Ok, I don't understand why Young Frankenstein is so underrated- Page 2

[Mamie]

Posted: 1/19/08 at 10:14pm

I loved it. I'd read all the bitter comments on this board and others and couldn't believe it was as bad as some said. I was right - it not only wasn't bad, it was great fun and I really had a wonderful time. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says being entertained and enjoying yourself is bad.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 1/19/08 at 11:10pm

Because it wasn't funny. The score was forgettable. The only things I found worthy in the show were the sets and Christopher Fitzgerald's performance. The show was nothing but sex jokes that made me groan instead of laugh. "Puttin' On the Ritz" was the only number I felt that worked.

[Mamie]

Posted: 1/19/08 at 11:44pm

Oh - it wasn't funny? My mistake. I guess I didn't laugh or enjoy it after all.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 1/19/08 at 11:59pm

"...The score was forgettable. The only things I found worthy in the show were the sets..."

I feel the same way about Phantom of the Opera...except the score isn't forgettable, it's horrible.

Updated On: 1/20/08 at 11:59 PM

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 12:07am

ShbrtAlley44, you're right about the line. ::hangs head in shame::

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 12:08am

Don't be ashamed! :)

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 12:40am

I paid premium prices for my tix when they first went on-sale, and I LOVED the experience... See my review for reasoning/overview/etc. -

[jmnpublications]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 12:48am

In all my years of theater going, I have NEVER hated anything more than Young Frankenstein. I was bored to tears and openly angry at the level of mediocrity and hubris masquerading as a Broadway musical.

1. Jokes were stale and delivered with a "look at me, aren't I funny" attitude that was so forced you could see the veins pop on the actors' faces.
2. All the subtlety and nuance of the film was obliterated by Susan Stroman's Red Bull-induced and unimaginative direction.
3. Sutton Foster and Megan Mullaly were wasted playing crassly objectified and abundantly unoriginal sexual stereotypes. They looked embarrassed to be there and gave thoroughly uninspired performances.
4. Roger Bart was not funny. At all. He was pushing so hard that he looked like a demented evil scientist instead of a well-meaning mensch caught up in the hilarious chaos that surrounded him.
5. Shuler Hensley was a shrill one-note monster. If he shouted "Puttin' on the Ritz" one more time in the same agonized and unendearing way during his production number, I would have screamed myself.
6. The overblown production values - sets, lights, ridiculously loud sound - went against everything that the movie supposedly represented: a parody of old B-movie horror flicks that were famous for cheesy, low-budget special effects.
7. The music was horrid - completely vapid and forgettable. I can't even remember the name of one song.
8. There were two things good about Young Frankenstein: Christopher Fitzgerald and Andrea Martin. Thank goodness they decided to be in another show altogether. They not only deserve Tony nominations, but also Purple Hearts for soldiering on so admirably through such a ridiculous travesty.

The fact that so many people are loving this show makes me wonder about the future of Broadway musicals. The bar keeps falling lower and lower. As people become more and more accepting of mediocrity as the standard, soon no one will know the difference.

Fire away! I just had to get that off my chest.

lc

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 1:07am

My sentiments nearly to the letter, lovesclassics. It offends me that this level of mediocrity, as you put it, is considered entertaining. The only thing I'd disagree with: Tony nominations for Martin and Fitzgerald. While they, of all the cast members, do the most with the material they have, neither is worthy of an award. They are just as guilty of the "hit the audience over the head with jokes" as their castmates (and yes, I'm sure they were directed to be this way). However, despite their great energy, these are not award-worthy performances. I was neither moved, amused, nor impressed (beyond a certain admiration for their aforementioned energy) by them. Obviously they are talented, but the material offers them no help.

Mamie, my apologies to you - I don't want to offend, but I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could think this show was anything even remotely approaching "enjoyable." I'm happy you had a good time, but that doesn't mean I'll ever understand it.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 1:21am

Shbrt,

Maybe I considered them award-worthy because they were so far superior to everything and everyone else around them. Perhaps they simply looked stellar by comparison. They actually developed full characters and played the truth in them, which made them very, very funny. They were the only source of laughter for me.

lc

[goldenstate5]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 2:04am

I haven't seen the show, so I can't speak for that, but I can say that the score doesn't deserve the bashing that people give it. I actually like the CD. Sure, there's a few forced songs, but I've found myself humming some songs and I love "Please Send Me Someone" and "He Vas My Boyfriend". Sure, not the best score, but I've heard much, much worse...

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 2:36am

I got you, lovesclassics.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 2:38am

I have nothing against Brooks.. that man's work has made me laugh for decades.

As for the show... I found it boring. You could see the jokes coming from 10 miles away. And I've NEVER seen the film.

