Well, I finally saw the producers, and..... — Page 2

I really like it and would definitely see it again, but I didn't find it so amazing and worthy of 14 Tony's.

Lol you very skillfully cement a valid point

---

i agree! the jokes were offensive and the show was mediocre with bad songs and bad everything ...it sucked!

---

apparently you people are not Mel Brooks fans.......

it was an amazing play

---

Yeah, I'm not getting the criticism either. Even with the hype, I thought it more than delivered. I saw it twice with the original cast, so perhaps a little of the spark has dwindled...but it's still difficult for me to process statements like this:

"...the most overblown, overstuffed, overrated "musical" in the history of musical theater. The score is about as lame and forgettable as the musical version of 'Lost Horizon'."

Let me understand, Mahatma...you're honestly questioning The Producer's right to be called a credible musical? Or am I misreading your quotation marks?

---

What I like about it:
1. Parts of certain songs - ESPECIALLY the "we believe you, we believe you, we believe you, yes we do" in Along Came Bialy or whatever it's called.
2. Broderick's singing voice on the OBCR. I can see him making my top five for actor or supporting actor performances in 2005 films.
3. The stylized sets. Gorgeous.

What I dislike about it:
1. Intentionally offensive or not, this isn't a show that I can enjoy with my boyfriend while sitting amongst senior citizens who aren't quite laughing "with" the gay jokes. If I'm unhappy or embarrassed during a show, then sorry folks, I don't consider it extremely entertaining.
2. It's a little too dependent on the performances. The plot isn't compelling enough (or even funny enough) to withstand performances that are just credible, and it should be.
3. I've really enjoyed (or at least thought I was beginning to notice) a trend toward writing musicals about serious subject matter, i.e. Parade, Ragtime, Rent. Call me crazy, but it really bothers me that the "heaviness" of Rent actually figures as a negative against it in debates over which film adaptation - Rent or The Producers - will be the bigger success. I guess I'd appreciate The Producers more if it weren't one of way too many "just for the heck of it" shows.

You know everyone has different types of humor, and if you can't find something that has Mel Brooks's name on it funny, then you shouldn't see it despite who's in the show. I don't know why everyone has to bad mouth something that does extremely well in the box office, jeez lighten up, it's a comedy.

Also, The Producers and SpamAlot are not the biggest overhyped, overrated musicals on broadway, Wicked is because although I liked it, it wasn't as enjoyable as The Producers or Spam.
________________________________________________________________
"A flute without holes, isn't a flute. A doughnut with a hole, is a danish."
-Caddyshack

The problem is, the reputation that proceeds it is that of Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. When the show returned to Chicago for the first time since its pre-Broadway tryout, the critics all agreed that the show doesn't hold-up as well as it did when MB and NL were in the cast. I thought it was funny the first two times I saw it, but after that it seems to have lost its luster, especially when compared to some of the other shows out there.

I LOVE the show. I think it's really funny and it is a good old-fashioned musical COMEDY. I do believe that the only reason it won 12 Tonys is that it opened in the right year, with right cast, etc. Had it opened in a much more competitive season, it would porbably have won 4 or 5. Still, I have a very good time each time I see it, although it is pretty much a star-driven show. It makes a huge difference who is playing the leads, it's not actorproof by any means.

---

Jesus, theatreboy and all others claiming we who didn't like The Producers must not enjoy farce,

I love farce...loved Best in Show, SCTV, MIght Wind, etc. I loved the Producers movie...I love Mel Brooks movies in general.

The Producers just didn't do it for me. It was a combination of the acting (forced and hammy) and the "jokes" (lame, forced and overlapping until you finally lost track of what the hell the scene was about).

As for coming in expecting something, there is nothing unusual about someone walking into a theater and thinking..."gee, it's written by Mel Brooks and won a Tony. I expect this will be good."

---

That's why my opening says "and all others claiming we who didn't like the Producers must not enjoy farce"...I didn't want to single out a single response.

What I didn't understand (and still don't) is how I could manage to love the movie so much, yet dislike the show. You are right with your point of:

"of course the jokes as written by mel brooks are going to be obvious, big, and yes, lame. but thats the man's style! But all the lameless, the haminess, the obviousness, is presented in a big and committed style. Its the style of the show."

I guess it just didn't work on a stage (for me) as well as a movie.

---

"The Producers" is far from the funniest show on Broadway. I personally think that "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" is the funniest show on Broadway right now. "Spamalot" is overrated. Personally, I like the music in "The Producers", but the show isn't that funny. The last time I saw it, only the scene where they Roger DeBris for the first time really got any laughs. "Springtime for Hitler" didn't get the big laughs I remembered it getting.