sadly, "Producers" film continues to tank at B.O.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:19pm

It's startling to note the lack of interest in this film. In 16th place, it's playing in about 1000 theaters (twice as many as BROKEBACK) but with a per screen average of only $2,400, and $2,277 b.o. million this weekend. It's made 15 million back, against a 45 million production cost. Bad, bad news for musical films, coming on the heels of the lukewarm (at best) RENT reception. I was not fond of the film translation of PRODUCERS, but thought it a commercially viable property. It would take a miracle for it to break out, now. With only 2 grand in the till per, it will likely be pulled next week from many theaters, with a major expansion unlikely.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:24pm

What the heck is Hostel? Why is it the number one movie, and why have I never heard of it?

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:26pm

Oh, come on. Universal just completely shafted this movie. I'd say under the nearly non-existent promotional campaign and unbelievably low theater/showtime count, this is the best it ever had a chance to do.

Hopefully Dreamgirls will be a big hit next year. It has a lot of star power and Oscar potential.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:27pm

A movie about some fun-loving twenty-somethings who get tortured in a basement. Can't wait til it's exported to other countries. (And no one stopped HOSTEL from playing in Utah. I guess dismemberment and genital mutilation is okay, but two men kissing is sinful.)

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:29pm

Oh lord, that sounds awful.

Yes, I'm amazed at the amount of violence people can stand, but consensual love gets censored. Great.

[BelleKid]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:34pm

if it helps they arent showing it here and im an hour out of dc. It would help if more theaters were carrying it but i think tthey're worried it was gonnna do as bad as Rent...

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:34pm

I really do not think Universal shafted this movie at all publicity wise... there have been tons of Producer's previews the last couple of months and HUGE posters up all around the movie theatres and malls here in Virginia.

[WickedOne2]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:47pm

Does anyone know why the Producrs is in less than 1000 theaters?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:55pm

It's supposed to open wide on January 13, but rumor has it that Universal cancelled those plans.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 4:59pm

The original plan for release was:
December 16, 2005 (limited)
December 25, 2005 (nationwide release)
January 13, 2006 (expansion to wide release)

Considering the reviews (justifiable), and the box office reciepts, it will be interesting to see how many theatres it expands to next weekend.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 5:22pm

Why are people surprised? It's a bad-directed film, with not-so-great acting (Gary Beach and Roger Bart being the only actors worthy of the movie ticket price), and mediocre songs. Also, while they did advertise the movie for about two months before it premiered, it hardly had a great advertising campaign like Rent or the more recent Dreamgirls. Also, unlike Rent, The Producers have been running for only 4 years or so which doesn't help create a big fan base like Rent's.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 5:24pm

I can't be too sad that a bad movie like The Producers tanks at the box office. If only every crappy movie tanked...

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 5:55pm

It opens here in Australia this coming Thursday. The posters are everywhere, the film trailer is shown nearly 4 times a night on all free to air T.V stations.

Opening on a least a 1000 screens here, this movie is not being shafted in release here.

[IveGottaBeME]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 6:00pm

my cousin who is a movie lover but isn't familiar with the producer musical thought it was terrible. he said he only liked the nazi song.. and, another girl commented "that was weird that mathew brodderick wasn't good"

[roquat]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 6:49pm

Maybe the Golden Globes will help, but I doubt it'll make a good showing there.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 7:07pm

Ok, though very deep down inside I am a little glad it is doing worse than RENT, do we all realise what a catastrophe this is for the future of movie musicals ??? Sadly, I predict that, after Dreamgirls, we will have to wait a loooong time again until the next miracle a la Chicago ! I just hope Hairspray won't be cancelled !

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 7:21pm

I'm not a fan of its execution, and only used the word "sadly" in this thread, because of what the low numbers portend for future musical films. CHICAGO now looks to be a fluke, rather than the start of an exciting trend. (Did anyone thing PHANTOM would've done as poorly as it did, despite the its mediocrity on film?)

I saw PRODUCERS on New Years Day, at a suburban house near NY, with a mostly indifferent audience who came alive only when Beach and Bart took hold of the proceedings, and then, minimally. The original PRODUCERS film -- remember, more an arthouse project at its time, not a mainstream comedy -- had a comic genius at its center, Zero Mostel. Nathan, talented as he is, is no household word (famous for LION KING--voice over), and Matthew isn't really either, a cute boy once now 40ish specializing in nebbishe types. Not putdowns, Hollywood facts: These are B'way character actors, who'd need to be backed by billiant direction and some new edge to make this film an event.

Stroman was so hellbent on "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" that she sucked the air out the show, found virtually nothing new in her own work. To freeze isn't necessarily to preserve well. Dangerous for any artist, even the most gifted. Merely duplicating the show's shticky highs for a camera didn't translate its goodtime feel, and to me it feels almost like a TV version.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:06pm

Not sure what numbers you are looking at, but Variety's numbers (which are pretty dependable) were showing the movie at #13 nationally as of yesterday with a per engagement take of $6400 considered solid for a small musical as compared to the big block busters that opened at the same time. Screens EXPANDED from 975 to 978 this past week, so the distributors are still adding screens.

