THE PRODUCERS FILM- Page 2

[Elphaba984]

Posted: 8/21/04 at 8:47pm

Ok I do agree with the few that said Nicole is the popular one getting people to the movies. But personally, I think she's kind of whiny. At least singing wise. I don't like her voice at all. I think they could have done a better job casting Ulla, since Cady Huffman didn't sign. Why didn't Cady sign? I know it was probably said why but I haven't heard anything.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/21/04 at 8:49pm

Cady is not in it because Nicole was asked to do the role.

[Jon]

Posted: 8/21/04 at 11:39pm

Cady was never offered the role.

To be brutally honest, in movie close-up, Cady isn't very pretty at all.

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 8/21/04 at 11:46pm

In today's world, that really doesn't matter. If they can make Charlize THeron (sp?) monstrous for her movie, they can make someone look gorgeous.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 8/21/04 at 11:57pm

what they can't do, though, it turn Cady's name into one that will sell tickets.

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 12:01am

Now that is something no amount of make-up will do.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 5:24am

Nichole's name didn't make STEPFORD WIVES into a hit.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 6:07am

her name didn't hurt it either. having a big star doesn't guarantee people will like the movie, but it generally doesn't hurt the movie either. should we assume STEPFORD WIVES would have done better with Cady in the role?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 7:01am

"Having a big star doesn't guarantee people will like the movie" is exactly the point. No, Kidman didn't hurt STEPFORD WIVES, but the fact that it bombed shows that she is not the box-office guarantee for everything that everybody assumed she was. Like it or not, a musical film with the entire Broadway cast would never be backed by a major studio. The would insist on 'name' Hollywood stars. It's actually something of a miracle that Gary Beach & Roger Bart were cast (and a not-so-blind item in one of the tabloids a few weeks ago hinted that Lane wanted to thank Brad Oscar for being a trouper by strongly suggesting to Mel that some role in the film be found for him).

In the right role, Kidman is fine (she deserved her Oscar for THE HOURS) but I can think of other 'name' actresses (Zellwegger & Witherspoon, for instance) that would make a superior Ulla.

Updated On: 8/22/04 at 07:01 AM

[ProducersFan]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 8:40am

I really hope Brad gets some sort of role in the film. He's been with the show pretty much from the beginning (at least from the Chicago tryouts onwards) and really deserves to be recognized along with Nathan, Matthew, Roger, and Gary.

~Jessica

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 9:08am

MasterLCZ I agree 100% with what you're saying. If it were up to me, movies like this would be entirely Broadway performers! It's inevitable that any musical popular enough to get made into a major motion picture will have to accept "name brand" casting in some form.

I'm just happy that THE PRODUCERS is able to keep its 4 most memorable original cast performers in tact and that Ulla and Liebkind were at least given to celebrities who are more than capable of acting the roles well. Their singing may not quite compare with that of Cady or Brad, but the world's not perfect.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 9:21am

As the person who broke the news here three weeks before it was announced that Nic was doing the film, I still think she is the right choice. If for no other reason she is the one big movie name in the cast that will create any interest. Certainly none of the others have an Oscar to their name.

When is this film to be made? I thought they were starting about March. If this is so, then I guess Gary Beach will have to take leave of absence from La Cage to do it. I'm surprised that no one here has brought that up.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 9:45am

Funny though, I hear that while Nathan, Matthew, Roger, Wil and Gary all signed their contracts weeks ago.....

Nichole hasn't.

Kinda late isn't it? Pre-production begins in January.


It might be a mere formality, of course.

Or not.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 11:29am

Gary will have no problem doing both. The movie starts pre-pro in Jan and is scheduled to start filming in Feb (unless Brooks doesn't finish the script in time in which case a March push back has been discussed) but they are trying to stay on schedule because Lane has other things coming up, as I'm sure others do.

