Why do people think The Producers movie is so bad??- Page 2

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:02pm

If you've seen the show, it was just a sheer copy with no originality to spice up what I had seen a year earlier. Aside from the casting and location filming in NYC, they may as well just tape the Broadway show.

Also, a lot of the jokes just feel funnier live and in the theater, especially if you've heard them already. Plus I just can't stand watching Matthew Broderick act anymore, he bothers me significantly. I think the last really good musical movie made off a show was Chicago. It added new zest to it that even if you were fans of the original, could go and enjoy and have a few surprises actually seeing it in a real life setting as opposed to the all black.

Updated On: 7/17/06 at 04:02 PM

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:07pm

Hi NLS! I loved this movie. It was intentionally directed "over-the-top". A throw-back to the old MGM musicals. Even the original film is "stagey", so none of that bothered me in the film. Everyone I've shown it to has also loved it. It still makes me laugh and everyone looks like they are having a great time. It was not a surprise to anyone that it wasn't a hit. They shot it quickly and cheaply and had a great time doing it!

Even with its faults, its better to have something than nothing.

(in my humble opinion...)

[bschneid76]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:10pm

It's much better than some of the crap that is out at theatre's today!!!

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:13pm

"They would have just been better off taping the shows (like Piazza) and putting it on TV"

FWIW, rentboy, Piazza was not taped and shown, but rather broadcast live, with no intention of it's ever being shown again.

Didn't care much for the musical The Producers so no suprise I didn't care for the movie. What little charm the live version held for me was completely lost in the translation.

Love the Broadway version of Chicago, but really disliked the movie. Chicago without Fosse choreography? No thanks.

[sidwich]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:13pm

Susan Stroman is a fine choreographer, but she was a terrible choice to direct the movie. She has no idea what to do with a camera.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:13pm

I thought this movie was horrible because of the overacting. And I might get jumped on for saying this but I am not the biggest fan of Matthew Brodrick however I do like Nathan Lane. It took me awhile to even watch it all the way through to be honest. Its weird, because this is the only one that has come out recently that I didn't fall in love with. Loved Chicago, Rent (of course), and Phantom.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:26pm

Don't you love how we can all have different opinions on this movie and NOT condemn people for it?

This movie worked for me because of its theatricality. Others dislike it for the same reason.

Good thread. No real bitching, just ideas...

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:27pm

One plus:

You get to see Brent Barrett all ripped with his jacked open and wearing some kick-a$$ leather pants. *swoon*

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:28pm

I haven't seen The Producers movie but, I read in review that it looked like the actors were pausing for laughs as if they were still onstage.

[Weez]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:37pm

I really liked it but for me, the weak links were Broderick and Thurman. Broderick didn't bother toning down his stage-acting for the cinema, which made him look far too OTT, and while Thurman certainly acted the hell out of the role and was undeniably adorable, her singing voice wasn't exactly right for the songs.

Also, I wish they'd left in 'The King Of Broadway'. ;_;

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 5:20pm

I've never seen the show, and really really disliked the movie. I thought it was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Matthew and Nathan did nothing for me. Will was pretty much the only one that did. It was just dull.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 5:44pm

I loved the film.

I'm tired of all the criticism over it being a filmed representation of the stage show. That's one of the things I loved about it. Isn't that the point? When movie musicals go their own direction, they get flack for not being true to the show or "like the original." Now that a musical was finally filmed in a way that completely honored the stage production that inspired it, the critics and many fans are unhappy.

Again, I loved the film.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 5:54pm

Well a problem with that is the stage show is already fulfilling to the material. I really don't think you could have done a lot with it, why did they even bother making a film out of it? It tanked and it has already been a movie and a musical, which were both fine. Why go further to bother with a 3rd version that just didn't progress how great the first 2 versions were?

[James885]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 6:02pm

I enjoyed The Producers movie. I thought it was hilarious, although I haven't seen the stage show, so I can't compare. The movie did have its flaws, though. I thought that the way some of the songs were done was strange. That Face, where Matthew sings staring at the camera, comes to mind. I know that during the commentary Susan Stroman said that the idea behind this was that Leo is speaking directly to the audience. That kind of stuff is great for live theatre, where you have that intimate connection with the audience, but I don't think it works in a movie.