International release is next week on Friday, so we'll see what happens there. If you are expecting the same box office as King Kong, you have more of an expectation than Universal has.

The movie is doing respectably and was never thought to have the broad appeal of a family movie or an action film. If you understand the industry expectation for a movie musical (not exactly the hottest genre in the film industry) I think you can keep it in perspective.

[DoogieB]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:07pm

Although Nathan Lane may not be a household name, I believe Matthew Broderick is. He played Ferris Beuller in FERRIS BEULLER'S DAY OFF. He played Inspector Gadget in INSPECTOR GADGET. He starred in ELECTION, THE STEPFORD WIVES, and THE CABLE GUY. Regardless of the quality of these films, they were quite popular. Zero Mostel was, in fact, the Broadway character actor. Mel Brooks even said that in '68 he was only known to New Yorkers. Gene Wilder was even less famous, only having had a small role in BONNIE AND CLYDE.
Uma Thurman (KILL BILL) and Will Ferrell (ANCHORMAN) are also in this new movie musical. So I don't think these stars needed brilliant directon to make it an event. I did like the film alot, although I agree Ms. Stroman could have been a little more creative, but I think the reason that THE PRODUCERS is "tanking at the B.O." is due to the terrible reviews from some critics. For instance, A.O. Scott gave THE PRODUCERS a lower score than BEAUTY SHOP.

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:10pm

poor Producers. Although I didnt think it was as good as RENT was, I did enjoy it.

[lovinlovett]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:11pm

I'm amazed at all the Producers movie bashing going on around here. It's like you're all enjoying it not doing well.

I saw it twice this weekend (that makes it three times for me total) and all three times the audiences were laughing hysterically the ENTIRE film...I mean, they really loved it.

And I adored it even more the third time. I've never laughed that hard during a movie.

So it was filmed like a 1940's musical? What's wrong with that?
Updated On: 1/8/06 at 09:11 PM

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:24pm

I'm going to have to agree with RAY, Roger Bart and Gary Beach are the only reasons I didn't walk out of this movie. It is so poorly directed, one wonders why anyone let it get to the big screen.

I am a huge fan of Mel Brooks, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, but come on guys all of you have done movies before, you should care about your craft and not make a mockery of it. If they were in college, I would suggest they go back to ACTING 099. You don't get any credit for it but at least you can call yourself an actor.

I was shocked to find that I hated this movie more than the RENT disaster, Just when I thought Movie musicals were a good idea.

--"Zero Mostel was, in fact, the Broadway character actor. Mel Brooks even said that in '68 he was only known to New Yorkers. Gene Wilder was even less famous, only having had a small role in BONNIE AND CLYDE."--

Yes this is true, but they had something Nathan and Matthew don't DELIVERY & TIMING. I think Roger Ebert put it best when he said that... and I'm paraphrasing, "Uma desrves to dance and sing without the audience thinking that Lee Meredith is standing just offstage arms crossed tapping her foot!" I think these guys have big shoes to fill, they are the "ROAD SHOW" Cast to the original movie. Many of the jokes I could see laughing at in a theatre, but they don't translate directly to the big screen. The WHITE OFFICE scene I think is very funny on stage, deserving of the two of them hamming it up for five minutes. However, In the film theres no reason for the pause, we get it... move on... Hopefully, this won't be the downfall of the Movie Musical, but if they continue to be this awful perhaps its for the best! I can't have my heart break one more time!

P.S. RE: HOSTEL Eli Roth actually got a Pardon from Iceland before making HOSTEL. He thought it might put Icelanders in a bad light and ruin their tourist industry.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:29pm

I do not enjoy that it's not doing well, but I came out of the theatre very disappointed so I don't see why it would do well. Unlike Rob Marshall (it might be unfair yet hard not to compare) Stroman apparently didn't understand the difference between directing a film, and directing a movie. The acting really bothered me and the score was highly disappointing. Also, when I saw the movie, people were only really laughing when Roger Bart and Gary Beach were on, many of the jokes fell flat, and some of them only made sense to audiences that are familiar with theatre.
SamIAm, I'm sure Universal at least expected the movie to be a major Oscar competitor if not a commercial success. Obviously this is not happening, with Nathan Lane, Uma Thurman, and Will Ferrell being obmitted from the SAG awards all together, I doubt there's any chance of any major awards for The Producers.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:34pm

oh, poor producers! i loved the movie so much! and i loved uma dancing even more

[lovinlovett]

Posted: 1/8/06 at 9:43pm

I guess I'll get to add it to my dvd collection sooner that I thought. Can't wait.