The Producers--it's own worst enemy?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:21pm

As many of you know, the original Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS is critically hailed as being one of the funniest movies ever made. Now, when the movie comes out you know that the critics, as well as the audience, will be comparing the original with the the musical version. Just by the trailer I can already tell that I am going to be constantly comparing Matthew Broderick to Gene Wilder (who I think is the best part about the original). But, what do you think?

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:31pm

I think critics have a tendency to not let the past stay in the past and, of course, they will constantly compare the two films, which I don't think is completely fair.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:32pm

It's not completely fair? I would say it is. When you make a "remake" like this movie half is, you're setting yourself up for it.

Same with movies like BEWITCHED - they get compared to their originals. I don't see the unfairness.

[tz0o]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:36pm

I think that the Producers is its own worst enemy, but not in the way that you have said. I predict that the movie will be a big success, but with a huge, huge backlash: the musical itself will slowly stop selling tickets. As I have said on another thread, the only reason why people want to see this show is because of Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, Once the movie is released, they will no longer have any need to go to the theatre and see the movie. After all, why should they pay full price for a ticket if they can see the so-called superior originals for only five bucks? See what I'm saying?

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:41pm

I think it's unfair because it is it's own film, it's not the original, so I think it should be judged as a separate entity. But that's just me. I find that some critics often complain about remakes simply because they are not the original and I think that that is unfair.

[littlechap2]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:56pm

When the show opened, to a certain extent it was compared to the original movie. But nevertheless, it managed to do pretty well. While they were comparing the two, the critics also almost univerally hailed it as the best thing on Broadway in a decade or so (if not more). I suppose that when I first heard the recording, and subsiquently saw the show, I compared the actors from the two different versions, but Broderick and Lane are so wonderful that you soon stop thinking about that, and enjoy the show for what it is, and don't think about the movie that it was originally.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 12:59pm

"After all, why should they pay full price for a ticket if they can see the so-called superior originals for only five bucks?"

Where do you live? I haven't paid five bucks to see a movie in over fifteen years!

Also, this isn't a re-make. It's an entirely different species.

[roquat]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:32pm

Although this is in some ways a remake, it's one in which the original author (Brooks) had a very large hand. It's not like the remakes that are made just to pump money out of old investments of talent (for example, the new Willy Wonka movie, which Gene Wilder denounced before it even began shooting--and, despite its eye-popping sets, I had to agree with him). I think RENT will have a much harder time--critics will be preoccupied with the fact that it seems dated now (fashions and styles, including the "bohemian" lifestyle, have changed since the late '80s, and AIDS is no longer a quick death sentence) and it's the kind of picture that needs critical acclaim to survive.

[leefowler]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 2:08pm

The fact is, people like and respect brand names. Look, most tourists who come to Broadway shows don't really know much about theatre, so they'll tend to buy tickets to a familiar sounding title. If the movie version of "The Producers" is a success, the Broadway show will benefit as well, simply because it will become a familiar sounding title that people will associate with success. Did anyone not want to see Chicago on stage because Richard Gere wasn't in it?

Updated On: 11/13/05 at 02:08 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 3:19pm

When one of the shows best songs "The King of Broadway" is cut, it is all downhill from there. Sort of like the film version of Sound of Music without "Do Re Mi" or Damn Yankees without "Heart"

I will catch this on cable

[tz0o]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 4:39pm

Yes, but one of the main reasons why the musical itself succeeded in the first place was because of Lane and Broderick. Gere wasn't apart of the Chicago revival cast.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 4:47pm

That song wouldn't have worked on film anyways. "KIng of Broadway" is just a typical "opening" song setting up the characters and stuff. It doesn't really need to be in there for the show to make sense, as with most openings.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 4:59pm

I agree with tz0o that the movie might ultimately hurt the Broadway show. The Producers doesn't seem like the same sort of cult phenominon that a show like RENT is, and I feel that it's the sort of show where, on the whole, people go to see the specific performers rather than the material itself. While the show is doing really well right now and will probably get an initial boost from the movie, I think that when a version with Lane and Broderick becomes readily available (provided that the movie is well-made and successful), sales for the show might drop off.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 5:07pm

i completely agree with tz0o also. I think it will give the show a little boost for a while, but may ultimately hurt it--where the Chicago and Phantom movies gave the shows huge boost was because they were far enough removed from it: See either of these movies is very different than seeing the Broadway show. I think this will be the case with Rent also--the movie will really help it.

