What Happened To The Producers ?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 10:10am

Great article in Sunday NY Times ("The Case Of The Shrinking Blockbuster) regarding the show. One item from the article was Martin Short may come to NY in either role. I see him as Bloom but as Max ?

Updated On: 11/2/03 at 10:10 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 10:53am

I can't stand Martin Short. Eeew.

If BOUNCE folds after D.C., the powers-that-be should grab Richard Kind for Max. Friends who have seen BOUNCE tell me that he's the one star who could seriously rival Nathan in the role.

[CaTheatreGirl]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 11:49am

Jon Lovitz as Max? I've heard he could be a possibility.

[IssaMe]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 12:32pm

In London the current rumour is Ralph and Joe Fiennes under consideration as Max and Leo for "The Producers" there at the Drury Lane next fall. Just a rumour at this point?

Also that the NY producers have rejected the idea of Michael Crawford as Max in London company - deeming him "not funny enough" (well, I thought he was plenty funny in DOTV).

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 12:51pm

Mr. R., can you post the link?

Posted: 11/2/03 at 2:00pm

i would like to Jason Alexander as Max, i heard he was really good when he did that role LA

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 4:16pm

I think the public is realizing that THE PRODUCERS is basically a weak show. Lane and Broderick were so superb in it that the weaknesses of the production weren't immediately obvious.

Yes, the book is decent, but the score is truly lackluster. I've played the OBC three times and feel that I'll never put it on my changer again. And the choreography? Strohman has done better.

If there aren't super-dynamite leads in this show, it's merely a so-so evening in the theater.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 4:43pm

Agreed. Although I don't think I would ahve enjoyed it with Nathan and Matthew either. The show, to be truthful really isn't that funny, it's the actors that have to make it funny, and that didn't happen when I saw it.

[MyNameInLights]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 6:59pm

Just for the record, I DESPISE Martin Short... and if anyone should play Max it's Jason Alexander. Alright, I'm done.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 8:14pm

The piece really nailed a lot of points. Does anyone else here agree: the show really is too full of inside jokes? I mean, does the average theatergoer from Peoria howl at a guy bilking old ladies on walkers, so he can create a theatrical bomb and make money?

And didn't anyone else react to the negative marketing -- that the TKTS booth can't be used because the show will no longer be "an event..." Yet they'd rather play to 60% capacity? Reminds me of (slightly OT, sorry:) AIDA the critical week post 9/11. When the community was rallying, trying to fill seats and tell the world broadway was still alive/kicking ... yet Disney still refused to use TKTS booth, preferring to send that company of actors out in shell-shocked NYC to play to 40% rather than lose "event" status. I'll never forget that.

Anyway, at the Producers, they seem to want the impossible -- a show in its 3rd year to fill the theater with $480 charged for a helluva lot of seats. I ain't feeling sorry for them. (And really, right now they're treating the current duo as seat-warmers until Matthew and Nathan return ... when they can charge the big bucks again.

Updated On: 11/2/03 at 08:14 PM

[alterego]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 8:38pm

Even with lesser leads than Lane and Broderick the show is still better entertainment than Thoroughly Modern Millie, Rent, and any number of shows playing. The show's producers really need to spend some money on a couple of stars to fire up the ticket buying publics(imagination) and the show itself again.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 8:42pm

The Producers has a very strong book with nary a wasted line. The score is fine, not hooky like Hairspray, but repeated listenings have not disappointed me. My feeling was that the direction was consistently inventive, with something clever and different topping the last clever thing every couple of minutes. I saw it with Brad Oscar and Andy Taylor, never saw it with Nathan or Matthew, and still I laughed my head off. It's a very funny show that does not need star power unless it is essential that it be considered an "event." And that's a tactic for marketing, not a necessity.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 8:47pm

What do they do when Lane & Broderick leave this time ? Hopefully, they will have a plan this time around. The show is funny & the score & choreography are top rate. With the killer reviews it got, it should be selling out no matter who was in the leads.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 8:50pm

I'm feeling lazy tonight (just back from my parents...oy) so I'll paste what I posted on another forum.

