What's new

THE PRODUCERS (2005) - Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
Just judging from the original picture, I think Ferrell would be perfect. Mars' portrayal was very much in line with the characters Ferell plays. The only issue would be whether Ferrell could, as Matthew pointed out, bring the innate violent urges that are boiling just under the surface.
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
Among those of us that already know about the show, absolutely. I've read about their chemistry, how they almost overtake Zero and Gene in the roles. I am excited to see it, and might not go if Broderick and Lane weren't in it.

But we sometimes forget that the majority of people probably don't follow Broadway, don't really know how great these two are in the show, don't know how good the show is. All they will know is that there is a musical film with Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. Hmm, not interested. But add a couple of true box office draws, and now they become interested.

Sorry Edwin if I misinterpreted you. I thought you really were questioning why they would decide not to cast Cady. I agree that it is sad she wasn't cast - no doubt she would do better than Kidman - but hopefully Kidman will not be a disservice to the complex and challenging role of a big busted woman that jiggles when she dances. :)
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500

Those who see a musical these days or during its opening weeks are probably first and foremost, live theater patrons to begin with or a true fan of the genre. From there, you then get the non-theater goers and the casual moviegoers. I don't see why a box office draw is needed in a cast for it to succeed because its target is a special demographic. Therefore, I'm not quite sure about the casting of Kidman for her box office draw only.

Phantom Of The Opera does not have anyone in its cast that would attract the masses. By your reasoning, the filmmakers have already shot themselves in the foot by not casting one. However, there is a lot of pent up interest in the film because it, along with The Producers, have developed brand names as far as musicals are concerned and there is already a built-in audience for its product to begin with.

~Edwin
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
Edwin - Maybe it wasn't actually necessary for them to replace Cady with Nicole. Maybe the name The Producers has acquired enough of a reputation to do well in spite of not having any real recognisable box office draws. I don't know how well the show is known in the US to the ordinary person on the street.

But casting Nicole is a definite and understandable attempt (I assume by the studio) to hedge their bets, just in case.

Not that I agree with their decision, but I understand why it was made.

And at least they have gone the route of largely retaining the original cast with those two exceptions - unlike, say, Chicago.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
Chicago has been running since the 70's. What -- you want some 50 year old women playing Roxie Hart and Velma Kelley?
 

Haggai

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
3,883
Any unintentional irony in there, Ernest? When Chicago first opened in 1975, the leading ladies were 50 (Gwen Verdon) and 42 (Chita Rivera). The first big '90s revival show had Ann Reinking, who was 47, playing Roxie (Bebe Neuwirth as Velma was in her late 30s). Not that I disagree with you, they had to go with different casting for the movie, which I thought was excellent.
 

Sean Moon

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
2,041
Phantom is one of the most well known musicals and plays out there, and has been around for a long time, so it already has the public perception, even non musical fans know what Phantom is. Chicago had the same thing going for it, a long running musical now brought to the screen.

The Producers on the other hand, is a play that has only been around 5 or so years, based on a loved but ultimately not widely known classic film. While I understand their needs to get bigger names in the film, I am worried about Nicole and Will overshadowing Lane and Broderick in the advertising and public perception of this film.

Nicole has me a little bit worried as she doesnt have a ditzy enough look or demeanor for the role to me. And Ferrell, I agree he usually apes it up for the camera. THe thing that really irks me about him is it seems like he is trying hard to be funny instead of just letting it flow. While there is some stuff that i like that he does, it is usually when he is calmer and laid back instead of over the top, like Franz will call for. I fear that Ferrell will be TOO over the top for this role. On the other hand, I dont know who else could do the role... no one comes to mind.
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
I was thinking of the Chicago 90s revival cast that really attracted attention back onto the show - in fact, I seem to remember there was a reasonably vocal group arguing for Bebe Newirth to take the film Velma.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
Not to mention the rather vocal group that wanted Michael Crawford to be in the movie version of Phantom.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about Nichole being in the movie, and her biggest problem with it is that she doesn't think Nichole has the voice for the role. Course, my response is that they can fudge with that, since it is a movie. It isn't like Hollywood hasn't done that before....

Jason
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,139
Real Name
Malcolm

She was in Moulin Rouge so that should give a decent indication of her vocal capabilities.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason


Which is why she doesn't think that Nichole has a strong enough voice for the role. She didn't demonstrate that she had a powerful voice, which apparantly the role requires. (I have yet to see the stage production.)

Jason
 

Dennis Pagoulatos

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
868
Location
CA
Real Name
Dennis
"Les Miserables" did really well at the box office, so this and "Phantom of the Opera" should be a smash! ;)

-Dennis
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben

These days so does Broadway. Everything is miked. You don't need a powerful voice; you just need to be able to hit the notes and act the part.

Unless the part gets expanded for the movie, Ulla isn't that big a role. Kidman has proven that she's good with both accents and broad physical comedy. I too would have liked to see Cady Huffman, but Kidman should be fine.

M.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500

The character, Ulla, has one solo in the entire production: When You Got It, Flaunt It. The rest she sings with other cast members in minor roles.

I think for this role, the actor who ultimately plays Ulla would be someone who is stronger in playing the physical demands of the character rather than the singing aspects of it. Ms. Kidman certainly fits the bill.

~Edwin
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
Listening to the CD, she does have the one song, which I do think Nicole could sing. Except - does she have the strength to do "Now Ulla belt"?
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Nicole Kidman is out as Ulla due to scheduling conflicts. Her replacement is still yet to be determined. From Variety:


~Edwin
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,518
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top