The Producers' problem could just be that it is too much like the Broadway show--just with a more ideal cast. The trailer certainly makes it look like the stage production on film.

[leefowler]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 5:33pm

I still say that tourists, who want to see a Broadway show as part of the "New York experience" and who are confronted with a lot of titles of shows they've never heard of, will buy tickets to the titles that are the most familiar to them, or that they connect with quality or excitement. Simply promoting "The Producers" as a product will increase the sales on Broadway, regardless of who's playing the roles on stage. By the way,has there EVER been a successful movie musical that hurt the run of its legit counterpart?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 5:45pm

If you feel that the new movie is going to suffer by comparison to the original, don't see it. It's only a movie and you won't die if you skip this film.

I HATE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 6:32pm

I think THE PRODUCERS movie will have a much wider appeal than RENT.


Though some of you are pissed KING OF BROADWAY is gone, this means NOTHING to the average movie goer. The song dosen't really advance the plot, and I think the score has more numbers that are equally as great. I'm more upset "Where Did We Go Right" is gone. But I'll get over it.

[alterego]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 7:35am

It will be interesting to see how this film sells in markets outside the U.S.

The Australian production opened strongly in Melbourne in April of 2004 and ran eight months(three months short of its projected season length), moved to Brisbane where it limped along for three months before moving to Sydney for a disapointing five month season where it closed recently. Suggesting that show didn't create the excitement here that it has in the States (it would seem that the London production too is struggling somewhat).

Previous posters here have mentioned the potency of the Lane-Broderick partnership. While this may sell the show in the U.S., here, and I suspect in other markets as well, neither are big names, in fact I would hazard a guess and say most people here wouldn't be familiar at all with Nathan Lane. I wish the film well but doubt that it will be the blockbuster they are hoping for.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 7:55am

I didn't say that I wasn't going to go see it, and in fact I am not even that big of a fan of the original (minus Gene Wilder)so I probably will like it better than the original, but I was just asking about the critics.

[xrent_headx]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 6:30pm

i think will farell will be AMAZING :)
but thats just me

[Plum]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 6:46pm

Okay, a few things. The movie versions of Chicago and The Phantom of the Opera both boosted attendance in those long-running shows, so I'm really not seeing why that would be different for The Producers.

Munk, this isn't a remake of the first film. It's an adaptation of an adaptation. Which, yeah, is kind of a twisted situation, but you can't say they're the same thing. There's a lot more songs in this one, for a start. :)

How did Mel Brooks' "classic" films do internationally in the first place? Are they well thought-of outside of the U.S.? Or is Brooks' humor thought of as "American"?

[alterego]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 3:57am

Mel Brooks biggest hit in Australia was years ago, Blazing Saddles. I can't see The Producers (sadly) changing that track record. Australians , unlike Americans, for the most part aren't that enamoured with showbiz themed stories.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 4:39am

"The movie versions of Chicago and The Phantom of the Opera both boosted attendance in those long-running shows, so I'm really not seeing why that would be different for The Producers."

Plum, Here's why I think it MIGHT be different. The stage CHICAGO and PHANTOM have done remarkably well without its original stars, but (as much as I love Brad Oscar & Roger Bart as Max & Leo) the Nathan-Matthew box office must-see white-hot heat of THE PRODUCERS has proven unrepeatable. TP is much more of a star-specific show.

Updated On: 11/15/05 at 04:39 AM