McKinley cites PHANTOM and FIDDLER as being able to weather major cast changes with little problem. The difference between those shows and THE PRODUCERS is they are both music-driven shows with much stronger scores that bred a few hit tunes. PRODUCERS is a comedy musical (as opposed to musical comedy), with a score that is mainly just servicable. Shows of that nature tend to have much shorter Broadway lives.

Like it or not, most of the big Broadway musical hits of recent years are family- and youth oriented. I may be wrong, but I don't see THE PRODUCERS attracting a young audience the way HAIRSPRAY, LITTLE SHOP, MOVIN' OUT and even WICKED does.

I have to agree with Dolly. For me the score just lacks 'something' - With the exception of "Till Him", which is one of the most simply tender love songs on Broadway.

[alterego]

Posted: 11/2/03 at 9:05pm

I agree with FindingNamo, though at this point I really think that a couple of stars are the only thing that will remedy the situation. I believe that the shows producers probably thought they had a solid hit with or without the original leads so were a little lazy (and cheap?) with the replacements. I still love it though!

[logan30]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 12:05pm

I'll take THE PRODUCERS with any cast, any day over that dreadfully dull Millie musical or the political correctness of Hairsprary.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 12:21pm

I actually think the political heart of Hairspray and Producers are coming from exactly the same loving place. As opposed to the hateful political heart of a Jackie Mason, for instance. And complaining about "political correctness" is ultimately a conservative wish for a world in which you can say hateful things and not be called on it.

I actually think there is a world of difference from the way Carmen Ghia is portrayed in the Producers movie and the way he is portrayed in the show, and I'd like to believe it reflects Mel Brooks's evolution as a mindful human being. I think Hairspray and The Producers both show that you can have fun with people if you are not being hateful. And, of course, you can have fun with people coming from a hateful place and there will always be people who enjoy that. The problem is when the person coming from the hateful place gets incensed when somebody says, "That's hateful." (Hello, Jackie Mason.) It is usually followed by the free speech argument (of course you have free speech, just like the people calling you on your crap) and the "he makes fun of everybody defense."

Updated On: 11/3/03 at 12:21 PM

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 1:32pm

As I said before, without star leads, the Producers is a very good show, with them, it is the best thing on bway. Here's what i see as the remedy--Lane and Broderick return for three months. during that time theyll need to advertise like crazy, as if its opening for the first time again. they cant coast this time. then, once theyre out, bring in Martin Short as either role. i really think if anyone could play either, its him. If richard kind is available (as i am predicting Bounce wil never make it past DC), call him up to play Max. He or John Lovitz I believe would be great. If they can accomplish this, they can have bonafide stars running for about 6-10 months easily. that should recoup the shows reputation. and as for the jokes being over the heads of the audience, why cant they be? im sorry, but if you've never heard of the relationship between going into showbusiness and going into the toilet, you're just an idiot. there's absolutely nothing "inside" about that joke. same with "who do you have to F*** to get a break in this town" and "theatre in the round? i invented theatre in the square!" These are basic jokes, plays on words, things any idiot from Peoria should easily pick up on. Would you rather have Max sit down on the couch and let out a huge fart?? Would that resonate with EVERYONE?, even children? Im sorry but i thought that was what the medium of blockbuster film was for. This is a musical., not children's theatre. It is in New York. Theatrical show business is in New York. A vast majority of the broadway patrons who go see show after show are in new york. so why should shows be catoring to out-of-town idiots (excuse me for the harsh term, but if one doesnt get the obvious jokes as ive mentioned you should probably avoid theatre all together)? The Producers should be bold. They should say, welcome to New York, now sit down and we'll teach you a lesson. It's a great show, and if people dont get it, i feel sorry for them. they are missing out on a truly wonderful experience.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 1:47pm

Bravo! Great post.

