Once again special thanks to Sandy, Wyatt, Liz and Kate from Kate Cast Reviews for helping me remaster this lost episode from Season 1! It's crazy how much can change in a little over a year, but I definitely feel a lot better about this take in terms of audio mixing, video editing and my own vocal performance. Give Kate a subscribe if you can for more in depth pop culture content: ruclips.net/channel/UC_nsBZngWbumfD45KqW1A7A
I gave up after 21 minutes, but I am curious if you ever got to mentioning that the biggest factor was probably that homophobia is no longer funny. It is hard to appreciate Mel Brooks at all if you aren't pretty homophobic.
Note: The monster doesn't fall in love with Elizabeth; he rapes her. Blazing Saddles made fun of racism. Young Frankenstein celebrated rape and made it a sexually liberating experience. If you think it's funny, just mentally cast a black actress as Elizabeth and keep everyone else white. Name one black actress who'd even TAKE that role. A black woman liberated sexually by a white monster? Good God!
Yes! This was my first exposure to musicals and when it came out I got the DVD and watched it hundreds of times. This is literally the movie that made me want to be in musicals and I still am 15 years later!
My husband is 7 years older than me and he got to see the stage musical in person when he was younger and he would always talk about it. So we finally sat down and watched the movie and I absolutely loved it. Nathan and Matthew did perfect. I didn't understand why people didn't like it honestly.
I didn’t know there was anything “wrong” with the movie version until I saw the thumbnail for this video. Oh, well. Luckily my enjoyment isn’t affected by what other people think of it.
i'm with kate here. the '05 movie was my first exposure to the musical and i was absolutely obsessed with it for a while. i didn't even know most people didn't like it until years later
The same thing happened to me! The 05 movie was my gateway musical, and pretty much fueled my musical theater obsession through high school. Always cool to see I'm not alone in liking it so much!
I feel like that for all of the other bad movies that people hate like Benchwarmers, bee movie, and Charlie and the chocolate factory for example I love them and no matter your entitled opinions I still love those movies
I only got to watch The Producers (2005) a while ago after stumbling upon Mel Brooks’ musical tribute at the Kennedy Center. I couldn’t get the songs out of my head, especially “Springtime for Hitler”. I enjoyed the entire movie all the way up to that surprise post credits number.
I think because I've only ever watched the producers with theatre friends and family the pacing issue isn't a problem because we are laughing during the pauses. It's a favourite of mine
It's a nice funny movie, but if you have seen the stage production in the four years before the film came out - why spending the money to watch it again in the cinema? Why not waiting for the DVD, so you can watch only your most favored scenes and skip over the rest?
I love that line about Mel Brooks bringing sincerity into comedy. For me, that's what makes his earlier movies so special. Despite all the hijinks, they still had heart and characters the audience could get attached to. And that's a big part of why The Producers works so well.
That's what's so great about him. He was one of the first entertainers to understand that comedy can lead to healing. The shocking, blatantly racist jokes and caricatures in his films are explicitly for people to laugh at, and therefore take all the power away from, people who are ACTUALLY like that. Cuz, frankly, hating someone for their skin tone or orientation IS funny. It's ridiculous. And taking the pi$$ out of them by laughing at them is a very powerful tool.
@@WaitintheWings and CATS had Rise of Skywalker. though *both* turned out to be disappointments in a sense. at least CATS was a *GLORIOUS* train-wreck, lol
Yeah that's a good lesson to take away from this I think. Disney can get away with it, but everyone else, open on Thanksgiving or just wait until January.
Kate says "Jane Krakowski as Ulla" and it activates something in my brain: a deep desire and want for that performance to be injected into my eyeballs and earholes.
The Jane Krakowski line is so on point. Ulla could have been good but in this production she was just a perfect Playboy pretty type but nothing humorous or substantive. And singing ain’t easy, Ulla. Try another key.
Honestly. I think “The Producers, 2005” was made like a 1940’s-50’s broadway musical type of movie like how hollywood once made back many years ago. I love it. Like how Young Frankenstein was created to pay tribute to the classic horror movies, I feel like the Producers is paying tribute to the musical movies of the 40s and 50s.
@@WaitintheWings 2.5D (anime-based stage theater) is actually a really big thing here in Japan, it might be interesting to look into. I really love the Tsukipro series, it might be interesting to see Western reviewers' perspective on it.
@@FidesAla yeah. I think they should bring some IP’s that’s popular in the west and can translate well. Japanese Musicals tend to be a translation of Broadway/West End so They should show what they can do…Korean Musicals are thriving too. Maybe create an Asian week?????
I was SO lucky to get to see Broderick and Lane in the Broadway show. I have never laughed so hard throughout an entire stage show ever. It was really something special and I'm glad I was able to get to see it live.
The Producers musical is my favorite film of all time. Its what got me interested in show biz, and without it I do not think I would be working in the entertainment industry today!
Mel Brooks has only the single Oscar, and two other nominations (in '75 for Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles). However he's so influential that he is receiving an Academy Honorary Award in 2024.
I am ETERNALLY grateful to this movie for so directly bringing the Broadway show to film, because otherwise I would never have gotten to see it; plus, the more ‘cinematic’ version of the story already existed...I can’t imagine that MEL wanted to direct it AGAIN, or that anyone else wanted to re-direct a MEL BROOKS MOVIE...i love this movie, I love this show, i love this movie, AGAIN...!
knowing this movie was a flop always upsets me because I found this movie looooong after it hit the theaters and fell absolutely in LOVE!!! I really think it is a smash hit
May you please do an episode on the curse of vampire musicals on Broadway (Dance of the Vampires, Lestat, Dracula) and why some of them fared better outside of Broadway?
I loved the original movie. I couldn't afford to go to NYC to see the musical, so I was thrilled when this movie came out. I did not like it -- at first -- but, after repeated viewings of it over time, I have come to really like and appreciate it. I'm glad it exists for those of us who didn't get to see Lane & Broderick on Broadway.
One of my top 5 films of all time, The Producers (2005) exists in a separate space than the original and the Broadway production. It polishes and streamlines what the original cast did so well in the live production as we get to really see their expressions, listen to every line and note uttered with perfection you can't get from a live performance and the production quality really does the music the justice it deserves. Gary Beach gave one of the greatest performances ever in The Producers and I think he was even better in the film, every joke was sharp and right on time. Just the *way* he says his lines are preferable to me.
I could not disagree more - I was terribly disappointed by the 2005 version but then it lacked Zero Mostell and Gene Wilder - the two main stars making the 2005 version look like a very poor substitute for the perfect characterisation that those two aforementioned brought to the screen.
@@lenfirewood4089 Nathan lane is way better than zero, but gene wilder was better than Broderick. Obviously the producers musical wouldn’t be the original. 🙄 They’re two different movies and can be appreciated in their own way.
@@KimJongUnnie The big disadvantage that the cast of the later production had is that of emulation. At this point I should admit that am very far from being a fan of musicals - that I started to watch the original version of "The Producers" is one thing but the fact that I could not stop watching it until the end is a real standout. In the original production "Max Bialistock" fuelled by Zero's larger than life energy and persona (when I later watched him as a guest on a show I then realised that Zero was doing little more than playing himself!). This then coupled with the genius "clowning" of Gene Wilder made it a double act (within the greater context of the whole production) created an arena where both actors could flex their comedic talents to the max in a seemingly effortless way. Nathan and Broderick simply did not posses such a chemistry and whatever chemistry they did have was (in my eyes as a viewer of the original) was bound to suffer in the comparison as a result. I suppose to truly enjoy a musical it has to be an enjoyment that is on other factors beyond my ken because once I have seen a film of production my mind is going to annoy the shit out of me by constantly telling me "Ahh now here comes the bit where he\she does\says this\that etc." So it is fair to say I am a very poor judge of musicals because I don't as a rule like them but having said all that if I had seen the original production as a musical and not a film I think I would actually have loved it and so much that I would actually be entertained by a repeat showing of it but that's only because every part of it singing, speaking and action was so on point, funny and entertaining and as dear old Kenny Everett used to say "all done in the best possible taste""!.
