sadly, "Producers" film continues to tank at B.O.- Page 3

[kyguy78]

Posted: 1/15/06 at 9:03pm

The Producers is only playing at one theater in Lexington, but when my wife and I went to see it last weekend, it was sold out. I do agree that the movie could've been done better, but I didn't leave hating it or anything. I was probably more dissapointed on how "big" they really could have played some of the numbers.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/16/06 at 6:11pm

Update: This weekend didn't help. They pulled it out of 148 theaters, shockingly, and it made only 1.2 million, for a total of 17,194,000, with a low per screen average of 1,636.

I continue to be surprised, since there isn't much out there in the way of adult comedy. This will sound insane at a theater board, but I wonder if the very TITLE -- "The Producers" -- simply fails to promise enough entertainment value, as compared to, say, "Fun With Dick and Jane." If you don't know the show, the word "Producers" may sound unfunny.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/16/06 at 7:23pm

Too many movies chasing an ever shrinking movie audience. If the choice is The Producers or King Kong for your $ 10 bucks, guess which one wins ?

Once they cut King Of Broadway I made a decision to wait for the DVD. Hopefully, it will be recut into the movie so all you would lose is "Where Did We Go Right"

[jakebloke]

Posted: 1/16/06 at 9:35pm

It took me a while to see The Producers for some reason. I finally saw it yesterday and while I found it entertaining, it wasn't 1/2 as good as the stage show. Very few laughs at the screening I saw, and the theater was fairly full. The comedy just didn't translate to screen very well. I wonder had Mel Brooks directed it himself, if it would have been better. I was quite excited to see both RENT and The Producers, but both just left me very disappointed.....which seems to be the general consensus.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/16/06 at 9:57pm

I finally saw it too. Parts of it were fun, and I did enjoy Nathan Lane, Gary and Roger. It's fairly entertaining, but not a great film. And, Matthew Broderick was just plain awful. I am starting to wonder what all the fuss is about those two together. Nathan is so damn good, but Broderick was schticky, muggy, gimicky and odd. I didn't get a great sense of a real character. If they were 'acting choices', he should have picked different ones. I saw both in the original Producers on Broadway, and liked Matthew somewhat. He was better far away on a stage, instead of up close in a film.

I think one of the reasons it fell flat for me is that "The Producers" as a film invites direct comparisons to the original. On stage you can distance yourself a bit from the original film. Hope that makes sense.

*Slight Spoiler*
I LOVED the "Hop Clop Goes On" during the credits roll and Farrell's fun comments at the end.

[mntwister]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 8:45am

Updated On: 1/18/06 at 08:45 AM

[mntwister]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 8:45am

It's sad what has happened to this film. It's sad Mel Brooks did not direct it, he has made many movies before, unlike Susan. Watching this film you just feel that something is wrong. WHERE IS ROB MARSHALL WHEN YOU NEED HIM? Very poor choice for director, she's great on stage and bad with the movie camera.

Universal didn't help by releasing the movie on a holiday weekend when films like King Kong, Chronicles of Nardia and a new Jim Carry movie opened, among others. They should have opened this a different time of the year, and in a wide release. It st6arted at very few theatres and as of January 18, never opened wide. Only 983 theaters and many movies open at over 2,000 (sometimes 3,000).

Cutting KING OF BROADWAY didn't help to define Nathan Lane's character either.....and I think Mathew Broderick overacted. It's sad because with Phantom of the Opera, Rent and The Producers doing only fair to poor boxoffice, the future of musicals on screen is very bleak.

Still, I will buy the dvd because I still love the show and this will be the way to watch it anytime. I just wish Mel Brooks had just filmed the stage show. I think the film will do much better on dvd.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 11:39am

Do you think there is any connection to the mega-flop that is The Producers film and today's news that Lane and Broderick have extended their Odd Couple contracts? I can't imagine their phones are ringing off the hook, unless it is someone calling the Broderick household for his wife.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 11:56am

While I doubt there's an explicit connection, the fact is, that Time article did have a point that while they are A-list on stage, they certainly aren't in movie theatres.

