You don't think that they could have overbacked the movie and sold 500% of the shares, do you?
The Producers gets slated
-
Carlson2005
The Producers gets slated
I see that the unpromising looking new version of The Producers got nearly universal bad reviews this weekend. Just judging from the weak and thin soundtrack album to the show, this always looked a bad bet - aside from Broderick's irritating stammering and Lane's grandstanding, without John Morris' input the songs were horribly drawn out (especially the badly revamped version of and musically barely even there.Springtime for Hitler).
You don't think that they could have overbacked the movie and sold 500% of the shares, do you?
You don't think that they could have overbacked the movie and sold 500% of the shares, do you?
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34318
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: The Producers gets slated
I'd love to know what happened between Morris and Brooks...obviously they had to have had some kind of falling out between LIFE STINKS and ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS...not even acknowledging his work on the PRODUCERS movie for the Broadway show is really odd.Carlson2005 wrote:I see that the unpromising looking new version of The Producers got nearly universal bad reviews this weekend. Just judging from the weak and thin soundtrack album to the show, this always looked a bad bet - aside from Broderick's irritating stammering and Lane's grandstanding, without John Morris' input the songs were horribly drawn out (especially the badly revamped version of and musically barely even there.Springtime for Hitler).
You don't think that they could have overbacked the movie and sold 500% of the shares, do you?
The show itself was great fun, so I'm hoping half of these reviews are from people who simply don't like musicals to begin with...hoping
-
Carlson2005
I'm told that on [i]The Producers[/i] it was a music publishing issue - even though the music is definitely the weakest element in the show, by writing both the music and lyrics, Brooks got to keep all of the royalties on the new material. Considering the troubled history of the show and the various pre-opening casting replacements that seemed to be mirrored on the movie, it doesn't seem to have ever been one of those happy ships. 
Looking at the reviews, they seem a mixture of people who didn't like the original that much and felt it overrated (which is a lot of people's reaction to it, to be fair) and those who do like musicals but simply didn't like this one, a la [i]Rent[/i]. The one rave I've seen so far has been from Ebert, which is not a promising sign...
Looking at the reviews, they seem a mixture of people who didn't like the original that much and felt it overrated (which is a lot of people's reaction to it, to be fair) and those who do like musicals but simply didn't like this one, a la [i]Rent[/i]. The one rave I've seen so far has been from Ebert, which is not a promising sign...
-
Carlson2005
I'm told that on The Producers it was a music publishing issue - even though the music is definitely the weakest element in the show, by writing both the music and lyrics, Brooks got to keep all of the royalties on the new material. Considering the troubled history of the show and the various pre-opening casting replacements that seemed to be mirrored on the movie, it doesn't seem to have ever been one of those happy ships.
Looking at the reviews, they seem a mixture of people who didn't like the original that much and felt it overrated (which is a lot of people's reaction to it, to be fair) and those who do like musicals but simply didn't like this one, a la Rent. The one rave I've seen so far has been from Ebert, which is not a promising sign...
P.S. Love the snowflakes!
Looking at the reviews, they seem a mixture of people who didn't like the original that much and felt it overrated (which is a lot of people's reaction to it, to be fair) and those who do like musicals but simply didn't like this one, a la Rent. The one rave I've seen so far has been from Ebert, which is not a promising sign...
P.S. Love the snowflakes!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34318
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Thanks! Thought it was a nice touchCarlson2005 wrote:I'm told that on The Producers it was a music publishing issue - even though the music is definitely the weakest element in the show, by writing both the music and lyrics, Brooks got to keep all of the royalties on the new material. Considering the troubled history of the show and the various pre-opening casting replacements that seemed to be mirrored on the movie, it doesn't seem to have ever been one of those happy ships.
Looking at the reviews, they seem a mixture of people who didn't like the original that much and felt it overrated (which is a lot of people's reaction to it, to be fair) and those who do like musicals but simply didn't like this one, a la Rent. The one rave I've seen so far has been from Ebert, which is not a promising sign...
P.S. Love the snowflakes!
A shame it took me 45 minutes to figure out how to do it but...I had the time today, thankfully well, I saw the stage show twice within one week in London. I thought it was the most hilarious, funniest thing Ive ever seen. The music may not be Webber, but the lyrics and the stage numbers to it are just incredible.
I have to say though, that so far the trailers showed the stage show 1:1, even little gestures or where the actors walk is just like the stage show. Well, that may be fine for an audience who hasnt seen the show, but hello? this is a movie and not a filmed staged production. So far from all Ive seen from this movie Im very disappointed, they could have opened it all up so much, but it seems they want to go down the safe route and do it exactly like the show...
too bad... I don't see any point in watching this...
but if you haven't seen the show, give it a try!
I have to say though, that so far the trailers showed the stage show 1:1, even little gestures or where the actors walk is just like the stage show. Well, that may be fine for an audience who hasnt seen the show, but hello? this is a movie and not a filmed staged production. So far from all Ive seen from this movie Im very disappointed, they could have opened it all up so much, but it seems they want to go down the safe route and do it exactly like the show...
too bad... I don't see any point in watching this...
but if you haven't seen the show, give it a try!
Producers
Susan Strohman makes Brooks' directorial efforts look like Scorsese. I have never seen such a stagy looking film since TOP BANANA. Nathan Lane came off OK, but it will always be Zero's role-no question; Broderick looked like last year's runaway bride (did he ever blink?); Farrell played Farrell; Thurman was cute but definitely no Lee Meredith 
; the DeBris and Ghia actors were funny but also scenary inhalers.I never thought I would miss the acting subtlties of Gene Wilder until I saw this. Just buy the DVD of the original-it's low budget but still funny.
JDvDHeise
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34318
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I went to see it this past weekend and really wish I hadn't. As stated above, Strohman's direction was little more than locking the camera down and photographing the stage play. It really needed a film director, someone like Rob Marshall, who knows how film technique can enhance and add to the original theatrical experience.
Lane and Broderick (and others) still seemed to be playing to the cheap seats. I could see how it would've been funny live on stage, but it just comes across flat (if not outright stupid) on the screen. And it is waaaaay too long -- it should have been no more than 90 minutes, tops. I think the actual running time is 134 minutes, but it felt much longer. Several songs could have been cut and never missed, particulary Lane's number near the end where he recaps the entire plot up to that point. Maybe they were afraid people had dozed off and missed key plot points.
I also think most of the songs were overrated. Too on-the-nose and not very funny. "Springtime for Hitler" is still a classic, but of course that's a carryover from the original film.
By the midpoint, a number of people had walked out of the already half-empty theater. The friend I had conned into going with me seriously wanted her time back. It was that bad.
I wanted to like this -- after a very bad week, I was in a mood to laugh. But this truly bordered on the painful.
Mark
Lane and Broderick (and others) still seemed to be playing to the cheap seats. I could see how it would've been funny live on stage, but it just comes across flat (if not outright stupid) on the screen. And it is waaaaay too long -- it should have been no more than 90 minutes, tops. I think the actual running time is 134 minutes, but it felt much longer. Several songs could have been cut and never missed, particulary Lane's number near the end where he recaps the entire plot up to that point. Maybe they were afraid people had dozed off and missed key plot points.
I also think most of the songs were overrated. Too on-the-nose and not very funny. "Springtime for Hitler" is still a classic, but of course that's a carryover from the original film.
By the midpoint, a number of people had walked out of the already half-empty theater. The friend I had conned into going with me seriously wanted her time back. It was that bad.
I wanted to like this -- after a very bad week, I was in a mood to laugh. But this truly bordered on the painful.
Mark