Greatly appreciate the updated version of this! I started it going "I swear I've watched this but I remember it being only good not this great" and then I saw the pinned comment. Although, I'm shocked neither of you comment on Will Ferrell's vamping over the end credits of the 2005 film, as I've always felt it was one of the strongest parts of the film version.
@@WaitintheWings We've all been there with the learning curve with audio mixing! Probably more than usual this past year. You did a great job. Thanks for the mental break this provided today.
I have a deep love for this musical/movie adaptation. It was one of my first musicals to be introduced to me. While I do understand that there are some aspects wrong with it, it still never fails to make me smile. And I agree with you about having Mel direct and Susan produce and the choreography. Great video as always!!
I'm very much hoping y'all could cover the Lord of the Rings musical someday. It feels like there's so little information on it, so few people even know it existed. Was it simply too big to succeed?
@@WaitintheWings Whoa. Speaking of, I just found this. It was uploaded only a couple months ago: ruclips.net/video/-xcvGcwHdxA/видео.html Also, I feel like I remember hearing that Vincent Tong (a prolific Canadian voice actor) may have been in the Toronto cast? I'm not certain about that (the wikipedia page doesn't list the ensemble), but he might be a good lead to check out whenever you start researching. He's very friendly. 👍
@@WaitintheWings I think it says a lot that, as someone who saw it in London (2007) as a 14-year-old (and massive fan of the film trilogy), I completely forgot about its existence and the fact that I ACTUALLY SAW IT until someone reminded me of it a few months ago! Despite being one of the longest theatre shows I've sat through, I can remember about 4 bars of the Lothlórien song and have a vague recollection of one of the sets, and that's it. I know that the cast and crew all put a ridiculous amount of time and effort into it and did their absolute best but man, I cannot believe £12 million pounds was spent on creating the only show I have ever completely forgotten existed...
I'll never understand cutting "King of Old Broadway." A genius opening song that sets the tone for Max's character and dropping that for non-theater audiences threw the film off.
I loved the film! But then, it was my first time ever seeing the story. I didn't get to see the show live on stage until much later. I never even saw the original 60s film until after seeing the 2005 movie
I'm just so happy to hear a well-thought out defense of the movie musical (especially the preservation of actor performances), instead of just stopping at bashing it for how it didn't work. It's definitely partially nostalgia talking (no shame in that) but saw the 2005 movie first at a young age and it's one of my all-time favorites. I did not see the original musical and I'll never say the movie was better than the real musical it was descended from, but also: I and most people will never GET to see the musical as it was intended so this movie is special too. Made me really happy to hear Kate Cast Reviews describe why the movie is lovable in its own way.
I will say this about 2005’s The Producers; Will Ferrell and John Barrowman were at the top of the game, and the lighting and cinematography was absolutely fantastic.
It doesn't seem like that long ago that I watched the original version of this collaboration. It was what got me watching Waiting in the Wings in the first place! Great job on the update, guys!
I'm sure it's been said before but an obvious quick fix for the 2005 film would have been to have Mel Brooks direct. Wouldn't solve every issue straight away, but having a legendary filmmaker who created the original film and was so deeply involved with the musical, in charge would seem to be common sense.
I'm anticipating a video on some of Sondheim's flops. My god there were some that flopped HARD. Anyone Can Whistle, for example, only ran for 12 previews and 9 performances, yet still being the first time that Sondheim and Angela Lansbury collaborated, yet she gave him such a good impression that he later wrote the role of Mrs. Lovett specifically for her.
The funny thing about Sondheim is I think you could make the case that Sondheim and Broadway's relationship status was "it's complicated". IIRC (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) but the Sondheim-Hal Prince 70's may have been a critically-lauded(-ish) Tony magnet, but Company and A Little Night Music were the only shows they did together that recouped
I learn so much from these types of videos, knowing what doesn't work in a show and why. I really love theater and am always wondering why some musicals fail, and the history behind it, when the concept could be turned into something great. One that I just learned about was a high school musical production of Star Wars: Episode 4. The reason behind its failure is pretty weird and it might be a good episode, if you decide to cover it.
The movie was absolutely brilliant and hysterical. It makes me laugh every time. It was my father’s favorite movie. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Mel Brooks is a. Brilliant man and writer.
I thought of three musicals you could do or would be nice if you could do this season or next. 1) Little Women. It stared two major Broadway stars Sutton Foster and Maureen McGovern. It had music by Stephen Schwartz. It made it to previews maybe past but only showed a short time. 2) The Bakers Wife. It was a hit in the 70's but as far as I know has never been a success past that. 3) Be More Chill. It made it to Broadway but like Beetlejuice just never got momentum. Brandon I hope you are enjoying your new year and your new home.
The Baker’s Wife was not a hit, it had a pre-Broadway tour, and never actually got to Broadway due to its producer, David Merrick, find it lacking, even though the show had gone under constant revisions.
I totally get all of your points but ironically the reason why I LOVE the Producers movie is because is almost like a pro shot recording but with movie money. So I can basically enjoy the broadway show in HQ.
Loved this video! When this movie came out it was one of my favorites, to the point that I named my new dog Maxi after Max Bialystock. This reminded me why I loved it, and I think I'll have to check it out again.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Uma Thurman’s performance, which I expected to be much worse. It helps that “Flaunt It” is a really fun song. I actually found Broderick to be the weak link in the cast, basically just doing a Gene Wilder impression the entire time 🤷🏼♀️ Anyway, please do a video on Groundhog Day the musical, it’s a brilliant show that didn’t get its due in America. 🥰🥰
@@punkwrestle Definite agree there. Even Chenoweth couldn’t save that mess. I guess with The Producers I just can’t help seeing a lot of Gene Wilder in his performance, and not seeing anything uniquely Matthew Broderick about it. I always feel that if you’re going to redo something that’s been done before, you should bring something new to the table, or why bother? I feel the same about a lot of song covers: like, if it’s been done just like that before, why do we need to see someone else do it the same way? Put your own spin on it, make it YOURS somehow. If you walk in someone else’s footprints, how will anyone see yours?
@@SpamEggSausage 100% Wilder would have been my preference, for sure. But that being impossible, I would have preferred Broderick to Broderick-doing-Wilder. Though now that I’m thinking about it, I would be ok with an all-Broderick version - with him playing every role channeling whoever SHOULD have been cast. I think that would come through “terrible” all the way back to “entertaining” 😆😆😆
@@allisonbergh4429 " I always feel that if you’re going to redo something that’s been done before, you should bring something new to the table, or why bother? I feel the same about a lot of song covers: like, if it’s been done just like that before, why do we need to see someone else do it the same way? Put your own spin on it, make it YOURS somehow. If you walk in someone else’s footprints, how will anyone see yours?" To give an example of this from a different medium, look at Tim Burton's 2005 adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to film. When each other other kids suffers their nasty fate, he uses the Oompa-Loompas' diss tracks from the book text verbatim, but gives each its own style: "Augustus Gloop" becomes a Bollywood stage number, "Violet Beauregarde" is now a 70s/80s funk / Michael Jackson music video, "Veruca Salt" is 1960s Beatles, and "Mike Teavee" is heavy metal with a bit of Beatles touch.