As for Gary taking time out...Broderick did the pickups for Stepford Wives AND fulfilled his 2nd run obligations to the Producers on stage at the same time. It's done quite often in NY. I agree with MasterLCZ that it is a miracle that we were allowed to have these four guys do this movie and that it wasn't, as Lane had suggested back in the first run of the Producers on Broadway, going to be recast with Danny Devito and Ben Stiller...and we are all aware that there is stunt casting for box office...but that doesn't mean that Kidman is the 'best' person for the role in a perfect world. I have the greatest respect for her dramatic acting skills but I don't think she's a comedienne and I don't find her warm or sexy...both of which are required for Ulla in my mind.

Just my humble opinion.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 11:37am

"Having a big star doesn't guarantee people will like the movie" is exactly the point. No, Kidman didn't hurt STEPFORD WIVES, but the fact that it bombed shows that she is not the box-office guarantee for everything that everybody assumed she was.

"Stepford Wives" was bound to be a flop because of it's unusually high budget (about $90 million) and all the trouble it went through just to get finished. Add to that, a poor marketing campaign which gave away the entire movie (so, there's no need to see it), it didn't have much of a chance. No one really expected it to do anything. However, it still made an impressive $21 million opening weekend (opening with "Harry Potter" in theaters) and managed to make a decent $58 million total. I think that the cast really helped make this movie some money (Kidman, Bette Midler, and Faith Hill. I'm not sure if Broderick is really a draw, but I could be wrong). And, I'd also like to add that I don't think just having a certain celebrity in a movie will bring in money. "Stepford Wives" just didn't look like a good movie (I saw it and enjoyed it, but the ads weren't flattering). Look at "Catwoman," Halle Berry is a huge star and has plenty of fans. But, "Catwoman" looked like a horrible movie, so it bombed ($38 million total). So, you can't say that just because "Stepford Wives" didn't make a ton of money, Nicole Kidman isn't a box office draw.

That was a lot longer than I had anticipated. Updated On: 8/22/04 at 11:37 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 11:41am

it didnt make money because it sucked!

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 1:11pm

Yes, there were a lot of reasons for the Stepford Wives to fail, but his point was that the fact that NK was IN the movie did not ensure its success.

And, though there were several people who reported earlier in this thread that she is a joy to work with according to their friends...I have to say that my sources say just the opposite and there was an unstoppable rumor flying around the cast of SW to the degree that the cast was asked to try to deflate it so that people would go see the movie. That rumor basically said that there were several very difficult people working on this shoot who made the set miserable and one of them was NK. Take that with a grain of salt perhaps but all that aside, I don't really think that (stunt casting or no stunt casting) she is RIGHT for this role. They could have cast Faith Hill (who can sing) or any number of other women in this part and they would have more physically right for the role and had a better singing voice and still had good box office potential. But they didn't So I guess we all have to live with it. In the end, if the movie gets made and more people get to see the brilliance of Lane Broderick together and Beach and Bart...I will be happy.

[Mythus]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 1:41pm

I remember in an interview, Frank Oz acknowledged that there was some fighting on the set of Stepford Wives. But really, when isn't there a little fighting on set?

SamIAm, you're right - we just have to live with the decision. If Mel Brooks thinks it's a good idea, then I'm not going against him. ...I'm still going to see it because of Roger and Gary.

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 5:29pm

Well, I think of it this way: if Kidman wasn't in it, it would have done that more terribly.

[zoran912]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 5:51pm

At least they didn't cast Marisa Tomei.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 5:52pm

I read that Frank Oz and Bette Midler didn't always see eye to eye.

[musicalfandukie]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 6:22pm

where do you find the info of who is in the cast?? i did a search on yahoo and found nothing on the movie

Posted: 8/22/04 at 6:31pm

i've got a question, was cady huffman the girl who played ulla on the curb you're enthusiasm season finale?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 6:34pm

Before you go and start talking about fighting on the set of THE STEPFORD WIVES, you need to realize the shoot was supposed to last around 7-8 weeks and ended up taking over 30, not to mention daily script changes plus the cast was called back to reshoot the ending. I'm sure a book will be written, but it surely wasn't just Nick that was pissed on the set.

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 8/22/04 at 6:34pm

Wait--Bette Midler isn't in the movie is she? She totally should be somehow--she'd be awsome.