Why do people think The Producers movie is so bad??

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:12pm

It stayed true to the stage show, it had most of the OBC (Besides Uma and Will. Who were good) Susan Stroman did a wonderful job directing and choreographing as always so why do so many people dislike it? I LOVE it!!

I think one of the problems was Uma as Ulla. I think she did good but everyone was saying she sucked in the role before the movie even came out! Everyone syuck to it once they saw her and she was just OK!

Will was brilliant.

evryone else was but Matthew acted...weird...like unreal! His acting surprised me in that! Look at Ferris Bueller (sp?) Biloxi Blues, and all of his other movies and then when he did this and the Odd Couple he acted weird. What was that about?

[Just_John]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:14pm

It had absolutely no originality. IT was just a movie of the stage production. I thought it was a bit weird, not bad but I found it boring.

[Pippin]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:15pm

I actually enjoyed it, however I have never seen the broadway show. so I have nothing to compare it to. that being said, Matthew cracked me up with all his funny takes and awkwardness.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:19pm

Matthew was funny but I would rather it had been Nathan Lane and Martin Short!

the Gypsy remake with Bette Midler had no originality and EVERYONE who has seen it loves it!

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:20pm

I think for the same reason Phantom was lackluster at the box office. Both tried to replicate the stage shows with no re-conceptualization. It just doesn't work. Also, sometimes stunt casting exists for a reason. I think the movie had a better chance if some folks with box office clout took the roles.

To me the film lacked energy, mainly because the 2 Broadway stars were sleep walking through the movie with no creative energy. A "non-Broadway" star would need to really step up to deliver. It worked for Renee & Catherine in Chicago, and others who feel the pressure to produce quality so they step it up a notch and push WAY beyond their comfort zones. That comes across in the work.

Lane and Broderick were over the top, sloppy, and looking like they were acting for the stage, not the intimacy of film. Not to mention Broderick looked bloated through the whole thing-that's not very disciplined. I think everyone involved rested on their laurels and the audience suffered. I think uma was a breathof fresh air in the movie to be quite honest. She at least was original in her choices.

[Katie2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:22pm

I loved the movie! Matthew made me laugh so hard as did everyone else. I saw the show and thought the movie was better. My favorite character was the one Will Farrell played.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:22pm

RENT, Phantom, and Producers were all horrible. They didn't do anything to make the show interesting or original like the Chicago film. It's a different medium so some things are just going to have to be cut (Like the old ladies dance in the Producers - it just didn't work on film). They would have just been better off taping the shows (like Piazza) and putting it on TV. The Producers movie was a bore if you'd seen the stage show. I thought they were all horribly overacting and Broderick was really boring,bad.

[Pippin]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:24pm

but I think Stroman purposely set out to direct it over the top, just like a movie musical from the golden days of film.

for me it worked, but I can see how it did not for others.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:24pm

I think it's one of the BEST adaptations of a musical to film ever. The cinematography is a little too made-for-TV, and cramped. It looks and sounds exactly like the show on Broadway. That said it was so freaking boring. I guess if there wasn't a show and a movie already it may have been fresh, but it just feels like something I’ve seen before only not as good.

I think it works perfectly fine as a film, and will find a place on the shelf... eventually. The cool thing about Hairspray is that there is a whole new cast. I would have preferred a DVD release of the show instead of this film.

This one keeps me awake more than Phantom. The score was FUNNY the first time I heard it, but the music is terrible thereafter. I think Mel Brooks should be working withreal composers

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:25pm

They all tried to stay too true to the stage version. Mel Brooks fans don't want to see how the Broadway version basterdized the original movie.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:25pm

I've seen the stage show! It's my all time fav show! RENT was...ok in my opinion (the girl who played MiMi overacted) and Phantom sucked (mainly because I just don't like it) Chicago was great at first but It's gotten old!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:26pm

the Gypsy remake with Bette Midler had no originality and EVERYONE who has seen it loves it!

Really? That's news to me. I don't know a lot of people who thought it was great.

