the lighting design of Jane Eyre that year.)

One question that has interested me is this: if The Producers is so much better with Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, is it because they bring the show to life, or is it because their presence, charisma and star power overshadow or divert attention from the show's weaknesses? I thought the show was very flawed at crucial points, so I'm arguing the latter.

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 10:43 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 10:57pm

Since I don't know all the competition in 2001, I cannot say whether it deserved to win all those or not. But something bothers me about its holding the record for most Tonys ever won...because I do not think it was THAT great...to hold that kind of reputation.

[CurtainUp]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:24pm

I second everything TheQuibler said. As much as I adore Broderick and Lane, I almost wish it had started out with two lesser known actors so people would realize what a great show it is. I think it's comedic genius, but I guess it's personal opinion.

[pab]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:44pm

Oh boy. This is one of those arguments that will go on and on. Let me make a comparison to the movies. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Ben-Hur and Titanic all won 11 oscars. Are they the best movies out there because of that feat? I think not. I never saw Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick but I did see Brad Oscar and Roger Bart who, in my opinion were both brilliant. I'm sort of glad that I did not see Lane because quite frankly Lane plays Lane. Been there, done that. Yes, if The Producers might have had some stronger competition in its year, it might have not have taken home as many Tonys but it has and it's not like it's a dog or anything like that. It's a really good show. I'd say to anyone, if you want to be entertained and laugh you ass off, by all means go and see it.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:55am

I don't want to steer this thread off-topic, but Lord of the Rings certainly deserved those 11 Oscars, because a) it's an unparalleled cinematic achievement, in terms of cinema narrative, and technological advancement, and sheer audacity of scope; and b) it was long overdue recognition for all three movies, each which broke new and exciting ground for film.

But Titanic and Ben-Hur could be argued.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:28am

Since we're already off-topic...Lost in Translation was robbed! :p

[DAME]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:50am

PLUM,
Please don't "leave it at that". What are you talking about?

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 10:32am

The voters are voting for Tonys for THAT season...not for all time. If the show deserved all of the Tonys it got IN THAT YEAR because it was more competitive than the other shows that went up against it...that's the final evaluation.

As to whether another show will break the record, it's rather like the Oscars in a good year (where all five nominated movies are GREAT) and you just say to yourself 'why couldn't this movie have been made in another year when it didn't have so much competition and it would definitely have won'...if only...if only...

[IssaMe]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 10:11am

More for Monty.
Less for The Producers

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 10:28am

People are forgetting just what a big deal 'The Producers' was when it opened. It was everywhere, far more than recent hits like 'Wicked' or 'Hairspray' are/were. It was not only the hottest ticket in town, it was the ONLY ticket in town worth getting. If I said I was going to NY the immediate question was "Are you going to see 'The Producers?" I don't think it's the best show ever by any stretch, but, at that moment in time, it was the biggest thing to hit Broadway in forever.

[MisterRussell]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 4:00pm

It was YEARS ago! It's not going to change anything to debate it. Move on to something relevant.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 4:05pm

I don't know if some of you were arguing with what I said or not...but I was just saying...I wouldn't be surprised if it was the best show that year...it probably deserved those Tonys for that year. I just wish a different show had that reputation. But it's not that way, and so be it.

[J.]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 5:42pm

PRODUCERS is a great show and deserved to win Best Musical but not all of the tonys. The Tony ratings were poor and they needed some excitement so I think this great show came along and they said "Here's our chance" and said "Let;s make it a sweep shall we?" The show did not deserve all 12 of the tonys if you break it down.

[J.]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 5:46pm

and the show is a box office disapointment now that the stars are gone and will probably not be a multi-decade running show like the British-imports that won only 7 or 8 tonys.

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 2:55am

Ooh, a two-for-one deal!

"Remember that The Producers is a great show and deserved to win best musical, but not all of the Tonys. The Tony ratings were poor and they needed some excitement, so I think this great show came along, and they said, 'Here's our chance,' and said, 'Let's make it a sweep, shall we?' The show did not deserve all 12 of the Tonys if you break it down -- and the show is a box office disappointment now that the stars are gone, and will probably not be a multi-decade running show like the British imports that won only 7 or 8 Tonys."