The problem with The Producers movie musical?- Page 3

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/19/07 at 2:24am

1776 hardly fist under the category of successful movie musicals.

And WickedGeek-your logic implies that all move musicals need to be an entirely different animal from its Broadway incarnation, which is not true. My Fair Lady, West Side Story, The Sound of Music and Oliver! all stayed faithful to their sourfce material (some more than others), and all won Best Picture. Being faithful isn't the problem. It's knowing whether your material is strong enough to be 100% faithful to. The Producers was not one of those shows.

[i_heart_roger_bart]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 1:34pm

RENT was a phenominal movie?! Must have missed that one. But that's a whole other thread in itself.

Here's my thoughts. I'm a devout Producers fan. The movie musical was the first chance I ever got to see any form of production. It satisfied my need to see it and it didn't draw me away from the show at all. That's not to say it was wonderful, but it was as close to the show as I could get. From then, up until it closed, I saw The Producers 75 times (literally) on stage. Being there so much, I'd noticed that the show had kind of a cult following. I can link you to people's websites if you'd care to refute that fact. I think those people who love the show, can tolerate the movie. Otherwise, if you don't like it, don't try so hard to. Say your peace, put it down and move on with your life.

Just my opinion.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 1:49pm

"The movie is VERY true to the stage show and is almost word for word."

That is what is wrong with the movie. It is basically a carbon copy of the musical. I enjoyed the show onstage, and now I have something to preserve my memory of what I saw at the St. James.

But what the movie needed was a fresh interpretation. Take Chicago, for instance. The movie was an absolutely new interpretation of the concert revival version, from the costumes and choreography to the sets, without making any extreme changes to the plot line. And you knew it wasn't being filmed at the Ambassador. With The Producers, some scenes looked like they were being filmed on the theater's stage due to the bland cinematography.

[i_heart_roger_bart]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:21pm

Stroman says she wanted it to be an almost exact adaptation of the stage production, to give it a 50s-style musical feel to it. And parts of it were actually filmed at the St. James. The audience during Springtime for Hitler. But I digress. I see where you're coming from on not liking it. After seeing it onstage so many times, I can't even really bring myself to watch it anymore either. The only numbers I can sit through are King of Broadway and Springtime.

I was thinking about this again earlier and perhaps it was also the timing of the film. I mean, if it had come out in 2002/2003, maybe it would have done better box office-wise. People were still a-buzz over it then, but it was kind of left behind and forgotten by the end of 2005. Just a thought.