I actually loved Uma Thurman as Ulla! I thought her acting is really incredible and I think she’s really amazing in the movie! 😍 I actually loved her singing and dancing too. She plays Ulla perfectly 😍
I agree! Uma brought so much to that role besides simply her body, although considering I watched it 100 times at age 14, I was probably a little biased
For me, I grew up with classic movie musicals like Singin’ in the Rain, Damn Yankees, West Side Story, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. The only modern movie musicals I had seen by the time I watched this a few years later was Hairspray and Dreamgirls, so the movie didn’t seem weirdly directed to me… it seemed like a regular movie musical. And I loved it.
It flopped because it felt like a stage play with a camera. The pacing, angles, acting, all felt like a theatre, not a movie. I remember borrowing the DVD and wondering "why did people rave about this show?" We would have been better served by a good filming of the actual stage performances. I saw the Tony Awards and loved the numbers they did that night.
I'm saying this as a theater nerd who lives in fly-over rural America. I want to THANK the people who give us these films so that we can vicariously experience the shows. I'm lucky enough to be able to do a long weekend yearly in NYC, but things like this allow those of us in the boonies to experience it. I completely agree with Brendon that live and film acting is very different. And I have the film's soundtrack on my iPod (yes, I'm that old) & it always makes me laugh when I listen to it.
This was the first version of the Producers I watched and I immediately fell in love with it. Everyone in my family loves it. It's iconic. And I personally loved the use musical style acting in the film, I personally think it added to the humour and really helped with the satire. It's unfortunate it didn't do well and I was shocked it didn't. I didn't know anyone would hate it
This problem has a very simple answer - the 1967 Film version was PERFECT on every level - cast wise, acting wise and photography wise. After that any efforts to recreate that smash it is bound to fail by comparison.
Love your channel! ♥️ Please dedicate an episode to "The Prom" movie, and how it compares to the stage show, or on "Heathers" or "American Psycho!" 🎤🤞🎵
Thanks Trina! This would be a really great topic for the Fourth Wall Break series on the Patreon. I'll probably dive into that one soon! Happy you liked the video and thanks for being here :)
Check your local(ish) theatres. St. Louis has the Muny and Kansas City has the Starlight. Tickets aren't terribly priced and the shows are great. I saw The Producers at the starlight and it was fantastic. That was probably around 2012. But I noticed these theaters kinda have a rotation of shows so keep an eye out.
I watched this as a kid and loved it. I really thought I had rose-tinted glasses about it because of the reviews though. That was until I watched it with my girlfriend now in 2024 and she also loved it.
Update: so I found the off Broadway soundtrack and honestly didn't like it. I am a massive fan of the book and movie and the musical was just not that good. It was book accurate, and the set design and costumes were pretty okay, but the music was kind of underwhelming.
To me it was like see the show on broadway I actually didn't know about the original show when I was a kid but I always saw it as "a play within a play"
I had no idea it performed poorly or wasn't well received. I was a young teenager when it came out, and absolutely loved it. Still do, and introduced my nephews to it last month. They loved it too lol. 😅🤷🏻♂️
The problem they faced was very simple: The original was so good, that people knew that no remake could live up to it. It was a great idea to make a play out of it, but it never stood a chance to begin with.
Context for my remarks here: The Mostel-Wilder version was my introduction to Mel Brooks, when it came on cut and commercial-interrupted, on TV when I was very young. It quickly became a favorite, and to this day there are scenes I can quote from start to finish. Also, we would have loved to have seen the stage production, but never were able to. Somehow I'm lacking the impetus to watch the movie. I am going to comment only on your take on the original production: I do not feel that the movie skimps on the relationship between Bialystock and Bloom. It begins with Max using Leo; it begins with Leo so insecure that he barely functions. The path these two take is marked out in the Central Park sequence, when Leo begins to stir, then explodes in the wonderful Lincoln Center sequence, and when Max is forced to actually spend time and understand Leo. Throughout the movie, you can see Leo's slow growth as a person, so that his frustration, anxiety and fear can explode at Max in the Fat Fat Fat section. Despite this, notice how, when Franz invades the office, Leo dives for Max and Max covers him. The wounds are healed not when they decide to blow up the theatre but when Leo apologizes for calling Max fat, and when Max responds with a genuine embrace. This is a short movie, that moves quickly, and is not supposed to be taken seriously; most of the characters are cartoonish by design, and this is part of the charm and freedom given to them. As you said, the story is actually about two lonely men, who find friendship and fulfillment in their unlikely partnership. Everything else ("Springtime for Hitler" included) is a means to that end, when all is said and done. Also, the original movie has Dick Shawn as LSD, who always made our father crack up when trying to remember his name, and who performs his song like no one else possibly could. The 2005 movie is going to have to work awfully hard to make up for that lack!
I agree wholeheartedly. I like the ending fine, although it does feel a little tacked on but I don’t mind it. Wilder!Leo doesn’t seem like the kind of person to take the money and run, thats what Mostel!Max would do instead before changing his mind.
Fantastic movie! Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars. He said the only problem was that the story was known and people didn't give this adaption a chance. Gary Beach's performance was a gift.
I thought this was an amazing film. How awful it would be if it weren't done over the top. The content demands over the top. This is an underappreciated masterpiece.
Wasn't Ula's less-than-great singing part of the joke though? I thought Uma Thurman playing a bimbo actually worked really well. Also, as a general rule I can't stand Will Ferrell but in this movie I thought he was one of the funniest characters and I loved every moment he was onscreen.
Not to mention, as far as nationality goes, she's perfectly cast because she's got Swedish ancestry on her mother's side. Even the New York Times' reviewer spoke positively of her: "Uma Thurman as a would-be actress is the one bit of genuine radiance in this aggressively and pointlessly shiny, noisy spectacle."
I’m with you here! I think the casting of Uma Thurman as Miss Ikea really pulled off the off tune singing after ‘Now Ulla belt’. This film is also poking fun at a lot of the huge musicals filmed during the late ‘40s and 50s - i am not a musical fan and films like ‘Oklahoma’ and ‘Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - those huge film productions of those huge stage musicals - i’m afraid they left me cold. What i liked about this was it was set in the 50’s at the height of all the multi- cast productions and sent them all up. So yes it can look stagey but isn’t it supposed to? Sending up one of these overblown productions is the fun of this film. And yes. This is the only Will Ferrel film that really made me laugh. Overall i think it was very well cast. I think it came out at the wrong time. But i think this maybe one of those slow burners which gains a big fan base over the years. Time will tell
I totally agree! Stroman and Thurman were the two biggest drawbacks to the success of this film. I sat in the theater wanting sooo much to love it! It was like watching from the front row, watching your child forget his lines.
I'm pretty hopeful about the movie In the Heights, from the trailer I can see what they wanted to adapt and how and some of the shots looked really nice. Granted it's the point of a trailer but still, I'm looking forward to it
the movie is great, never understood the hate. Everyone I personally know enjoys the movie and I never seem to see actual negative discourse about it online either.
