First of all, i think this could be a really fun musical with lots of potential. Second, I fin dit hillarious how so many people on this boar have already put a nail in its coffin before its even been written. The same people who consistently complain about how broadway is in a bad situation are the same ones who consistantly seem to bash shows prematurely. Look, I dont think when mel brooks wrote the producers musical, he was thinking it would become the biggest tony winner of all time. by no means. he just wanted to turn a fun movie into a fun musical, full of mel brooksian-style humor. nor do i think his intent in writing the music was to put together a score of R&H proportions. all the sudden praise just came to him. he was not searching for or intending for it to happen. I mean, maybe Jerry Herman isnt exactly the best composer for a horror-spoof musical based off of a brooks film. maybe brooks, with his simple melodies and funny lyrics is the right man for his own job. i mean, fo god sake, hes not trying to replace steven sondheim here. he's already made his mark--in film. brooks is just toying around with a new hobby he's discovered in musicals. and frankly, for a hobby of a man in his 70's, id say he's pretty ddamn good at it. give the man a break and just give the show a shot.
as for broderick in the leading role, i think someone with more energy, such as martin short might do better as dr. f. broderick seems too subdued for my tastes. wilder could go over th etop more easliy than broderick can it seems.
Anyone but Broderick. He is not a musical theatre leading man - The Music Man should have proved that. He can play a two dimensional nerd , but a romantic lead he aint.
A Healthy NO C-A-R-B Diet for 2004
NO C-heney
NO A-shcroft
NO R-umsfeld
NO B-ush
and "Absolutely NO RICE!"
So we're not allowed to discuss a possible new project based on our previous experiences with the creative staff and our responses to seeing their previous work?
That's certainly interesting. Asinine, but interesting, nonetheless.