Also some of the pauses were strange. The one that really sticks out for me is at the end of Betrayed, before it cuts to the courtroom scene. I also agree that they should have kept the the extra scenes in Along Came Bialy to give a sense of what really happened.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 6:17pm

I think films need to be their own thing. Otherwise, why not just film the Broadway show? The most successful film musicals understand this. THE PRODUCERS suffers from not being very cinematic; but, my real problem with THE PRODUCERS, is that it doesn't live up to the original film. Nor did the stage production, so for me, it's just not that funny. The definitive performances had already been done.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 6:31pm

We have been down this road before, but since you asked.

1. Brooks wanted to film a faithful adaptation of the stage musical for people who never got to see it. While those of us who have seen the stage show may have already known all the punch lines etc., this movie was made to capture the performances of the actors who did the original roles on Broadway(only wish Cady Huffman and Brad Oscar had captured theirs).

2. In the genre of the old fashioned musical movies, the film was done with a lot of closeups, rich color and over the top performances (again this was what Brooks wanted - not the mark of poor direction by Stroman). You may not agree with his choices, but then it is HIS money AND Universal's money (who by the way was very happy with the returns.

3. The movie is still opening in a few selected countries but in U.S. and international release and with DVD rental returns alone (WITHOUT including DVD sales) it has already made back its investment. It was never intended to be a huge movie and god knows movie musicals will probably never bring in the big bucks again. But it didn't TANK, as people are prone to report. It did quite well considering Universal didn't do much to promote it.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 7:02pm

By successful, I wasn't referring to money (although, that statement could hold true for those films that made the most money, as well), I was referring to a good film. THE PRODUCERS may have done everything Brooks and Universal wanted, but that doesn't make it a good film. It isn't successful, because it won't be remembered. It will forever be in the shadow of the original, because it did nothing to replace the original. It just exists, that all. And, my question stands, why not just film the show, on stage?

Updated On: 7/18/06 at 07:02 PM

[NathanLaneStalker]

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

Brad Oscar was originally signed to play Franz but he chose to stay with the show as Max on broadway so they got Will (Smart move!) Don't get me wrong! I LOVE Brad but Will brought in other people besides broadway fans!

And Nicole Kidman was originally going to play Ulla but droped it for some HUGE flop movie in Austrailia!

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 7:44pm

Brad Oscar did not choose to stay out of the movie, NathanLaneStalker. Don't know where you got that info.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 8:57pm

I read it from an interview with Mel Brooks! He said Brad was going to be in it as Franz but Brad chose to stay out so he could play Max on broadway! He did make a cameo as the Taxi driver!

[stage_door76]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 9:07pm

I love reading everyone's opinions.

And I agree - the film had a LOT of problems.

yes it was faithful to the stage adaptation, however it was 'so' faithful the stro's direction essentially saw the cast performing the musical as though it were a revival - no sense of spatial awareness or acknowledgment of the subtleties of film.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 9:13pm

Just an observation: People use the "!" way too much. One will suffice, and even then, you don't need to use it in every sentence.

"The cinematography is a little too made-for-TV"
---> I think that's why I didn't like it. It just didn't "feel" like a movie. The sets looked too much like "sets" and not a real place. It didn't seemed to be set in reality, I didn't like that. If they should have cut anything, they should have cut the old lady number or at least done it like a "fantasy." Although, my parents loved it, but I didn't think it was as funny as the stage show.

[mijofly19]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 9:22pm

Brad didn't choose not to play Franz in the film. He was slated to play it, but couldn't because he had already signed on to do the Broadway version as Max. It wasn't his choice, he had already signed the contract:

http://imdb.com/name/nm1898313/bio

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 9:50pm

Well, that's what I meant but I thought it was HIS choice to stay with the show on broadway!

[jv92]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 10:23pm

It was technically a film of the Broadway show with bigger sets, some new cast members and a larger orchestra. I didn't really care for it.