I don't agree, I think Ooma did an amazing job in the role. I think she checks all the boxes. Is she AS talented a singer as the others? Obviously not, but she CAN sing. Enough that I can enjoy when she does sing. I frankly enjoy most of the jokes about her or from her. And her being unexpectedly intelligent on all the schemes, as well as breaking the fourth wall, I thought was a great thing.
You're right, there's a difference between The Stage and Film. Most people don't realize this l, like the past transfers from stage to screen. Thanks for this channel.
Since I didn't know this was a theatrical production before being made into a movie when I first watched the film, The Producers movie is The Producers for me, and I loved it! Watched it more than a dozen times already, I think. Our first experience with something usually forms the basis of our understanding of, well... that thing.
Nothing went wrong! When I saw this movie the first time, I convulsed with laughter! There is no musical funnier than this! „I'm wet! I'm hysterical and I'm wet!“ Darauf einen Schnaps, das du platzt!
Your analysis is so interesting to me because The Producers was one of my favorite films in 2006. I suspect the reason why I loved it so much was the same reason why audiences hated it: it was, as Mel envisioned it, as much of a copy-paste adaptation of the Broadway musical as possible. And watching the show on Broadway a year or two later made me appreciate the "Why Bloom go so far camera right?" line so much more when I learned it was originally "Why Bloom go so far stage left?" It was that sort of meta humor and the long pauses to let me process the jokes that left a mark on me and made The Producers a hallmark of my teenage years. I don't *like* fast-paced comedies. I like clever ones. Especially when there are two jokes made at once. Take 6:25 for instance, but let me add a bit more context. "A happy ending will pep up your play/Oedipus won't bomb if he winds up with Mom/Keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay" There are two layers of humor here. One is the absurdity of Oedipus Rex having a happy ending to begin with--it is a tragic play about his inability to escape his fate--and the other is that they think that Oedipus ending up with his mom *is* a happy ending. You don't have to get the reference to understand the joke either! Watching it a decade or two later, I have a totally different perspective. Although pretty much every Jewish joke has held up reasonably well, 90% of the gay jokes fall flat to me now. As a person who is both Jewish and queer, I am involved in both communities, and while jokes about Jewish culture haven't changed all that much, gay subculture has changed a LOT. And the sexism in the gay community from gay men directed toward lesbians, while historically accurate, is still ongoing (in the form of microaggressions) and it's kind of a sore wound. Poor Shirley will always be last and least in Roger's mind. It's jokes like that which sour the experience for me as a modern viewer. And they were fine in the original film, which feels dated; the humor was appropriate for the time. But when the gay jokes got recycled to a (more) modern adaptation, they didn't get updated with enough cultural context for us modern queers to appreciate them for anything more than gay stereotypes. And it's a shame, because I'm pretty sure the only reason why the director was gay in the film to begin with is that Mel took a pun and ran with it. It had so much more potential.
Omg the producers. I dragged my family to see it when it came out and definitely had that moment of laughing in the theater because I got the Kafka joke and no one else did. But yes, I just want to roll around in joy because the points you bring up about the end of the show - I agree with so much. Also this is still a musical my brothers and I will bring up between ourselves so thank you also for talking about it
all of your criticisms are absolutely spot-on but I will just say that this film is a tradition in my family and we made my partner watch it for exactly that reason
Speak for yourself! I'm sorry but I love love love this film 😂 I'm a huge fan of musical theatre though, and I kind of get it and like it when things are really camp and melodramatic and over the top, even cheesy
I guess life imitated art. That was the plot of the movie, wasn't it? Make a play sure to bomb, so you can keep all the money raised? Mel Brooks, you genius! Seriously, the original movie was far and away better, so was the casting.
Once again special thanks to Sandy, Wyatt, Liz and Kate from Kate Cast Reviews for helping me remaster this lost episode from Season 1! It's crazy how much can change in a little over a year, but I definitely feel a lot better about this take in terms of audio mixing, video editing and my own vocal performance. Give Kate a subscribe if you can for more in depth pop culture content: ruclips.net/channel/UC_nsBZngWbumfD45KqW1A7A
Excited for more future videos!
Can you do Frozen the Broadway musical what went wrong
I gave up after 21 minutes, but I am curious if you ever got to mentioning that the biggest factor was probably that homophobia is no longer funny. It is hard to appreciate Mel Brooks at all if you aren't pretty homophobic.
Is Larry Oliver a good example, by the time he'd did The Prince and the Showgirl. He had already been in 37 or 39 films, starting in the early '30s
Note: The monster doesn't fall in love with Elizabeth; he rapes her. Blazing Saddles made fun of racism. Young Frankenstein celebrated rape and made it a sexually liberating experience. If you think it's funny, just mentally cast a black actress as Elizabeth and keep everyone else white. Name one black actress who'd even TAKE that role. A black woman liberated sexually by a white monster? Good God!
Most younger people (like me) who never got to see the original show on broadway, still find the movie to be great!
Yes! This was my first exposure to musicals and when it came out I got the DVD and watched it hundreds of times. This is literally the movie that made me want to be in musicals and I still am 15 years later!
Yes!!! Ive seen it so many times and I love it! I even prefer it over the original
My husband is 7 years older than me and he got to see the stage musical in person when he was younger and he would always talk about it. So we finally sat down and watched the movie and I absolutely loved it. Nathan and Matthew did perfect. I didn't understand why people didn't like it honestly.
Err … Broadway isn’t accessible to 99.998% of the world’s population, no matter whether or not a particular musical hasn’t played in their lifetime 😁.
I didn’t know there was anything “wrong” with the movie version until I saw the thumbnail for this video. Oh, well. Luckily my enjoyment isn’t affected by what other people think of it.
i'm with kate here. the '05 movie was my first exposure to the musical and i was absolutely obsessed with it for a while. i didn't even know most people didn't like it until years later
Same! This is literally my all time favorite movie and anyone who doesn't like it is WRONG
Same!
The same thing happened to me! The 05 movie was my gateway musical, and pretty much fueled my musical theater obsession through high school. Always cool to see I'm not alone in liking it so much!
Same here ahhaha.
As it's said, I was today years old when I learned that the movie was a flop
Still loved the movie, don’t care what people think.
Needed more Jared Leto
@@WaitintheWings where are the purple Lamborghinis?!
Good for you!
I love this film! I like how over the top it is 😅
Didn’t know those people existed before the video.
I'm with Kate, no matter what critics or audiences thought, it was so sincerely joyful and just overall awesome. Even Uma Thurman lol
Thanks Lonell! Honestly one of my favorite things about doing this video is finding out how many people also enjoy this movie.
@Lee Banning absolutely nothing 😍
I feel like that for all of the other bad movies that people hate like Benchwarmers, bee movie, and Charlie and the chocolate factory for example I love them and no matter your entitled opinions I still love those movies
I only got to watch The Producers (2005) a while ago after stumbling upon Mel Brooks’ musical tribute at the Kennedy Center. I couldn’t get the songs out of my head, especially “Springtime for Hitler”. I enjoyed the entire movie all the way up to that surprise post credits number.
I think because I've only ever watched the producers with theatre friends and family the pacing issue isn't a problem because we are laughing during the pauses. It's a favourite of mine
It’s one of my favorited BECAUSE they kept it true to the stage version. I don’t care what critics say. It’s an excellent movie.
Fairly close in a few areas though I hate they dropped a few songs, though two were still filmed, 'Where did we go right?' wasn't filmed at all.
@@ackbarfan5556 Whoa - that was one of my favourite scenes in the original movie! 😳
@@ackbarfan5556 Yeah but to be fair movies aren't really supposed to be as long as a Broadway show.
