Does anyone know how THE PRODUCERS is doing?- Page 2

Posted: 12/26/05 at 7:56pm

It was the number 13 movie of the week end. It did only slightly better than Brokeback Mountain which is in 200 theaters vs almost 1,000 for producers. Do you really think positive word of mouth is going to help this movie? Critics have not been kind.

I like the musical and I liked the movie which I saw on Saturday, but it's tanking!!!

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:00pm

You say it was the #13 movie of the week, but you can't go by the whole week--it was in just six theaters until SUNDAY--just yesterday!!!

[florida theatre kid]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:02pm

I saw The Producers in Tampa today at 3:45 pm, and the theatre was completely full. My friend was planning on meeting me at the theatre, and he got there around 3:35, went to buy his ticket, and the movie was sold out. The lady in the box office said it has been selling out since it's first showing Sunday. Updated On: 12/26/05 at 08:02 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:15pm

WHY the rush to label the movie a hit or a flop? May I remind ALL of you that CHICAGO started slowly (in very limited release) and gradually built up its box office take over seveal weeks.

The weekly figures that will show us how PRODUCERS is doing will be NEXT week's figures. So you can all relax until then.

Aside from the box office, I must reluctantly report that the film isn't very good. It is way too stagy. Nathan Lane is fine but Mattew Broderick doesn't have a clue how to modulate his performance for the screen. The direction is weak. Many of the songs end in tableau formations as if on stage awaiting applause. Little has been done to translate the piece to work on the screen. (RENT was much more successful in this aspect.) And the "Springtime for Hitler" routine is badly filmed. This is not a movie that will win over any who are not already fans of musicals.

On the plus side much of what worked on stage is still very funny, and Uma Thurman makes a great Ulla.

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:28pm

I respectfully disagree with you regarding Uma Thurman. I thought her performance was weak, and her voice weaker. Her dancing was surprisingly good though.

As for it being too "stagy"-what is wrong with that? Does it have to "look like a movie" to be entertaining? It seems to me they were trying to replicate the stage show, and I'm not sure why that has been criticized by reviewers and some folks here too. I think it was different, not necessarily better or worse, but I and the people I was with all enjoyed the fact that it WAS different, including the "tableau formations" of which you speak. Most of the audience was applauding throughout the film anyway, so it seemed fitting.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:00pm

Why bother even making movie musicals when after ONE full day in SEMI-wide release people are already forcasting doom?
Why bother when there are sooo many people just waiting on the sidelines for you to fail? The Prodcuers especially... there are the standard people who just hate musicals, there are the people who loved the movie and hate any update of it, there are the people who hate Mel Brooks, and there are the theatre snobs who never seem happy with any film adaptation.
Bottom line is everyone in my theatre laughed themselves silly. No one walked out. And today at the same theatre both shows were sold out.
Word of mouth is a force to be reckoned with as surveys have shown people trust the word of friends and relatives more than they do critics.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:01pm

Just my opinion but Uma was the least of the movie's problems.

As for it's staginess, we as theatre fans may appreciate it but the mainstream audience who do not like the artificial stage look and go to the local moviehouse expecting to see a movie will not appreciate the old-fashioned way in which this was filmed. It almost seems as if Brooks wanted the original to be a full-fledged musical and never quite got there. So now, he is remaking it as if he were producing a movie musical in the 1960s and it plays as an anachronism.

If you think of the great screen versions of hit Broadway shows: SOUND OF MUSIC, CHICAGO, WEST SIDE STORY, FUNNY GIRL - they all retained the best of what worked on stage enhanced by genuine cinematic techniques. In that respect, PRODUCERS could have been a much better film. As much as I enjoyed it I was constantly aware that the techniques used seemed very dated.

[Malice]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:06pm

Well said Yankee Gal. I thought the "staginess" was done on purpose for the film. I also agree with what you said about Uma Thurman, she really fell flat compared to the others in the film. I kept wondering how different it would have been if Cady Huffman had the chance to do the role.
I got the chance to see it at the Ziegfeld last week, similar to my first viewing of Rent there, people were also humming along. This time around it was mainly to "Keep it Gay". That was by far my favorite scene in the movie.
I have loved Susan Stroman since I first saw "Crazy For You", what a great director she is.

