The Producers (2005)- coming from Universal 11/6/2018 (1 Viewer)

[atfree]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JK2C11...20891&sr=8-4&keywords=the+producers+[blu-ray]

 

[Todd Erwin]

Wow, they are finally getting around to releasing this on Blu-ray!

 

[ahollis]

About time.

 

[Thomas T]

Heresy is about to be spoken: I infinitely prefer this to the 1967 original! For me, Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder are exhausting and wear out their welcome very quickly. I can't get enough of Lane and Broderick and Uma Thurman is an added bonus.

 

[MatthewA]

What on Earth possessed them to cut "King of Broadway," the song that provided background for how Max Bialystock used to be before he reached his dire financial straits, even after they shot it?

 

[RBailey]

The ending on this version (the play and the movie) is much better. However, I enjoy both versions.

 

[haineshisway]

Oh dear. Truly one of the worst film musicals ever - and yet, as with every terrible film musical, Mame and Man of La Mancha included, there are immediately people who show up and profess their undying love for the film. I think Lane and Broderick are exhausting and Ms. Stroman wouldn't know where to put a camera if her life depended on it. The original film has its issues but this film is in a whole other universe in terms of issues. But whatever makes people happy.

 

[PMF]

Without a doubt, Ms. Stroman quickly learned that a play and a film are two very different mediums. Glad the film is finally out; but it certainly has its frustrations...at least for those who also saw it on Broadway.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I saw it on Broadway with the original cast - I wanted to love it and bought my ticket expecting I'd love it because I was such a fan of the original film growing up. I did high school theater, and the different casts would often watch The Producers at some point during the production as a sort of fun ritual (and perhaps a gentle confidence booster that no matter how bad it seemed to be going, it wasn't "Springtime for Hitler" level of bad). So maybe it was because I was so familiar with the movie, but I just did not enjoy the show on Broadway at all. And I love Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, and on paper I thought their casting was inspired... but the show just didn't work for me. The best things in the show were straight ripoffs from the original film, only not done as well, and the show also committed the sin of taking funny dialogue scenes from the movie and turning them into unfunny songs that just dragged.

Somehow I got my arm twisted into going to see the movie of the musical, and surprise, I didn't like it. But it felt like a completely faithful adaptation of the show to me. I wonder if everyone who saw the show on Broadway and has fond memories of loving it actually were able to go into a time machine and see it again (especially after viewing the original movie) would still feel the same, or if the excitement of seeing a first rate cast and having Mel Brooks' name on the marquee may have clouded some judgments.

 

[BobO'Link]

Oh dear. Truly one of the worst film musicals ever - and yet, as with every terrible film musical, Mame and Man of La Mancha included, there are immediately people who show up and profess their undying love for the film. I think Lane and Broderick are exhausting and Ms. Stroman wouldn't know where to put a camera if her life depended on it. The original film has its issues but this film is in a whole other universe in terms of issues. But whatever makes people happy.

And I thought I was the only person on the planet who thought this film is pure dreck.

Broderick is so wooden it's painful to watch. The directing is pedestrian - anyone can point a camera at the stage and lock it down. They cut the bar scene where Max and Leo are celebrating their victory when the intermission crowd arrives in favor of a horrible musical number that recaps the entire movie! That's a *key scene!* And they cut it! Those animatronic birds should have been shot and the musical numbers were just bad, too frequent, and too long. They frequently kill any momentum that manages to be built.

OK... it *does* have some very funny moments. It's Mel Brooks. And the "Springtime for Hitler" play within the movie is still quite good. Otherwise it's a mess.

I hope those of you who like this version get a superb BR. Me... I'll watch my BR of the original film and come out the winner.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I also saw this on Broadway, and was very disappointed. Everything was overblown, with every joke beaten into the ground until it cried for mercy. Even "Springtime for Hitler" was pushed too far (over eight minutes) by adding Hitler to it. This is a common thing with Brooks since the success of the original movie, and this movie puts all of those faults on display. There's no strong producer to say "Mel, that's not funny." Sometimes more is just boring.

 

[Eastmancolor]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit, though did think it was overlong. Having said that, I agree with MatthewA above that it was absolutely insane of them to cut the "King of Broadway" number from the film. It was included as an extra on the DVD and hopefully it will also be included in the new Blu-ray too.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Took them long enough.

I will absolutely get this, but probably not for a while due to how many new releases there are coming up soon. I also want to wait to hear what's included. Hopefully they do the right thing and port the extras over from the DVD so I can unload that disc.

It's funny this should come now. I just watched the DVD again a few months ago following Gary Beach (Roger)'s unfortunate passing. At least his brilliant performance was preserved forever on film.

 

[Jake Lipson]

What on Earth possessed them to cut "King of Broadway,"

Stroman says on the DVD that she cut it in order to get to the scene where the plot starts (meaning when Bloom comes up with the flop idea) faster. I sort of understand why she would make that choice, but the song is actually better than some of the overlong sequences she kept in, so her argument loses some weight as a result of that. I'd rather have had King stay in and trim some of Der Guten Tag Hop-Clop, which goes on for an eternity.

I wonder if everyone who saw the show on Broadway and has fond memories of loving it actually were able to go into a time machine and see it again (especially after viewing the original movie) would still feel the same, or if the excitement of seeing a first rate cast and having Mel Brooks' name on the marquee may have clouded some judgments.