I saw the tour, people got the jokes. That analysis of the subject being over people's heads was pretty condescending.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 1:58pm

I have not gone back to see The Producers since I saw it three days after its opening. It was pure magic. Although the 'steps' Ms. Stroman created for the piece were maybe not as complex as her work in Crazy for You, her overall vision and staging was spectacular. The score, at least in the theater, sounded like a genuine old-school musical comedy wowzer of a score. The book was astonishing and nothing...I mean NOTHING...could touch the performances given by that entire cast. Not only were Lane and Broderick the best couple I've ever seen on a stage, they were surrounded by true supporting stars (if there is such a thing). I'll never forget wiping the tears off my face from laughing so incredibly hard. It's why I won't go back and see the show. It's why I rarely go back and see any show. You can never recapture that first time.

Namo...as for the movie, I didn't have a huge problem with Carmen Ghia. I felt every character in that movie had a truly unpleasant edge to them making it, at times, difficult to watch but impossible not to. Which is why I will always love the movie just a little bit more than the musical.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 2:05pm

I saw the movie a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time ago, and god knows why the Carmen Ghia portrayal bugged me. Perhaps I wasn't out yet and felt indicted by it? Or perhaps I was newly out and felt offended by it? I can't recall. I'll have to see it again to get my wise old man take on it.

[tkts]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 2:07pm

Great post, Theatreboy33.

I've seen the show twice, once in LA with Alexander/Short and once in NY with Stadlen/Stephenson. It was wonderful in LA and just good in NY. The show does not need two stars but one good Max will work fine. Stephenson makes a great Leo. I didn't care for Stadlen at all. Keep Stephenson and rotate Maxs. Lane to Lovitz to Lithgow then Short as Max. After Alexander fails at another sitcom (Seinfeld curse) he'll love to come to NY with a hit. Top it off later in the run with a stunt casting of Jack Black who I happen to think would be great as Max.

[Princess MimiChica]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 2:11pm

"Even with lesser leads than Lane and Broderick the show is still better entertainment than Thoroughly Modern Millie, Rent, and any number of shows playing."

Sorry, I couldn't dissagree more! I was MUCH more entertained by both RENT and Millie. But anyway, regardless, I just have to agree with the ideas that without Matt and Nathan, the show is nothing. Gimme Millie or RENT over the Producers any day of the week! =D

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 2:27pm

A friend of mine recently aquired a film that I have been dying to see for a long time - a forgotten Republic musical from 1947 called THAT'S MY GAL starring the equally forgotten Pinky Lee, Judy Clark and Lynne Roberts.

The plot starts off as tantalizingly close to THE PRODUCERS: Two con-men Broadway producers (Don Barry and Frank Jenks) persuade some gullible backers to invest in a show they believe is so bad it will not play more than one day, just enough time for them to make a quick getaway when the show folds. Here's where it diverges and presumably goes downhill - One of the investors dies intestate and his interests pass to the state. The governor's secretary (Roberts) engages new talent (the Four Step Brothers, Guadalajara Trio, St. Clair & Vilvoa, Dolores and Don Graham, et al) and a new orchestra (Jan Savitt), in order to make the show successful and a profitable investment for the state. Barry (in another of the vast majority of his films in which he was not billed as Don "Red" Barry), who has fallen in love with the first-billed Roberts, reforms and buys up the surplus stock.

It'll be worth seeing, if only for the first reel or two. But I like the idea of Guadalajara Trio making a guest appearance in SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER.

Updated On: 11/3/03 at 02:27 PM

[sheekala]

Posted: 11/3/03 at 2:32pm

Theatreboy33, I'm forwarding your post to the "right people" they'll be happy to hear both your passion and logic for the show. Been yelling for years now that the marketing plan for The Producers was horrid! When Goodman wasn't working out and the creative team went into a tailspin several people were considered but the choice was Brad Oscar, while I love brad a major star should of been put in to maintain the buzz momentum of the show. it was too early to bank on Oscar to continue the buzz...