It's a nice funny movie, but if you have seen the stage production in the four years before the film came out - why spending the money to watch it again in the cinema? Why not waiting for the DVD, so you can watch only your most favored scenes and skip over the rest?
kept tooo true, adaptations neeed to adapt
I love that line about Mel Brooks bringing sincerity into comedy. For me, that's what makes his earlier movies so special. Despite all the hijinks, they still had heart and characters the audience could get attached to. And that's a big part of why The Producers works so well.
That's what's so great about him. He was one of the first entertainers to understand that comedy can lead to healing. The shocking, blatantly racist jokes and caricatures in his films are explicitly for people to laugh at, and therefore take all the power away from, people who are ACTUALLY like that.
Cuz, frankly, hating someone for their skin tone or orientation IS funny. It's ridiculous. And taking the pi$$ out of them by laughing at them is a very powerful tool.
my takeaway-don't release a movie adaptation of a musical during the christmas weekend.
Especially in 2005 lol I couldn't BELIEVE how STACKED that lineup was
@@WaitintheWings and CATS had Rise of Skywalker. though *both* turned out to be disappointments in a sense. at least CATS was a *GLORIOUS* train-wreck, lol
Yeah that's a good lesson to take away from this I think. Disney can get away with it, but everyone else, open on Thanksgiving or just wait until January.
Kate says "Jane Krakowski as Ulla" and it activates something in my brain: a deep desire and want for that performance to be injected into my eyeballs and earholes.
I had the same reaction, as soon as she said it I couldn't help but think that would be perfect casting.
I KNOW RIGHT?!
Me too!
The Jane Krakowski line is so on point. Ulla could have been good but in this production she was just a perfect Playboy pretty type but nothing humorous or substantive. And singing ain’t easy, Ulla. Try another key.
nothing went wrong. its a great film. i was LITERALLY on the floor rolling around laughing in tears
Thank you for acknowledging The Muppet Christmas Carol in such high regard, you have officially earned my respect
Honestly. I think “The Producers, 2005” was made like a 1940’s-50’s broadway musical type of movie like how hollywood once made back many years ago. I love it. Like how Young Frankenstein was created to pay tribute to the classic horror movies, I feel like the Producers is paying tribute to the musical movies of the 40s and 50s.
I feel like Death Note the Musical would be an amazing choice and would probably bring you guys so much needed attention!
Death Note would be a fun one. So many shows and so little time!
@@WaitintheWings Yes please! That one is amazing
@@WaitintheWings 2.5D (anime-based stage theater) is actually a really big thing here in Japan, it might be interesting to look into. I really love the Tsukipro series, it might be interesting to see Western reviewers' perspective on it.
Whaaat?? There's a Dead Note,
the Musical??
@@FidesAla yeah. I think they should bring some IP’s that’s popular in the west and can translate well. Japanese Musicals tend to be a translation of Broadway/West End so They should show what they can do…Korean Musicals are thriving too. Maybe create an Asian week?????
I agree The Producers could have done better if Mel Brooks directed it himself while Strohman can stay on as a choreographer and producer.
Alas...it will always remain a big "what if?" :(
@@WaitintheWings And he was supposed to have co-directed it, too, but Anne Bancroft died right before production started and he wasn't up to it.
@@sarahgoldberg6614 I’ve heard that part of the reason Brooks didn’t direct was because he was taking care of Bancroft due to her failing health.
I was SO lucky to get to see Broderick and Lane in the Broadway show. I have never laughed so hard throughout an entire stage show ever. It was really something special and I'm glad I was able to get to see it live.
I sadly never got to see them but in 2002 I saw their understudies and yet I still laughed like no other
Sc😢😮😅😮😅😅 10:31
😂🎉😂🎉😂54s😢fx,c
The Producers musical is my favorite film of all time. Its what got me interested in show biz, and without it I do not think I would be working in the entertainment industry today!
Mel Brooks has only the single Oscar, and two other nominations (in '75 for Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles). However he's so influential that he is receiving an Academy Honorary Award in 2024.
God I would love to hear you all dissect "Into the Woods". Just one of the most promising adaptations to fail fully on-screen.
Fail? The 2014 film version of "Into the Woods" was both critically and commercially successful.
@@andrewbloom7637 it was!? It was a hard movie to get through
I am ETERNALLY grateful to this movie for so directly bringing the Broadway show to film, because otherwise I would never have gotten to see it; plus, the more ‘cinematic’ version of the story already existed...I can’t imagine that MEL wanted to direct it AGAIN, or that anyone else wanted to re-direct a MEL BROOKS MOVIE...i love this movie, I love this show, i love this movie, AGAIN...!
knowing this movie was a flop always upsets me because I found this movie looooong after it hit the theaters and fell absolutely in LOVE!!! I really think it is a smash hit
May you please do an episode on the curse of vampire musicals on Broadway (Dance of the Vampires, Lestat, Dracula) and why some of them fared better outside of Broadway?
I loved the original movie. I couldn't afford to go to NYC to see the musical, so I was thrilled when this movie came out. I did not like it -- at first -- but, after repeated viewings of it over time, I have come to really like and appreciate it. I'm glad it exists for those of us who didn't get to see Lane & Broderick on Broadway.
One of my top 5 films of all time, The Producers (2005) exists in a separate space than the original and the Broadway production. It polishes and streamlines what the original cast did so well in the live production as we get to really see their expressions, listen to every line and note uttered with perfection you can't get from a live performance and the production quality really does the music the justice it deserves.
Gary Beach gave one of the greatest performances ever in The Producers and I think he was even better in the film, every joke was sharp and right on time. Just the *way* he says his lines are preferable to me.
I could not disagree more - I was terribly disappointed by the 2005 version but then it lacked Zero Mostell and Gene Wilder - the two main stars making the 2005 version look like a very poor substitute for the perfect characterisation that those two aforementioned brought to the screen.
@@lenfirewood4089 Nathan lane is way better than zero, but gene wilder was better than Broderick. Obviously the producers musical wouldn’t be the original. 🙄 They’re two different movies and can be appreciated in their own way.
@@KimJongUnnie The big disadvantage that the cast of the later production had is that of emulation. At this point I should admit that am very far from being a fan of musicals - that I started to watch the original version of "The Producers" is one thing but the fact that I could not stop watching it until the end is a real standout.
In the original production "Max Bialistock" fuelled by Zero's larger than life energy and persona (when I later watched him as a guest on a show I then realised that Zero was doing little more than playing himself!). This then coupled with the genius "clowning" of Gene Wilder made it a double act (within the greater context of the whole production) created an arena where both actors could flex their comedic talents to the max in a seemingly effortless way. Nathan and Broderick simply did not posses such a chemistry and whatever chemistry they did have was (in my eyes as a viewer of the original) was bound to suffer in the comparison as a result.
I suppose to truly enjoy a musical it has to be an enjoyment that is on other factors beyond my ken because once I have seen a film of production my mind is going to annoy the shit out of me by constantly telling me "Ahh now here comes the bit where he\she does\says this\that etc."
So it is fair to say I am a very poor judge of musicals because I don't as a rule like them but having said all that if I had seen the original production as a musical and not a film I think I would actually have loved it and so much that I would actually be entertained by a repeat showing of it but that's only because every part of it singing, speaking and action was so on point, funny and entertaining and as dear old Kenny Everett used to say "all done in the best possible taste""!.