So much of it seemed so forced and overblown...and the humor stretched pretty thin.

I also thought Bart needed to turn up the "star" wattage. He came off, to me, as the ideal 2nd National tour Dr.Frankenstein.

[i_heart_roger_bart]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:04am

"The fact that so many people are loving this show makes me wonder about the future of Broadway musicals. The bar keeps falling lower and lower."

Now, I respect your dislike of the show. That's fine. Your opinion is your own and absolutely respected. But I disagree with the forementioned statement. Something you find mediocre and substandard might be something brilliant and fun to someone else. Not everyone is a Broadway connaisseur.

Personally, I think Phantom is the most horrendously boring musical I've ever seen in my life, with the absolute most BORING and forgettable music I've ever heard. But again, that's my opinion. I'm not going to say the future of Broadway is shot to hell because people enjoy a musical I despise. That's a bit extreme.

Now I'm babbling. Forgive me.
Anyhow, I really enjoyed YF. (My name doesn't make me biased. I always go to any show with an open mind regardless if I'm fond of the actor or not.) I really thought the production value was incredible and found all the songs quite catchy and enjoyable. I do agree that Christopher and Andrea absolutely stole the show.. and both definitely deserve Tonys.

Anyway, I'm done now. Long rant.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:16am

in response to the OP. The term Theatrical Abortion comes to mind.

[Little-Lotte]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:17am

I came into the show being a big fan of the film. I loved "The Producers" musical but I was not much of a fan of the original 1960s film.

The big reason why I think YF is a failure is because they tried too hard to repeat the same formula they used in "The Producers". The whole "hey we're in a musical and we know it, so here are some jokes that fans of musicals will immediately get!". Obviously this approached worked wonders with "The Producers" because of the theatre-related storyline.

The problem with "Young Frankenstein" is that the entire basis of the movie is to parody the old Universal horror films. So that angle, on film, obviously works but it really can't onstage. Onstage they kept alternating between the musical (similar to The Producers) angle and copying it's own source material (the original film). Unfortunately they tried to have their cake and eat it to, but this material does not support that approach. So what you get is a combination of ideas that don't really work. The audience knows the jokes and anticipates them so much that they're not really paying attention to much else of what's going on. All they're waiting for are the classic lines so this show is able to get through on a book that completely unravels at the end (what the hell was with that horrible excuse for an ending anyway?) and because you satisfied their urge to literally SEE the movie onstage, the audience doesn't care about anything else.

The score was very forgettable, while with "The Producers" I left humming many songs, the only one I could even possibly remember in this show was "Roll in the Hay" - one of the only music highlights in the entire show.

The cast tried best with what they could but most people were either underused, miscast or so overshadowed by their film counterpart that no matter what they will never be able to surpass that.

This is only my opinion but as someone who loved Brooks' previous musical efforts and the YF film itself, I left absolutely disappointed and so happy that I found cheap tickets off of eBay instead of paying full price.

To be honest, in my opinion, the only Mel Brooks film that could work onstage as well as "The Producers" did is probably "Robin Hood: Men in Tights". Most of his other films are direct parodies of specific FILM genres, which as is the case with "Young Frankenstein" just doesn't translate well.
Updated On: 1/20/08 at 03:17 AM

[winston89]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:19am

I did enjoy some of it. I think that it was far worse then the Producers were. The score was bland and shallow and it was clear what the jokes were five minuets before they said them.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:20am

than

minutes

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 3:39am

The sold out theatre loved it when I saw it!

I just love it when someone posts something like that...what, you asked everyone at the end, or...?

[nitsua]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 4:01am

I love ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS!

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 4:04am

Updated On: 5/8/09 at 04:04 AM

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 11:15am

And it has the same tune as "Jews In Space." "We're zooming around protecting the Heeebrew raaace...."

Actually if he was going to pick one of his more famous movies to make a musical out of, it should have been Blazing Saddles. That lends itself much more to the "Producers"-type of humor; it's very madcap and silly, whereas Young Frankenstein is much more subtle in its humor.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 11:30am

Also, Blazing Saddles would have actually forced them to re-write some of the script...

[pants2]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 11:48am

I'm with HBBrock on this one, I really enjoyed YF and can't see what all the negativity is about.

[zepka102]

Posted: 1/20/08 at 11:50am

I found the show to be boring. The songs weren't catchy enough for me and a lot of the jokes felt forced. I think I laughed at a small handful. The sets, costumes, and special effects are all beautiful and there was a lot of talent on that stage, but overall, the show didn't capture me.

I didn't see The Producers, but I did break down and watch the movie. I found that to be boring too.