And to be really honest, most everyone I know that wants to see Odd Couple wants to see it because of Nathan Lane, and basically because they loved him so much in Birdcage. Otherwise, no other film or tv project he's headlined since has been a real success. (Lion King doesn't count here.) And Matthew hasn't had a real hit - based solely on his name - in over a decade. He may have gotten great notices, like in Election, but that's never translated into box office.

They're starred with other big names, or with part of big projects, but relative success on their own aside from stage is still far away.

That said, I'm sure it'll do well on DVD and cable. That seems to be where their work seems to grab attention later on.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:11pm

Since musicals are an infrequently filmed genre, they are heavily dependent on having a high percentage of good reviews to be financially successful. Both The Producers and Rent got only about 50 percent favorable reviews.

That's nowhere near good enough, especially when your film is rolling out gradually in limited release, as was the case with The Producers. A gradual release means the studio has decided to depend on mostly excellent reviews and great word-of-mouth to sell the movie. That was certainly the case with Brokeback Mountain which has had excellent dollars per screen averages and mostly teriffic reviews since it opened.

Good critical and audience buzz builds up a demand for the movie where people in smaller markets can't wait to see it.

That was certainly the case with Chicago.

But people who bother to seek out art house movies or movies in limited release DO NOT bother with movies that the critics think are bad or merely so-so. And based on critical reception, that's what happened with both The Producers and RENT.

Outside of diehard Producers fans or Rentheads, most movie goers simply weren't that interested in either film and the ONLY way they could have become interested is if the films had gotten overwhelming critical support.

As for future musicals, if I were marketing them, I'd stop this obsession with trying to sell musicals to younger movie goers who didn't grow up watching them and concentrate on those older audiences who did.



Updated On: 1/18/06 at 12:11 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:13pm

No unmarketed movie that opens in less than a thousand theaters in a fiercely competitive time and escapes with a final gross of over $20 million can fairly be called a mega-flop.

Mediocre? Yes.
Megaflop? No.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:17pm

It was scheduled to have a much wider release on January 13th but it looks that was scratched due to poor reception.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:21pm

Unmarketed? I don't think so.
$45 Mill. budget/$15 Mill gross? I would think if it was MY $30 Mill. lost I would consider it a mega flop.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:22pm

Well, I still haven't seen any of them, poor European me, but I always though that RENT would get the better reviews and "The Producers" would be the big commercial success. The fact that, RENT is emerging as the Box-Office champion between them is a really big nice surprise for me !!!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:30pm

The fact that, RENT is emerging as the Box-Office champion between them is a really big nice surprise for me !!!

Sort of like saying you are glad Tonya Harding whipped Paula Jones's ass in Celebrity Knockdown (or whatever that show is called.) Did either REALLY win?

[sanda]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:31pm

Well, Rent got better reviews than producers as well, as least based on movies.yahoo.com

[zzprincesskatt]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:35pm

Rent was split right down the middle at Rotten Tomatoes I think. I'm not sure about The Producers. The critics either loved or hated Rent.
Updated On: 1/18/06 at 12:35 PM

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:43pm

Well actually, neither film is a box office champion or anywhere near it. That's what's so frightening. And the general U.S. box office slump has all studio execs feeling uncertain and even less likely to take chances than they already are. That means they are unlikely to greenlight more musicals.

And even the mantra about movies making back their money and making a profit through DVD is no longer a sure thing. DVD sales and rentals are declining as well. Also, there is a direct correlation between how well a movie does at the box office and how well it does in sales and rentals on DVD. So bad box office for a movie means less than impressive DVD rental or sales.

Domestic box office isn't everything. But it still means more than people want to admit.

Incidentally, a film that costs 45 million to make doesn't break even when it makes 45 million at the box office. It breaks even when it makes 90 million plus the cost of marketing at the box office. Box office takes have to be split between the studio and the theaters playing the film. So the rule of thumb for motion pictures breaking even is: two and one half times the film's budget.
Updated On: 1/18/06 at 12:43 PM

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:47pm

Guys, the key word in my post is the word BETWEEN. I said that RENT is the B.O. champion BETWEEN those two ! I never said that either had a b.o. success !!!