Greatly appreciate the updated version of this! I started it going "I swear I've watched this but I remember it being only good not this great" and then I saw the pinned comment. Although, I'm shocked neither of you comment on Will Ferrell's vamping over the end credits of the 2005 film, as I've always felt it was one of the strongest parts of the film version.
This is so sweet. I'm happy you gave it another try and that you thought it was a lot better that this time around.
@@WaitintheWings We've all been there with the learning curve with audio mixing! Probably more than usual this past year. You did a great job. Thanks for the mental break this provided today.
I have watched the 2005 version many times. Funny as hell. Love it.
I have a deep love for this musical/movie adaptation. It was one of my first musicals to be introduced to me. While I do understand that there are some aspects wrong with it, it still never fails to make me smile. And I agree with you about having Mel direct and Susan produce and the choreography. Great video as always!!
I'm very much hoping y'all could cover the Lord of the Rings musical someday. It feels like there's so little information on it, so few people even know it existed. Was it simply too big to succeed?
I agree! We talk about it for a minute in the Matilda video but, a deeper dive is definitely deserved. It looks insane haha
@@WaitintheWings Whoa. Speaking of, I just found this. It was uploaded only a couple months ago: ruclips.net/video/-xcvGcwHdxA/видео.html
Also, I feel like I remember hearing that Vincent Tong (a prolific Canadian voice actor) may have been in the Toronto cast? I'm not certain about that (the wikipedia page doesn't list the ensemble), but he might be a good lead to check out whenever you start researching. He's very friendly. 👍
@@WaitintheWings The Matilda video definitely reignited my curiosity on the subject! Best of luck, and thank you for all you do! 😊❤
@@WaitintheWings I think it says a lot that, as someone who saw it in London (2007) as a 14-year-old (and massive fan of the film trilogy), I completely forgot about its existence and the fact that I ACTUALLY SAW IT until someone reminded me of it a few months ago! Despite being one of the longest theatre shows I've sat through, I can remember about 4 bars of the Lothlórien song and have a vague recollection of one of the sets, and that's it. I know that the cast and crew all put a ridiculous amount of time and effort into it and did their absolute best but man, I cannot believe £12 million pounds was spent on creating the only show I have ever completely forgotten existed...
It was atrocious, forgettable and completely boring
I'll never understand cutting "King of Old Broadway." A genius opening song that sets the tone for Max's character and dropping that for non-theater audiences threw the film off.
pleeeaase do a video on Chess The Musical
Be sure to check out the channel in February ;)
I'm listening to that album right now!
@@emmal. It's really good, right? Especially Endgame.
@@WaitintheWings YES! Chess is one of my favorites!
Please o please o please o please o please - as much fabulous 80’s footage from the original London as you can possibly stuff in the video!!
Ever thought of doing the musical adaptations of Disney's Tarzan and The Little Mermaid? They both only closed their shows after a year on Broadway
But at least Tarzan was a relatively huge hit in Germany 😂
@@merlesstorys in the Netherlands too
deservedly so, the shows were lousy (I ushed the touring shows and they were poorly written, directed and just plain bad.)
It warmed my heart that both Lane and Broderick turned up in Only Murders in the Building
I loved the film! But then, it was my first time ever seeing the story. I didn't get to see the show live on stage until much later. I never even saw the original 60s film until after seeing the 2005 movie
I'm just so happy to hear a well-thought out defense of the movie musical (especially the preservation of actor performances), instead of just stopping at bashing it for how it didn't work. It's definitely partially nostalgia talking (no shame in that) but saw the 2005 movie first at a young age and it's one of my all-time favorites. I did not see the original musical and I'll never say the movie was better than the real musical it was descended from, but also: I and most people will never GET to see the musical as it was intended so this movie is special too. Made me really happy to hear Kate Cast Reviews describe why the movie is lovable in its own way.
I actually really love, the remake of The Producers.
Im probably just a theatre nerd but I LOVED the producers movie and I didn't even know i liked musicals then. I wish I could have seen it live so bad.
I will say this about 2005’s The Producers; Will Ferrell and John Barrowman were at the top of the game, and the lighting and cinematography was absolutely fantastic.
It doesn't seem like that long ago that I watched the original version of this collaboration. It was what got me watching Waiting in the Wings in the first place! Great job on the update, guys!
It’s crazy how time flies! Thanks for rewatching and thanks for the kind words!
I'm sure it's been said before but an obvious quick fix for the 2005 film would have been to have Mel Brooks direct. Wouldn't solve every issue straight away, but having a legendary filmmaker who created the original film and was so deeply involved with the musical, in charge would seem to be common sense.
I'm anticipating a video on some of Sondheim's flops. My god there were some that flopped HARD. Anyone Can Whistle, for example, only ran for 12 previews and 9 performances, yet still being the first time that Sondheim and Angela Lansbury collaborated, yet she gave him such a good impression that he later wrote the role of Mrs. Lovett specifically for her.
The Frogs was another huge Sondheim flop that I'd love to see a video about!
The funny thing about Sondheim is I think you could make the case that Sondheim and Broadway's relationship status was "it's complicated". IIRC (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) but the Sondheim-Hal Prince 70's may have been a critically-lauded(-ish) Tony magnet, but Company and A Little Night Music were the only shows they did together that recouped
I learn so much from these types of videos, knowing what doesn't work in a show and why. I really love theater and am always wondering why some musicals fail, and the history behind it, when the concept could be turned into something great. One that I just learned about was a high school musical production of Star Wars: Episode 4. The reason behind its failure is pretty weird and it might be a good episode, if you decide to cover it.
Glad it was helpful! Hindsight really is 20/20 and even the show that aren't "successes" have a lot to teach.
This is heresy. The movie is perfect, every minute. I'm with her.
The movie was absolutely brilliant and hysterical. It makes me laugh every time. It was my father’s favorite movie.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Mel Brooks is a. Brilliant man and writer.
I thought of three musicals you could do or would be nice if you could do this season or next. 1) Little Women. It stared two major Broadway stars Sutton Foster and Maureen McGovern. It had music by Stephen Schwartz. It made it to previews maybe past but only showed a short time. 2) The Bakers Wife. It was a hit in the 70's but as far as I know has never been a success past that. 3) Be More Chill. It made it to Broadway but like Beetlejuice just never got momentum.
Brandon I hope you are enjoying your new year and your new home.
All great recommendations and Be More Chill is definitely on the docket. I'll have to look into the other ones :)
The Baker’s Wife was not a hit, it had a pre-Broadway tour, and never actually got to Broadway due to its producer, David Merrick, find it lacking, even though the show had gone under constant revisions.
"Little Woman" score...NOT Schwartz.....but Jason Howland.....I LOVE that score....
I totally get all of your points but ironically the reason why I LOVE the Producers movie is because is almost like a pro shot recording but with movie money. So I can basically enjoy the broadway show in HQ.
I know I'm late in discovering this channel but I think I love you.
Loved this video! When this movie came out it was one of my favorites, to the point that I named my new dog Maxi after Max Bialystock. This reminded me why I loved it, and I think I'll have to check it out again.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Uma Thurman’s performance, which I expected to be much worse. It helps that “Flaunt It” is a really fun song. I actually found Broderick to be the weak link in the cast, basically just doing a Gene Wilder impression the entire time 🤷🏼♀️
Anyway, please do a video on Groundhog Day the musical, it’s a brilliant show that didn’t get its due in America. 🥰🥰
I thought he was perfect in this role as the nebbish sidekick. He was definitely a miss as Harold Hill.
