Thanks to Mel Brooks — Page 3
#52
Posted: 11/24/08 at 12:22am
"12 Tony Awards, bossbear, not 13."
ah yes my bad 12 tony awards....but still i think that is a dent in history
ah yes my bad 12 tony awards....but still i think that is a dent in history
#53
Posted: 11/24/08 at 8:51am
This thread is hilarious. To claim that Brooks and The Producers have been responsible for the revitalization of Broadway during the past few years is ridiculous. As others have pointed out, adapting movies into musicals is a trend that has been going on for decades.
The Producers is historic because it won 12 Tonys and it was the first major musical comedy hit Broadway had seen in years. Not because of the choreography, or its stars, or its direction.
The Producers is historic because it won 12 Tonys and it was the first major musical comedy hit Broadway had seen in years. Not because of the choreography, or its stars, or its direction.
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
#54
Posted: 11/24/08 at 9:12am
I think that The Producers breathed new life into Broadway during that period. I don't remember such a run on tickets in many years. Whether it continues to affect today's shows is another story---altho' it is much more difficult since then to get advance tickets to shows that have a positive advance buzz.
#55
Posted: 11/24/08 at 9:18am
I don't know that The Producers changed Broadway history, but in the Spamalot chapter of Eric Idle's The Greedy Bastard Tour Diary, he says:
"I became convinced that [Monty Python and the Holy Grail] might really work on stage at the opening night of The Producers in New York.
[snipped description of late 1980s effort by Idle to convince Brooks to let him write The Producers as a musical and raves about The Producers' opening night]
I had been right. At last -- a musical comedy. [Comedy is italicized for emphasis in the book but I don't know how to do italics on this board.] What John Du Prez and I had been trying to create for fifteen years. And maybe, I thought, just maybe I was right about The Holy Grail. Perhaps now it would be possible to find people who would take it seriously."
So Eric Idle, at least, thought that The Producers made a difference in the receptiveness of investors to musical comedies.
As far as my own impression of Brooks, he had me with The Producers, but lost me with the premium pricing for Young Frankenstein. It felt like gouging just because he thought he could.
"I became convinced that [Monty Python and the Holy Grail] might really work on stage at the opening night of The Producers in New York.
[snipped description of late 1980s effort by Idle to convince Brooks to let him write The Producers as a musical and raves about The Producers' opening night]
I had been right. At last -- a musical comedy. [Comedy is italicized for emphasis in the book but I don't know how to do italics on this board.] What John Du Prez and I had been trying to create for fifteen years. And maybe, I thought, just maybe I was right about The Holy Grail. Perhaps now it would be possible to find people who would take it seriously."
So Eric Idle, at least, thought that The Producers made a difference in the receptiveness of investors to musical comedies.
As far as my own impression of Brooks, he had me with The Producers, but lost me with the premium pricing for Young Frankenstein. It felt like gouging just because he thought he could.
#56
Posted: 11/24/08 at 11:49am
as much as i like the Producers.. i honestly felt that the Full Monty was a better show and deserved some awards over the Producers that year... i actually like the score better... oh well
#57
Posted: 11/24/08 at 12:14pm
The Producers and Mel Brooks have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not other shows were produced. It was a hit, mainly carried by the pairing of Lane and Broderick (and never recovered when they left). With the exception of MAYBE Spamalot (as was mentioned in previous post), every other show that has opened would have opened. And to credit The Producers with the resurgence of Broadway after Sept. 11 is beyond ridiculus.
#58
Posted: 11/24/08 at 12:31pm
The Producers was guaranteed to be a hit (with original cast intact, at least) before 9/11.
Just because a show is a big deal and generates a lot of buzz at the time of its opening doesn't mean anything besides the fact that it was a big deal and generated a lot of buzz.
The fact is, after Lane and Broderick left, The Producers struggled to duplicate the success and vim that they (and the rest of the original cast) brought to the production.
If anything, it's notable because people weren't going to see The Producers. They were going to see Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers.
Just because a show is a big deal and generates a lot of buzz at the time of its opening doesn't mean anything besides the fact that it was a big deal and generated a lot of buzz.
The fact is, after Lane and Broderick left, The Producers struggled to duplicate the success and vim that they (and the rest of the original cast) brought to the production.
If anything, it's notable because people weren't going to see The Producers. They were going to see Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#59
Posted: 11/24/08 at 7:58pm
The show ran 6 years, 15 months with Matthew and Nathan, the rest with virtual unknowns, with the exception of Tony Danza. I'd say that's a pretty successful run. You're all entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine as well.
It's pretty clear that this board will only consider Wicked, Rent and anything with Patti LuPone, Patrick Wilson and Cheyenne Jackson as being great for Broadway.
It's pretty clear that this board will only consider Wicked, Rent and anything with Patti LuPone, Patrick Wilson and Cheyenne Jackson as being great for Broadway.
The only review of a show that matters is your own.
Updated On: 11/24/08 at 07:58 PM
#60
Posted: 11/24/08 at 8:12pm
"It's pretty clear that this board will only consider Wicked, Rent and anything with Patti LuPone, Patrick Wilson and Cheyenne Jackson as being great for Broadway."
No, it's only people like you who think so. When someone disagrees with posters like you that is their argument. Yet we talk about other shows being great for Broadway.