[zzprincesskatt]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:47pm

Also, I think every week that a film is out, a higher percentage of the ticket sales go to the theater and not the studio.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 12:53pm

Thanks for pointing that out, Twang. I was being generous. I didn't know the formula so I just went with the budget numbers which are harsh enough.

To those who say it was released at a bad time, I have to disagree. Christmas was a perfect time to release The Producers. It is a frothy entertainment, different than anything else being released at that time and, although a bit risqué with some sexual content and foul language, tame enough to take the whole family. It should have found a wider audience. The problem is the film is just BAD! People I know (not theatre people) told me they were going to see it until they heard how bad it was. Word of mouth is a mighty thing.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 2:09pm

We will have to wait for it to open wide in overseas markets to be sure; musicals traditionally do very well overseas. I.E.: Bot Moulin Rouge and Phantom of the Opera had over double their domestic groses in overseas grosses.

[mntwister]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 3:00pm

Don't forget that 70% of movies make more on dvd now than they do in the theaters. I can see why. When I saw this film, I had to deal with teenagers and the fag remarks during the "Keep it Gay" scene (yes I had them thrown out). This could have been a decent hit, but watching the film, you can't escape the feeling that something is very wrong, and during the entire thing, I couldn't figure out exactly what it was. It is faithful to the stage version, maybe too much so. I never for one minute thought this would be a success in the movie theater. Teens and many of the people in their early 20's (the main movie-going audience) just aren't into an old fashioned type musical. Chicago was on the modern side even with it's score, we're going back to traditional musical music here. But had the film been better and reviews better, it could have done well. Susan Strohman, you're awesome with the stage, but in film, you don't have the imagination.

Just think of all the possibilities of opening this up for the screen, ands basically what she did was film the stage show, and it looked like it, that's why it is tanking. I just didn't think it was awful, I thought the audience would be better than this. It didn't help that it opened in a small way, and never got to over 987 theaters, BIG MISTAKE Universal. Plus, opening this the same holiday weekend as a Jim Carry movie and Kong and Nardia, among others? It totally got lost in the shuffle. Universal did the same thing to Cinderella Man earlier last year, and that tanked too!

The scary thing is that with the boxoffice of Phantom, Rent, and now this.....the future for movie musicals once again looks very bleak!
Updated On: 1/18/06 at 03:00 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:26pm

The 1/13 opening date was NOT shelved. This was the date for the international opening and it DID open as planned on Friday, 1/13, making about 5 million in two days.

Considering that some movies open and close in the same week and some within a couple of weeks, to say this movie has tanked is not a fair statement.

If your expectations are appropriate for a small movie musical with a limited audience (this movie ain't gonna sell out in the midwest, dears), in a genre that is never going to be as popular as it once was during the heyday of movie musicals - this movie is doing pretty well.

It has made about 22 million thusfar with last week's weekly and weekend totals reported on Variety and it will probably do pretty well internationally and on DVD, so don't count it out yet.

NO ONE (including Universal) thought this movie would be KING KONG...heck even KING KONG didn't do as well as Universal thought it would.

But it is still in the top 20 after a month of release and the first week was only on 6 screens...so that's not too shabby.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:26pm

The 1/13 opening date was NOT shelved. This was the date for the international opening and it DID open as planned on Friday, 1/13, making about 5 million in two days.

Considering that some movies open and close in the same week and some within a couple of weeks, to say this movie has tanked is not a fair statement.

If your expectations are appropriate for a small movie musical with a limited audience (this movie ain't gonna sell out in the midwest, dears), in a genre that is never going to be as popular as it once was during the heyday of movie musicals - this movie is doing pretty well.

It has made about 22 million thusfar with last week's weekly and weekend totals reported on Variety and it will probably do pretty well internationally and on DVD, so don't count it out yet.

NO ONE (including Universal) thought this movie would be KING KONG...heck even KING KONG didn't do as well as Universal thought it would.

But it is still in the top 20 after a month of release and the first week was only on 6 screens...so that's not too shabby.