@@punkwrestle Definite agree there. Even Chenoweth couldn’t save that mess.
I guess with The Producers I just can’t help seeing a lot of Gene Wilder in his performance, and not seeing anything uniquely Matthew Broderick about it. I always feel that if you’re going to redo something that’s been done before, you should bring something new to the table, or why bother? I feel the same about a lot of song covers: like, if it’s been done just like that before, why do we need to see someone else do it the same way? Put your own spin on it, make it YOURS somehow. If you walk in someone else’s footprints, how will anyone see yours?
@@allisonbergh4429 I wish there had been MORE Gene Wilder in it. I thought Matthew Broderick was terrible in an otherwise fun movie
@@SpamEggSausage 100% Wilder would have been my preference, for sure. But that being impossible, I would have preferred Broderick to Broderick-doing-Wilder.
Though now that I’m thinking about it, I would be ok with an all-Broderick version - with him playing every role channeling whoever SHOULD have been cast. I think that would come through “terrible” all the way back to “entertaining” 😆😆😆
@@allisonbergh4429 " I always feel that if you’re going to redo something that’s been done before, you should bring something new to the table, or why bother? I feel the same about a lot of song covers: like, if it’s been done just like that before, why do we need to see someone else do it the same way? Put your own spin on it, make it YOURS somehow. If you walk in someone else’s footprints, how will anyone see yours?"
To give an example of this from a different medium, look at Tim Burton's 2005 adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to film. When each other other kids suffers their nasty fate, he uses the Oompa-Loompas' diss tracks from the book text verbatim, but gives each its own style: "Augustus Gloop" becomes a Bollywood stage number, "Violet Beauregarde" is now a 70s/80s funk / Michael Jackson music video, "Veruca Salt" is 1960s Beatles, and "Mike Teavee" is heavy metal with a bit of Beatles touch.
I actually loved Uma Thurman as Ulla! I thought her acting is really incredible and I think she’s really amazing in the movie! 😍 I actually loved her singing and dancing too. She plays Ulla perfectly 😍
I agree! Uma brought so much to that role besides simply her body, although considering I watched it 100 times at age 14, I was probably a little biased
Film Ula cannot dance, sing or belt. Jane Krakowski should have stayed.
I love this version exactly because it is a stage play on camera and it's one of those rare exceptions where it works :)
For me, I grew up with classic movie musicals like Singin’ in the Rain, Damn Yankees, West Side Story, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. The only modern movie musicals I had seen by the time I watched this a few years later was Hairspray and Dreamgirls, so the movie didn’t seem weirdly directed to me… it seemed like a regular movie musical. And I loved it.
This is literally the first time I've ever heard of anyone not liking the movie
It flopped because it felt like a stage play with a camera. The pacing, angles, acting, all felt like a theatre, not a movie. I remember borrowing the DVD and wondering "why did people rave about this show?"
We would have been better served by a good filming of the actual stage performances. I saw the Tony Awards and loved the numbers they did that night.
I'm saying this as a theater nerd who lives in fly-over rural America. I want to THANK the people who give us these films so that we can vicariously experience the shows. I'm lucky enough to be able to do a long weekend yearly in NYC, but things like this allow those of us in the boonies to experience it. I completely agree with Brendon that live and film acting is very different. And I have the film's soundtrack on my iPod (yes, I'm that old) & it always makes me laugh when I listen to it.
Not everybody that goes to the movies likes musicals, but everyone that goes to Broadway loves them!
This was the first version of the Producers I watched and I immediately fell in love with it. Everyone in my family loves it. It's iconic. And I personally loved the use musical style acting in the film, I personally think it added to the humour and really helped with the satire. It's unfortunate it didn't do well and I was shocked it didn't. I didn't know anyone would hate it
I honestly think this movie is probably one of the best stage to screen adaptations I've ever seen.
I can watch The Producers over and over…
This is a great format. I love hearing the discourse without anyone having to be wrong or stupid for their opinions or readings of the media.
No matter what, still one of my favorite movies ever
This problem has a very simple answer - the 1967 Film version was PERFECT on every level - cast wise, acting wise and photography wise. After that any efforts to recreate that smash it is bound to fail by comparison.
Love your channel! ♥️ Please dedicate an episode to "The Prom" movie, and how it compares to the stage show, or on "Heathers" or "American Psycho!" 🎤🤞🎵
Thanks Trina! This would be a really great topic for the Fourth Wall Break series on the Patreon. I'll probably dive into that one soon! Happy you liked the video and thanks for being here :)
Something went wrong? Me and my friends drove to a theatre in flint Michigan to watch this and we were thrilled and satisfied
I still really enjoy the film and think it's one of the best stage to screen adaptations, just behind Chicago.
What Went Wrong with 2005's The Producers? Nothing, It's perfect.
I love this musical and it saddens me that it isn't performed anymore and will likely never be performed on Broadway or off again
Maybe watch an amateur or semi-pro show? They can be great!
My local small theater did an amazing version 6 years ago! There's always hope
Check your local(ish) theatres. St. Louis has the Muny and Kansas City has the Starlight. Tickets aren't terribly priced and the shows are great. I saw The Producers at the starlight and it was fantastic. That was probably around 2012. But I noticed these theaters kinda have a rotation of shows so keep an eye out.
Could you do the history of confusing changes of the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” musical.
The Dahl estate actually offered letting me in on this story now that you mention it lol
@@WaitintheWings oh, cool.
@@WaitintheWings ok that’s an awesome connection to make!
Wow that title music is SO GOOD! Like, probably the best part of the video!!!
I have never seen the show and I loved the movie. I still do.
I watched this as a kid and loved it. I really thought I had rose-tinted glasses about it because of the reviews though. That was until I watched it with my girlfriend now in 2024 and she also loved it.
I'd love to see you do an episode on the Coraline musical, since it seems like such a strange and weird production and I'd love to know more about it!
Of course that's a thing. I'll have to check it out now I guess.
Update: so I found the off Broadway soundtrack and honestly didn't like it. I am a massive fan of the book and movie and the musical was just not that good. It was book accurate, and the set design and costumes were pretty okay, but the music was kind of underwhelming.
Nothing will Ever beat Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. The original film is one of the greatest Mel Brooks films.
To me it was like see the show on broadway I actually didn't know about the original show when I was a kid but I always saw it as "a play within a play"
I remember watching the 2005 Producers in theater class back in high school and the whole class burst into laughter in the Springtime for Hitler scene
I had no idea it performed poorly or wasn't well received. I was a young teenager when it came out, and absolutely loved it. Still do, and introduced my nephews to it last month. They loved it too lol. 😅🤷🏻♂️
The problem they faced was very simple: The original was so good, that people knew that no remake could live up to it. It was a great idea to make a play out of it, but it never stood a chance to begin with.
Context for my remarks here: The Mostel-Wilder version was my introduction to Mel Brooks, when it came on cut and commercial-interrupted, on TV when I was very young. It quickly became a favorite, and to this day there are scenes I can quote from start to finish. Also, we would have loved to have seen the stage production, but never were able to. Somehow I'm lacking the impetus to watch the movie. I am going to comment only on your take on the original production:
I do not feel that the movie skimps on the relationship between Bialystock and Bloom. It begins with Max using Leo; it begins with Leo so insecure that he barely functions. The path these two take is marked out in the Central Park sequence, when Leo begins to stir, then explodes in the wonderful Lincoln Center sequence, and when Max is forced to actually spend time and understand Leo. Throughout the movie, you can see Leo's slow growth as a person, so that his frustration, anxiety and fear can explode at Max in the Fat Fat Fat section. Despite this, notice how, when Franz invades the office, Leo dives for Max and Max covers him. The wounds are healed not when they decide to blow up the theatre but when Leo apologizes for calling Max fat, and when Max responds with a genuine embrace.