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:13pm

Agreed on all counts, Malice!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:01pm

Don't you mean THE PRODUCERS THE MOVIE MUSICAL? :)

I crack myself up!

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 11:01 PM

[kec]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:06pm

According to something I saw on a British site, the studio is (allegedly) not releasing the film in the UK, but is sending it directly to dvd. The reason given -- the film is a "box office and critical flop."

Huh? Seems to me it's a bit early to tell whether or not it's a flop.

The message I saw did not offer a source so the information is unreliable at best.

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:11pm

...and THAT is precisely how rumors get started. Ridiculous because there is NO WAY to know if its a hit or flop because it JUST OPENED YESTERDAY. And certainly no major decisions regarding overseas openings and DVD release would be made at this juncture.

All I know is every one I know who went to see it yesterday and/or today commented on sold out shows, people laughing and applauding throughout the film, and wanting to see it again. Sure doesn't sound like a flop to me.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 11:11 PM

[Jilani]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:22pm

"The message I saw did not offer a source so the information is unreliable at best."

It's incorrect. The movie opened in a number of London movie theaters on Friday, December 23, and will open in a bunch more on Friday, December 30:

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/films/theproducers.html

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:26pm

Not only did CNN say the movie did "well," but here is a second opinion from boxofficeguru.com

"As if a mega-budgeted ape adventure and a serious political drama weren't enough to market and distribute, Universal also got into the comedy game on Sunday with the national expansion of its musical The Producers. The Nathan Lane-Matthew Broderick pic got off to a respectable start grossing an estimated $3.5M although most of that was over two days since the PG-13 widened from 6 to 975 locations on Christmas Day. Nominated for four Golden Globes, Producers averaged $3,581 per stage and co-stars Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell."

[kec]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 8:22am

Thanks, Jillani... but, I'm embarrassed to say, I goofed on my information. I misread the post -- it was talking about another film, not the Producers. That's what I get for reading messages after a very loooooong day of Christmas celebrating...

[One Song Glory]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 8:28am

I saw it yesterday and it was very pascked but a couple people left.

[sanda]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:30am

frontrowcenter, I agree 90% to you, except I feel Lane is kind of overacting as well.

The movie looked like a 60's musical movie, so dated. Rent is much better in this.

I saw it on 12/26 in a theatre with 24 rooms. That day was crazy. A lot of movies were sold out. The producers only got a half full room.

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:42am

One thing that The Producers DOES have going for it over Rent though is the demographic appeal. I saw Rent on opening day and just did the same with The Producers. On the whole, The Producers' audience was a good deal more diverse than the Rent audience. Though the house was only half full at the 11:45am screening I went to, it was a VERY mixed bag generation-wise. I had a group of giggling old ladies behind me and a family of 4 (youngest kid was probably 8? 10?) a few rows in front of me. Everyone seemed to be enjoying it equally.

And as a quick side: Yes, I did feel that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick went a bit too far over the top at the beginning... it didn't feel like there was any build. Just BANG in to the picture. I don't mind films that kick off quickly, but it was like we suddenly hit this high and from there, there was nowhere else to go. Maybe "King of Broadway" was viewed as slowing the beginning down... but maybe that's what the film should have had to make the beginning less slap-you-in-the-face.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:42am

Actually, the PRODUCERS had a very, very mediocre holiday opening per BOX OFFICE MOJO's official Monday report:

"The Producers was out of bloom, marching to an estimated $3.4 million at 975 theaters. This past week's mediocre six-venue release portended the soft numbers for the $45 million adaptation of the Broadway musical that was adapted from Mel Brooks' 1968 comedy."

[Craig]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:49am

Glinda2

Actually.. it was up on the sign on the 25th. Not sure what time on the 25th.. but definitely by 5pm when I walked by

[The8re phan]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:08am

saw the film last evening ..... very packed house, lots of laughter through out, audience seems to have enjoyed it, blah blah blah.

I now officially would like to jump on the band-wagon and lament about "King of Broadway" being cut........ the film does not work without it. Every major character has a number to introduce themselves and set the tone for thier motivations..... EXCEPT Max and he is the main character. Nathan was great in the film, but cutting this number also cut his chances for any award recognition. And let's face it -- the first scene in Max's office is quite long....it would have benefited having the momentum of "King of Broadway" in front of it.