Broadway Legend Joined: 9/25/08
Again, Beauty and The Beast and Lion King
Broadway Star Joined: 3/20/08
Did you really just say that Mel Brooks was creative by bringing his already created material from films and merely putting it on a stage instead?
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN (1950's) was based on a novel and a film.
SWEET CHARITY was based on a Fellini movie called NIGHTS OF CABRIA. NINE was based on Fellinii's 8 1/2.
Geeze, even THE SOUND OF MUSIC was based on a film called "The Von Trapp Family Singers"
Sorry, but I need to respond again...
You are right The Producers was a happy awaking at a "down" time on Bway... But it wasn't the Messiah of theatre. I decided to look at a list of Broadway's longest running musicals (below) and numbers 6-10 all opened in the 90's and ran through the opening of The Producers.
I love the show, but I don't think Mel Brooks did anything to make a "dent in Broadway history" except write a really smart, tight and, what I would even call, a close to flawless show. But as of today, he is nothing more than a "Broadway one-hit-wonder"
thank you Mel Brooks for pushing little old ladies to get tickets
mc1227, How many of the "popular" stage adaptations that you say Mel Brooks inspired actually made their money back.. let alone a profit?
Yes, I believe that writing songs and dialogue for a musical adapted from a film constitutes creativity.
Sorry forgot to include the link as I mentioned above...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0153671.html
Broadway Star Joined: 3/20/08
The dialogue is out of the film for the most part.
Has HAIRSPRAY already passed the run of THE PRODUCERS?
GOOD! because Hairspray made more of an impact on broadway than THe Producers
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
I'm going to ignore mc1227 from now on. It's obvious this poor child has the IQ of a cupcake.
So far Hairspray has had just under 100 more performances than The Producers and they have the rest of November and the month of December to go before they close.
I never stated it was the Messiah of theatre. I just said that I believe that it paved the way for a musical theatre comeback and because of it's success, other shows were created and funded that might not have been created otherwise. I don't know how many investors, who Stephen Schwartz got his funding from, what other shows ran concurrently with it etc. I really don't care. I'm speaking about a feeling, a memory, of a time when theatre was down, much like it is now. None of the other shows created the feeling and reaction like The Producers did. It brought many people back to theatre. for that, I thank Mel Brooks.
Hopefully, there will be another show on the horizon that will have the same effect. Until then, we will always have the memories of Footloose and Big.
"I don't know how many investors, who Stephen Schwartz got his funding from, what other shows ran concurrently with it etc. I really don't care."
But... you also say...
"With it's achievements, it opened many purse strings that made subsequent productions (including Wicked) possible."
So please tell me... How do you back up that statement?
How do you know that WICKED wouldn't have been produced if Mel Brooks hadn't adapted THE PRODUCERS for the stage?
"With it's achievements, it opened many purse strings that made subsequent productions (including Wicked) possible."
You do understand that the workshop for Wicked happened in the same year that The Producers opened. If The Producers never happened it would not have stopped Wicked from taking place. I enjoyed The Producers but the credit given to it, IMO, is a bit overstated.
Broadway Star Joined: 3/20/08
This is about to turn into a discussion about the butterfly effect...brace yourselves...
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
They are going to start calling it Brooksway.
While I think The Producers and Young Frankenstein are enjoyable musical comedies, the inevitable fate of YF was decided once Brooks started boasting and bragging in the press. I guarantee you if Brooks kept his mouth shut, if the grosses were posted, and the absurd premium pricing never created, Young Frankenstein would have opened to positive reviews and still packing audiences in. This is Brooks' doing.
Understudy Joined: 9/5/08
"I don't think Mel Brooks did anything to make a "dent in Broadway history"
umm that could be argued...i think the producers did make a dent bway history...13 tony's..matthew and nathan together..$300 tixs...Susan's choreography...a shpw that bought people back to the bway after 9-11
Before you post something please THINK first or at least do some research. Then WE won't have to tell you that you are wrong... :)
"The Full Monty" opened on Broadway in 2000, which, last time I checked wasn't in the 1990s. Way to go on that research there, slick.
What was historic about Susan Stroman's choreography?
What was historic about Lane and Broderick on stage together?
- aside from their "return" salary.
touche TheActr97J:
I was actually going to change the 90's to the "previous decade" so I wouldn't get "caught" but I decided that it was easier the other way and i didn't think anyone would catch that... good job, you're right, but we can assume that since "The Full Monty" opened June 1, 2000 that it was completely and likely about to start casting at the end of December 1999. But, yes you are right, it did open in 2000.
Videos