This is a short movie, that moves quickly, and is not supposed to be taken seriously; most of the characters are cartoonish by design, and this is part of the charm and freedom given to them. As you said, the story is actually about two lonely men, who find friendship and fulfillment in their unlikely partnership. Everything else ("Springtime for Hitler" included) is a means to that end, when all is said and done.
Also, the original movie has Dick Shawn as LSD, who always made our father crack up when trying to remember his name, and who performs his song like no one else possibly could. The 2005 movie is going to have to work awfully hard to make up for that lack!
I agree wholeheartedly. I like the ending fine, although it does feel a little tacked on but I don’t mind it. Wilder!Leo doesn’t seem like the kind of person to take the money and run, thats what Mostel!Max would do instead before changing his mind.
Fantastic movie! Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars. He said the only problem was that the story was known and people didn't give this adaption a chance. Gary Beach's performance was a gift.
I thought this was an amazing film. How awful it would be if it weren't done over the top. The content demands over the top. This is an underappreciated masterpiece.
Another video that's absolutely knocked it out of the park :)
Wow, thanks!
I personally love the 05 film and I think it's holds up quite well.
Wasn't Ula's less-than-great singing part of the joke though? I thought Uma Thurman playing a bimbo actually worked really well.
Also, as a general rule I can't stand Will Ferrell but in this movie I thought he was one of the funniest characters and I loved every moment he was onscreen.
Not to mention, as far as nationality goes, she's perfectly cast because she's got Swedish ancestry on her mother's side.
Even the New York Times' reviewer spoke positively of her: "Uma Thurman as a would-be actress is the one bit of genuine radiance in this aggressively and pointlessly shiny, noisy spectacle."
I’m with you here! I think the casting of Uma Thurman as Miss Ikea really pulled off the off tune singing after ‘Now Ulla belt’. This film is also poking fun at a lot of the huge musicals filmed during the late ‘40s and 50s - i am not a musical fan and films like ‘Oklahoma’ and ‘Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - those huge film productions of those huge stage musicals - i’m afraid they left me cold. What i liked about this was it was set in the 50’s at the height of all the multi- cast productions and sent them all up. So yes it can look stagey but isn’t it supposed to? Sending up one of these overblown productions is the fun of this film.
And yes. This is the only Will Ferrel film that really made me laugh. Overall i think it was very well cast. I think it came out at the wrong time. But i think this maybe one of those slow burners which gains a big fan base over the years. Time will tell
@@TheTibmeister How can you not like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers???
I totally agree! Stroman and Thurman were the two biggest drawbacks to the success of this film. I sat in the theater wanting sooo much to love it! It was like watching from the front row, watching your child forget his lines.
My parents tricked me into watching it by saying it was about WW2. By the end I was laughing on the floor.
Yayyyy! It’s back up! Waited for this for too long.
Back up in its best form haha
I still loved it.
I'm pretty hopeful about the movie In the Heights, from the trailer I can see what they wanted to adapt and how and some of the shots looked really nice. Granted it's the point of a trailer but still, I'm looking forward to it
what went wrong? they thought they could make more money with a flop than a hit.
So meta 😊
The 2005 version doesn’t hold a candle to the 1967 original. We two are going way out to praise this flop.
the movie is great, never understood the hate. Everyone I personally know enjoys the movie and I never seem to see actual negative discourse about it online either.
I don't agree, I think Ooma did an amazing job in the role. I think she checks all the boxes. Is she AS talented a singer as the others? Obviously not, but she CAN sing. Enough that I can enjoy when she does sing. I frankly enjoy most of the jokes about her or from her. And her being unexpectedly intelligent on all the schemes, as well as breaking the fourth wall, I thought was a great thing.
You're right, there's a difference between The Stage and Film. Most people don't realize this l, like the past transfers from stage to screen. Thanks for this channel.
idc, ill die on the hill The Producers Re-Make was amazing
Since I didn't know this was a theatrical production before being made into a movie when I first watched the film, The Producers movie is The Producers for me, and I loved it! Watched it more than a dozen times already, I think.
Our first experience with something usually forms the basis of our understanding of, well... that thing.
Nothing went wrong! When I saw this movie the first time, I convulsed with laughter! There is no musical funnier than this! „I'm wet! I'm hysterical and I'm wet!“ Darauf einen Schnaps, das du platzt!
I loved the film. I didn't know it had so much history to it. Thanks.
Your analysis is so interesting to me because The Producers was one of my favorite films in 2006. I suspect the reason why I loved it so much was the same reason why audiences hated it: it was, as Mel envisioned it, as much of a copy-paste adaptation of the Broadway musical as possible. And watching the show on Broadway a year or two later made me appreciate the "Why Bloom go so far camera right?" line so much more when I learned it was originally "Why Bloom go so far stage left?" It was that sort of meta humor and the long pauses to let me process the jokes that left a mark on me and made The Producers a hallmark of my teenage years. I don't *like* fast-paced comedies. I like clever ones. Especially when there are two jokes made at once. Take 6:25 for instance, but let me add a bit more context. "A happy ending will pep up your play/Oedipus won't bomb if he winds up with Mom/Keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay" There are two layers of humor here. One is the absurdity of Oedipus Rex having a happy ending to begin with--it is a tragic play about his inability to escape his fate--and the other is that they think that Oedipus ending up with his mom *is* a happy ending. You don't have to get the reference to understand the joke either!
Watching it a decade or two later, I have a totally different perspective. Although pretty much every Jewish joke has held up reasonably well, 90% of the gay jokes fall flat to me now. As a person who is both Jewish and queer, I am involved in both communities, and while jokes about Jewish culture haven't changed all that much, gay subculture has changed a LOT. And the sexism in the gay community from gay men directed toward lesbians, while historically accurate, is still ongoing (in the form of microaggressions) and it's kind of a sore wound. Poor Shirley will always be last and least in Roger's mind. It's jokes like that which sour the experience for me as a modern viewer. And they were fine in the original film, which feels dated; the humor was appropriate for the time. But when the gay jokes got recycled to a (more) modern adaptation, they didn't get updated with enough cultural context for us modern queers to appreciate them for anything more than gay stereotypes.
And it's a shame, because I'm pretty sure the only reason why the director was gay in the film to begin with is that Mel took a pun and ran with it. It had so much more potential.
Omg the producers. I dragged my family to see it when it came out and definitely had that moment of laughing in the theater because I got the Kafka joke and no one else did. But yes, I just want to roll around in joy because the points you bring up about the end of the show - I agree with so much. Also this is still a musical my brothers and I will bring up between ourselves so thank you also for talking about it
all of your criticisms are absolutely spot-on but I will just say that this film is a tradition in my family and we made my partner watch it for exactly that reason
Speak for yourself! I'm sorry but I love love love this film 😂
I'm a huge fan of musical theatre though, and I kind of get it and like it when things are really camp and melodramatic and over the top, even cheesy
I guess life imitated art. That was the plot of the movie, wasn't it? Make a play sure to bomb, so you can keep all the money raised? Mel Brooks, you genius! Seriously, the original movie was far and away better, so was the casting.