To be honest, I feel Mel Brooks did something that I'd wanted for a while. He put some hummable songs back on broadway and created songs that allowed for brassy orchestrations. The style of music that he incorporates in his shows is why I love musical theatre. I don't love all of his songs, but I love the style they came from.
With broadway shows getting pop-rock scores it's nice to have some refreshing, brassy, orchestrated songs. Thoroughly Modern Millie and The Drowsy Chaperone did the same for me.
I don't think Mel Brooks single handedly rejuvinated theatre. I think he created a show that was refreshing. But to say Big and Footloose will not make dents in broadway history is delusional.
Though it's painful to admit, you know what actually helped broadway? Disney's investments in adaptations and remodeling. If anything, that helped more than Mel Brooks.
But he did a good thing. He created a refreshing show, and that's something to be proud of.
No, it's only people like you who think so. When someone disagrees with posters like you that is their argument. Yet we talk about other shows being great for Broadway.
To be honest, I feel Mel Brooks did something that I'd wanted for a while. He put some hummable songs back on broadway and created songs that allowed for brassy orchestrations. The style of music that he incorporates in his shows is why I love musical theatre. I don't love all of his songs, but I love the style they came from.
With broadway shows getting pop-rock scores it's nice to have some refreshing, brassy, orchestrated songs. Thoroughly Modern Millie and The Drowsy Chaperone did the same for me.
I don't think Mel Brooks single handedly rejuvinated theatre. I think he created a show that was refreshing. But to say Big and Footloose will not make dents in broadway history is delusional.
Though it's painful to admit, you know what actually helped broadway? Disney's investments in adaptations and remodeling. If anything, that helped more than Mel Brooks.
But he did a good thing. He created a refreshing show, and that's something to be proud of.
"Light the candles! Get the ice out! Roll the rug up, it's today!"
#61
Posted: 11/24/08 at 9:14pm
People just read parts of posts that they want to disagree with. I never once stated that he single handedly did anything except present a show that caused excitement for musical comedy again and because of that excitement, people came back to Broadway when they had been staying away. I also expressed a thought that it helped pave the way for other shows that may not have been considered had it not been for the great success of The Producers.
I totally agree with you Sondheimgeek about the musical orchestrations and a feeling of some of the great Broadway musicals of yesteryear. That, along with an appreciation of Mel's unique comedy and of course, that great cast, was a winning combination. That's why I posted to begin with. Many disagree and that's fine. I just remember how the theatre was dying right before it and that's a bad memory. I'm feeling like theatre needs another shot in the arm like it did then.
I totally agree with you Sondheimgeek about the musical orchestrations and a feeling of some of the great Broadway musicals of yesteryear. That, along with an appreciation of Mel's unique comedy and of course, that great cast, was a winning combination. That's why I posted to begin with. Many disagree and that's fine. I just remember how the theatre was dying right before it and that's a bad memory. I'm feeling like theatre needs another shot in the arm like it did then.
The only review of a show that matters is your own.
#62
Posted: 11/24/08 at 9:36pm
Sorry mc1227, but I think it is you who need to read more than just "parts of posts."
You in your OP said, "It was the "The Producers" that opened the door for popular movies to be turned into musicals." That is a specific comment has nothing to do with what your last post and that has been the major piece of our arguments.
Think a little before you post incorrect statements! (As you did by saying that Christian Hoff was not above the title on another thread)
You in your OP said, "It was the "The Producers" that opened the door for popular movies to be turned into musicals." That is a specific comment has nothing to do with what your last post and that has been the major piece of our arguments.
Think a little before you post incorrect statements! (As you did by saying that Christian Hoff was not above the title on another thread)
#63
Posted: 11/24/08 at 10:00pm
I apologize for not remembering some of the shows mentioned (but I don't believe they had the same impact anyway), but that doesn't change what I originally meant by the post, which was to credit someone for bringing the musical comedy genre back to Broadway and paving the way for other similar shows being developed. You don't have to agree and obviously you don't. My posting is just my opinion from what I recall. I remember the worry about the future of Broadway back then and that show helped erase that worry. Hopefully, there will be another show someday soon that will have a similar impact.
The only review of a show that matters is your own.
#64
Posted: 11/24/08 at 11:15pm
The Producers brought a new runaway hit to Broadway during the early millennium after a couple of slow seasons, which is quite a normal cycle for Broadway. Beyond that, it was hardly influential in a resurging financial success of Broadway, which was can mostly be attributed to the continued runs of Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Rent, Chicago, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Other hits in following seasons would have opened and become hits with or without The Producers because there were several long-running shows still going strong at the time with plenty of new shows, successful and not, opening around the same time. The Producers was the right show at the right time. No more or less.
I remember the worry about the future of Broadway back then and that show helped erase that worry.
The main worry was 9/11, which was several months after the opening of The Producers. It helped distract people from the depression of the tragic events of the time. But several shows helped erase the worry, whether they eventually recouped or not. Urinetown, The Full Monty and the revival of 42nd Street come to mind as well.
I remember the worry about the future of Broadway back then and that show helped erase that worry.
The main worry was 9/11, which was several months after the opening of The Producers. It helped distract people from the depression of the tragic events of the time. But several shows helped erase the worry, whether they eventually recouped or not. Urinetown, The Full Monty and the revival of 42nd Street come to mind as well.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95