And I think you answer your own question in your first post.
It was flat, some of it made no sense, and Stroman just didn't have a cinematic view or enough of an imagination to do anything new with the material to make it work on film.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:27pm

RentBoy, I TOTALLY agree with you. Why not release masterfully filmed versions of musicals? Seriously, it would help defray costs of the shows that don't do well and allow people who can't afford to go to NYC to see shows. Broadway is very classist & elitist in many ways.

I still like the idea of broadcasting Broadway shows live to places like Regal Cinemas, so people who cant travel to NYC for shows to be able to see them on a large screen. It would also generate more revenues for the shows.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:33pm

That will never happen for a number of reasons. Why would any tourist then ever go see a show while in NY? The Union logistics would be a major nightmare.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:40pm

Yes, the logisitics would be a nightmare. People who love live theatre would still go to NYC.

I don't think it would hurt attendance that much, especially if screenings were only done once in a few cities. Broadway needs to re-invent itself and move along with the times of "on-demand" entertainment. It needs to think outside the box to generate more revenue. Most shows don't tour, so maybe showing them after they close to generate more revenue might be a good idea.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:45pm

Please, that would not hurt NYC. What would will hurt NYC is these ridiculous ticket prices. It is ABSURD to charge $120.00 for a performance.
Updated On: 7/17/06 at 02:45 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:51pm

As long as people pay it or go to see a show 20 or 30 times, the producers will continue as they are getting away with it.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:52pm

"ME"- I couldn't agree more. :)

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:15pm

I enjoyed elements of The Producers movie, but felt it didn't work as a whole. Part of it might have to do with placing things it the "real" world without rethinking how the material would be presented. For example, I LOVE "Little Old Lady Land," but felt it just didn't work in the movie. It's supposed to be a fantasy sequence and is portrayed that way on stage. In the movie, they are coming out of their apartments and crossing the street in front of cabs, and kicking their heels up in Central Park. There's nothing "fantasy" about the setting, so you can't buy the scene. More importantly, they cut out the most important parts of what was filmed. I liked the version of the number that's in the "deleted scenes" section of the movie because you can sort of accept the dancing when you see it next to the scenes of what actually transpired (e.g., the individual moments with the ladies). Max didn't carry on with 500 ladies at one time. He did it one encounter at a time.

There are moments like this scattered throughout the movie that just make it not quite work.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:36pm

I loved the movie AND stage version. I loved Nathan & Matthew in their roles. No one said it was "bad." The critics actually liked it- at least the ones I heard from. No one I lnow who has seen it did not like it. It simply was not a blockbuster. I doubt anyone involed expected it to be.

If you liked the stage show, Nathan & Matthew and Mel Brooks schtick, you should have enjoyed the movie. If none of those elements are your cup of tea, then you may not have had a great time at the movie.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:42pm

I have never seen it. When early word came out they cut "The King Of Broadway" I lost all interest in it. To cut possibly the best song in the score & the one that sets up the Max character in 3 or 4 minutes kept me away from it early on

If they come out with a special edition dvd with that edited back in, I would buy it. They also made ( from what I have read)some very un Brooks moves like cutting things that might offend others. Mel Brooks of the Producers cutting "offensive stuff"? I am outta here

[bschneid76]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:48pm

I agree that while Producers wasn't as flashy as Chicago it still was great entertainment! The songs are hilarious and the engery was terrific. I thought the Little Old Lady dance was great! I thought it was interesting having them all come out of the apartments, and thought them walking in front of the taxis and them screeching to a hault was great fun! It reminded me of the old days when Movies weren't mean't to be flashy nor made with CGI graphics. They were about characters and story. Bring back the Fred Astaire type musicals!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:51pm

Reasons the movie was bad:

-Susan Stroman directed it as a stage musical, not a movie, so it was just boring to watch (might as well utilize the fact that you can do close ups, pans, zooms, etc.)
-Uma Thurman was awful
-Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick knew what they were doing was funny unlike the brilliant original where Zero and Gene were just having fun
-It has an amazingly funny original to live up to
-It was too Broadway - audiences can't accept an "act I finale" like we were given with the old ladies in the movie, they have to realize that it's a movie not a stage show

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:58pm

LOL! I didn't know "King of Broadway" was missing. Could've fooled me. I guess it was SOOOO boring it didn't cross my mind.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 3:59pm

You crack me up.