I like it more than you do, but its continued status as the most Tony-winning show of all time is odd to me. Considering that kind of reception, it should really still be running. But it turned out to be almost entirely star-dependent; the grosses were never at the same level after Lane and Broderick left the show, and they ended up bringing them back for return engagements I think a couple of times before the run ended. Compare this to Hamilton, which had a sensational original cast, but which continues to be a huge sellout hit even though the original cast mostly left it in mid-2016. It's much better for the long-term health of a show if the material is the star and can withstand multiple cast changes, which The Producers could not.

 

[Matt Hough]

Exactly. The show really depended on those stars to sell it, and when they weren't there, no matter who was in their places, the show never sold as well. Wicked, The Lion King, The Book of Morman, and Hamilton (and The Phantom of the Opera) all have proven the strengths of their productions without any star names attached.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really think some of the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the Broadway show was in part a response to seeing such big names on the Broadway stage. I think it had been a while since a famous Hollywood star had appeared on the stage, and it opened before it was commonplace to turn popular movies into musical stage shows, and it had the added prestige of being Mel Brooks returning to one of his greatest works.

Unfortunately, I think the show set the template for the current era of Broadway, which is less open to new and original material, and more interested in stunt casting and high prices. The Producers pioneered the concept of premium priced tickets, which basically means that the box office is now scalping seats directly to customers. Because that show demonstrated just how much money could be raked in if the primary goal was to rake in as much money as possible, it's now launched a thousand imitations on Broadway, with every increasing ticket prices and the continual recycling of movie plots and the continued casting of film and TV stars. As a result of The Producers, it's harder than ever for original works to find a stage, and if they somehow can, almost impossible for them to find an audience given the new trends in pricing that The Producers made popular. It now costs so much to see a Broadway show that people will only go to see shows that they know in advance that they'll enjoy. I can't say I blame the audience; when a pair of tickets costs $300 or more, most people can't afford to take a chance on something they might not like. And the easiest way to give the audience something that they'll like is to either present them with a live version of a movie they already know, and/or to hire actors that they're familiar with from film and television. So if you're a stage actor, you're not just competing with other stage actors for roles - you're now competing against actors and pop stars with instant name recognition that the producers now need to hire in order to boost their sales.

"The Producers" was not only a poor quality show in my opinion, but it also brought about substantial damage to live theater on Broadway that is still being felt today.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I really think some of the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the Broadway show was in part a response to seeing such big names on the Broadway stage.

Some of it, yes, as proven by the show's inability to sell without Lane and Broderick. They tried other name stars -- Tony Danza was in it for a bit -- but no one else had the drawing power of Timon and Simba. (I kid, but also not really.) That doesn't mean the show was completely without merit, though. Over-celebrated initially? Yes, but far from a complete washout.

"The Producers" was not only a poor quality show in my opinion, but it also brought about substantial damage to live theater on Broadway that is still being felt today.

You're not wrong, but I would not put the blame for this trend 100% at The Producers' feet. They get some of it, yes, but there had been movie adaptations on Broadway before The Producers; the Broadway production of Footloose had its 20th anniversary earlier this week. Besides, Disney has been doing this since Beauty and the Beast, which opened in 1994. Even Passion, which beat Beauty and the Beast to win Best Musical for the 1994-5 season, with a glorious Sondheim score, was adapted from an Italian movie. Following The Producers, the next Best Musical Tony went to Hairspray, which was also a classic comedy movie adaptation. Take The Producers out and this trend would have still happened. So would the premium tickets thing sooner or later. While it is certainly a contributing factor to the state of Broadway at the moment, it is not the end-all-be-all sole culprit.

Also, even as we have gotten a bunch of movie adaptations, recent years have also had popular successes on Broadway that aren't. Recent examples include Memphis (not based on anything pre-existing, but a 1,165-performance, Best Musical Tony-winning hit), Fun Home (based on a graphic novel well-known in some circles, but definitely not a huge branded property, 583 performances and a Best Musical Tony.) Something Rotten! (original, 708 performances.) Hamilton (based on American history.) Dear Evan Hansen (a total original not adapted from anything.) Come From Away (adapted from a true story of community interaction and human decency on 9/11.) The Play That Goes Wrong (also an original with no basis, and it has been so successful that its previously-announced August closing date was pushed back to January.) The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (based on a novel, 799 performances, which is really long for a play); Be More Chill (a musical based on a cult hit YA novel) coming to Broadway in February after an off-Broadway engagement that was completely sol out before it opened. Etc.

So yes -- there are shows like Pretty Woman and King Kong and Mean Girls on Broadway now, and Tootsie and Beetlejuice are coming in the spring. But they aren't everything by any means, and other work is connecting with audiences too.

 

[PMF]

[...]You're not wrong, but I would not put the blame for this trend 100% at The Producers' feet. They get some of it, yes, but there had been movie adaptations on Broadway before The Producers[...] Take The Producers out and this trend would have still happened. So would the premium tickets thing sooner or later. While it is certainly a contributing factor to the state of Broadway at the moment, it is not the end-all-be-all sole culprit.[...]

100% agreed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Without a doubt, Ms. Stroman quickly learned that a play and a film are two very different mediums.

I don't think she learned that at all. She should have, but it plays more like an authorized bootleg of the show than a film proper.

Ms. Stroman wouldn't know where to put a camera if her life depended on it.

I agree with that. And yet, as a huge fan of musicals, I still like it for what it is. But I agree it's not by any stretch a great movie. If I pretend i'm watching a taping of the show, it becomes passable.

 

[PMF]

"I want to be a Producer..." - Leo Bloom

Hey, while perusing this thread, I just realized something.
Jake Lipson, haineshisway, atfree, Bob O' Link, Todd Erwin and Thomas T are also Producers.

As for the others, we've all left a pair of comp Orchestra seats at the booth and placed them in your names.