Kevin Kline Interested As Franz

I think this would be hilarious casting and would certainly add a certain wattage of star power to this cast.

Tentative Cast:

Nathan Lane: Max Bialystock
Matthew Broderick: Leo Bloom
Nicole Kidman: Ulla Jansen-Tallen-Hallen-Svalen-Svansen
Kevin Kline: Franz Liebkind

I would love to see Gary Beach revive his role.

---

i really dont want to see nickole kidman mess that role up, i think she is the most overrated actress to speak of, furthermore, despite what some would call her "movie musical experience", i dont think mulin rouge proves anything besides the fact that she cant sing. i dont think she could pull off the end of "when you got it flaunt it", at least not without some serious alterations to the song.

We've been through this: no one gives a monkey crap about Cady Huffman. Neither Mel Brooks nor Matthew Broderick nor Nathan Lane have sold a movie in anything even approaching recent memory. Brooks hasn't hit since 'Spaceballs' in 1983 and that was just riding the 'Star Wars' wave. Lane has never sold a movie and Broderick hasn't really either. Nicole Kidman is a hugely bankable star and gives the movie a Hollywood credibility that *any* movie wants, especially a movie musical that isn't a simple sell anyway. 'The Producers' was the biggest musical in forever which still means it means absolutely nothing to most of the moviegoing audience. They want to SELL it and if Nicole Kidman will SELL it, then more power to her and more power to the producers who would rather see the movie actually get some attention and release, rather than be another 'Fantasticks.' The news shows talk about Nicole Kidman movies. She's debatably the biggest movie star in the world. Yeah, let's NOT use her in favor of a talented stage actress that no one's ever heard of. That's a good idea.

Updated On: 3/16/04 at 10:08 PM

JohnPapa is on the nose. We're all too b'way-struck here, as always. The movie version needs star clout. Nathan and Matthew do not in 2004 open movies.

---

"i dont think she could pull off the end of "when you got it flaunt it", at least not without some serious alterations to the song."

I very much agree with the above statement. In my opinion, the last part of the song requires an actress with a strong voice and strong belting.

But Kevin Kline....I can see that. He's a wonderful actor and I think he'd bring something new to the role.

---

Nicole Kidman has just signed on to a project with Jennifer Lopez. How does that fit into the scheme of things? I, too, don't see her as Ulla. Let's see, skip the belt for a tiny breathy singing voice. Nope, all wrong for Ulla.

Have you seen Moulin Rouge...Nicole cannot freaking belt! And...well...talking about bankable movies John Papa, I have a strange recollection that Brooks' last two movies, "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," as well as "Dracula: Dead and Loving it" were quite bankable. Oh, and so much for your facts. Spaceballs was created in 1987. Oh, and about Nathan Lane, "Mouse Hunt" in 1997 ran for approximately 4 1/2 months; quite a long time for such an "unbankable" film. Also, "Inspector Gadget," starring Mr. MATTHEW BRODERICK, made enough to right a sequel. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, once more, here's to Cady Huffman!

'Bueller' was certainly a huge hit and it's what made Broderick a star. He also went into a major slump after that movie until, uh, until he did 'The Producers' pretty much? Unless someone out there wants to try and convince me 'Glory' was a hit on Broderick's shoulders. He get acclaim in 'Elected' but it didn't light up the box office and really it was more Reese Witherspoon who got the buzz in that movie.

And OrcaJaws you do, in fact, have strange recollections of 'Dracula Dead and Loving It' and 'Robin Hood Men In Tights' doing well because 10 seconds of research says that Dracula opened in 10th place the week it opened, generating a paltry $2,708,000 and barely making $10 million in total revenue. 'Robin Hood' was slightly more mediocre, premiering in 1993 in 6th place for the week, generating $6,841,830 and ending up making a decent, but hardly 'bankable' $35 million.

Yes, 'Inspector Gadeget' did better than I imagined but a) it's a licensed property and I'd have a hard time accepting that Broderick sold it and b) it made $97 million on $120 million dollar cost. The fact that it spawned a sequel (wasn't that direct to video?) is more a study on how children's properties are licensed and produced, rather than a testimony to Broderick as a draw. It didn't sink or swim on Matthew Broderick's name.

'Mouse Hunt' premiered in 4th place with 6 million bucks before doing a respectable but hardly remarkable $61 million. And I don't think Nathan Lane sold those tickets. It was a Dreamworks family adventure coming out around Christmas. It did OK.

I stand by my assertion that neither Brooks nor LAne nor Broderick are currently box office.

Yeah, I think we can sacrifice a bit of 'The Producers' artistic integrity and put someone else in the role of Ulla.

*sigh*

Folks, I've neve SEEN a Broadway show more excited about being a commercial sell-out than 'The Producers.' It's as shameless as 'Mamma Mia.'

Please. This ain't 'Hamlet.'

Broadway IS the 'showbiz devil.'

There is far more 'artistically valuable' work being done in film (and I assure you none of its being done by Mel Brooks.) Broadway is 100% commercial. Sure there's plenty of great artistic *theater* but not a lick of it is to be found on The Great White Way. I don't even mean that especially negatively. It's just the way it is.

People thinking Broadway is some sort of artistic heaven ... well, it's no wonder people think art is dead. You're going to tell me 'Wicked' is some sort of artistic achievement? Or 'Avenue Q?' PUH-LEEZ. It's all cute and commercial and fuzzy and mainstream and completely devoid of artistic soul, no matter how much people love their favorite cast albums.

C'mon.

All hail Johnpopa!

If Broadway is so "commercial", why do producers risk opening a show that has a 90% chance of closing at a loss? Why even take a risk at something like Caroline or Change or Urinetown when the odds are completely against you? Every single one of those shows had artistic teams that wrote the book and score as well as the designers who created the lighting, sets, props, and costumes. None of those things created themselves. I'm sure they will all be saddened to hear they haven't lived up to JohnPopa's definition of "artistic soul". What a crock! Broadway demands a bit of commercial enterprise for each show to attempt to stay open, but without artistic creativity, every single show would be a revival including the original sets, costumes, props, lights, direction, and choreography and actors would have to recreate the roles as originally performed to avoid artistic creativity of any kind.

C'mon!

---

Sure, and 'Armageddon' had a bunch of talented artisans behind it too. It doesn't mean it isn't schlock. So we have 'Urinetown' which, absolutely, was a risk to move to Broadway. And 'Caroline or Change' which is being bolstered by Tony Kushner's recent association with HBO (Which is great, more power to all involved.) And ... oh wait, that's it.

I'm not saying anything controversial here and you know it. Broadway is a purely commercial medium. You're pointing out the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. There's nothing highly artistic about 'The Producers' nor was that the intent. It's big brassy commerce and it relishes in that. Why act like it's anything else just because we feel some absurd need to deem Broadway the Mecca of the artistic world?

Yes, plenty of talented people are working on this stuff and plenty of Broadway shows are splended pieces of entertainment and commercial art. But high art? Something that needs to be protected from the big, bad commercial whores of Hollywood?

I repeat, come on.