Kevin Kline Interested As Franz

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 7:44pm

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.

[johny0828]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 8:16pm

interesting? he's a very funny man.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 9:37pm

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.

[orchajaws]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 9:47pm

i agree with nystate...nicole kidman is a very poor choice for playing ulla, and I truly feel that Cady Huffman should have the opportunity (along with the rest of the OBC) to reprise their roles for the movie. She, along with all of the others (and I mean ALL of them) were brilliant. With Nathan, Matthew and Mel Brooks as part of the movie already, I don't think starpower is an issue - I do think talent is...Here's to the real Ulla: Cady!

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 10:08pm

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

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 10:12pm

Amen John Popa, amen

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/15/04 at 10:42pm

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.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 3:39am

Interesting that for all the interest Brooks & Co. has shown in Nichole, she hasn't actually signed for the film yet. And a few weks ago now she was 'announced' for the Narnia film.

It's a time honored Hollywood publicity ploy to 'announce' that big-star-of-the-moment is 'going to play' such-and-such. Then when the time comes for actual filming, somebody else does the role.

I'm not so sure she'll make the THE PRODUCERS film.

[Lorelai]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 5:06am

"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.

[Lorelai]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 5:09am

"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.

Sometimes people can surprise you. I remember hearing Mary Stuart Masterson was in Nine and I thought she would be awful but she was really quite good.

[CaTheatreGirl]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 8:45am

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.

[logan30]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 10:54am

Attention people: they are not filming the stage play, they are making a movie. There will be alterations to the script and songs. There are jokes and moments in THE PRODUCERS that are brilliant on stage but would not work on screen. One example is "Now Ulla belt.." that would not work on film. Nicole Kidman is as talented as any star out there right now. Having seen most of her films I think she has established herself as an actress capable of playing a multitude of characters equally gifted in comedy, drama, and music.

Sidebar: Geoffrey Rush would be a wonderful Roger DeBris.

[orchajaws]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 5:27pm

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!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 5:41pm

Broderick never sold a movie? What about Ferris Bueller??? He became an overnight star from Wargames and Ladyhawke did well. Both films help to establish him and then Bueller was a HUGE success and is now considered a classic. Nathan Lane became popularly known offstage with the film Birdcage. Granted, he didn't sell the film, but he definitely became known from it. There will be enough star power in The Producers to sell the film without Nicole Kidman, but no Hollywood producer would consider touching it without it being a stellar parade. When has Hollywood ever put talent before bankability. The latest I heard was Liza is being considered as well.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 6:10pm

'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.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 10:31pm

how can ANYONE at this site say that they'd favor bankability over talent??? i do not think kidman is very talented, that is my opinion- but id say that whether or not she can pull of the end of "...flant it" is more than just opinion, we've all heard her sing, and it isnt that great, and she surly is no belter. johnpopa, are you saying that you'd sacrifice "the producers" quality as a film for the sake of its bankability? money over art???!!! if so, isnt that pretty much selling yourself to the showbiz devil?

dont take offense if you can help it, but feel free to respond, as im sure you will. Updated On: 3/16/04 at 10:31 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 10:47pm

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.'

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 10:53pm

i suppose we can only end this by siting "artist differences" the difference is that some of us feel that art matters, yes even on broadway (showbiz heaven) Updated On: 3/16/04 at 10:53 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 11:10pm

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.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 3/16/04 at 11:44pm

that all depends on what your opinion of "art" is in the first place.

like i said; artistic differences.

[alterego]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 6:17am

All hail Johnpopa!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 7:55am

JP is correct about Nathan & Matthew. They are not bankable movie stars than can open a film. The demographic that they want for THE PRODUCERS is not going to go to a film (and especially not a musical film) to see THEM.

Yes, in theory, it would be great to see the entire Broadway cast in the film. Brooks at one point stated that this was his intent. But people forget the camera is an unforgiving thing, especially with Broadway's greatest stars. It could not contain Merman, and Mary Martin's elfin onstage charm vanishes into a completely dead screen presence even in a lush Hollywood techicolor musical like HAPPY GO LUCKY. As much as we all adore Chita, she photographs strangely in SWEET CHARITY. Her face is all right angles, which works beautifully on stage, but on film it's odd. This may also be Cady Huffman's problem as well.

There is nothing wrong with THE PRODUCERS film being 'commercial' - its finding appropriate supporting stars that will be tough.

Updated On: 3/17/04 at 07:55 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 8:14am

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!

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 8:44am

thank you mister matt! furthermore, how can anyone say that hollywood lends that much more artistic merit to their productions that broadway, when, like mister matt said, it is so easy for a broadway show to fail. it is so much more probable that a movie will make some sort of profit, that the risks are barley even comparable. sure, there is commercial intervention in broadway, but i feel that broadway consistently produces work of much more value than cinema, and i am a big movie fan as well.

i know i started this whole debate about art and money, but the origional argument was about nickole kidman as ulla, what is, in my opinion, a really bad idea, but it would make more money, and it is all in what one feels is important, i guess. Updated On: 3/17/04 at 08:44 AM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 3/17/04 at 8:45am

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.