Talk:The Producers (2005 film)

Untitled
Regarding: This is a movie about a play based on a play about a play based on a movie about a play.

That's not very professional or encyclopedic. While it's "cute," it should be followed by a section explaining precisely what it means and how each incarnation fits into the whole. Leopold Bloom 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

- Not only that, but it's untrue. "The Producers" is a movie based on a musical ("The Producers", naturally) based on a movie (Again, "The Producers"... the 1969 version, though) about a musical ("Springtime For Hitler", Bialystock's intended flop).

Yeah, that was bothering me, too. I fixed it, though. If you've any objections, feel free to edit away. DJ_Arashi 66.82.9.86 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is accurate; it's just algebra. But it's purposely confusing. It's "(movie based on play based on movie) about a play" which is equivalent to "(movie about a play) based on (play about a play) based on (movie about a play)". CGameProgrammer 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there an original book as well? Therefore, isn't it a movie based on a play based on a movie based on a book about a play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.227.58 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does not take place in 1968 after all!
According to Susan Stroman's commentary on the DVD, this version takes place in 1959. Stroman indicates that date 1959 was chosen as a more glamourous time for Broadway. Bill D 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the 2005 film version, although it officially takes place in the 1950s, it probably takes place in the year 1950. Am I right? --PJ Pete

Um, no. It takes place in 1959. Where did I just read that? PacificBoy 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As Bill D stated, Susan Stroman's commentary on The Producers' DVD says that it takes place in 1959. I'm watching it right now. :o) They (Stroman, who's the director, and Mel Brooks) chose the year because the late 1950's is seen as a "glamorous" era for Broadway. People would get all gussied up for Opening Night - gowns for the ladies and tuxes for the gentlemen. SkittlzAnKomboz 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sexual humor description
For the content descriptions in films, sexual humor means, talking about anatomy, which is personal. --PJ Pete
 * Ooooooooooookay? The Filmaker 22:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jon Lovitz
I doubt Lovitz was in the Broadway production. If he was only in the movie version, that should be added to the section on differences between movie and play. CGameProgrammer 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
The audition scene cannot be a reference to A Chorus Line, the musical hadn't even been written when the original Producers movie debuted. It was merely parodying the audition process as a whole. --UNHchabo 04:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Village People
Is it worth mentioning that some of the costumes from the "Make It Gay" scene (particularly at the very end) are reminiscent of Village People? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalimu59 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

...no, its blatantly obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adcro (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As well, the piece is called "KEEP It Gay", not "Make It Gay". A common misnomer... SkittlzAnKomboz 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More references
Yet another reference to others musicals: in the audictions scene, the third candidate replies "For the last 15 years, I've been ... in the play: No, No, Nietzsche" That's a reference to "No, no, Nanette"(1925) [It includes the song: "Tea for two"] and, of course, a 'recomendation' on Nietzsche's work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.146.89 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mel's History of the World Part One has the line "it's good to be the king" which pops up in the deleated song in the movie (on the DVD) "King of Broadway". MBG 117.102.159.72 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception
surely there was SOME positive reception to the movie? I surely remember reading people who found the over the top gay stereotypes, for example, to be a typical Mel Brooks way of ridiculing stereotypes by carrying them to extremes. Novium 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved this to a separate section since it is all about criticism about the movie for its claimed anti gay stereotypes --Nfvatutin 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to gay characterizations
This section is poorly sourced. The references don't meet the criteria of WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:EL. I have no objection to this kind of section, but it should contain references to third party non-trivial publications, like The Advocate if one such review exists. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes on more recent edit: The new additions from Salon.com and SFbay Times are fine. But the afterelton.com and the tripod site are still questionable. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Ghia
The Karmann Ghia was a sports car marketed by Volkswagen, designed by the Italian firm Ghia, and built by German coach builder Karmann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.145.176 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain the scheme (the Producers 2005)
Shouldn't they have returned the borrowed money no matter what? So what that they changed accounts, backers gave money to them, under their names. 78.110.160.85 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you just blew up the premise...not. investing money in a show or film is a gamble. if the play folds on opening night, all the money put up to produce it is a total loss, as the investments are set to pay off in %of box office grosses. The investors (they are NOT lenders, that would be a horse of a different color) know this up front, and are used to walking away from flops occasionally.66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when does a movie have to make sense? If all movies did, then they would have rebooted the James Bond franchise 20 years before they actually did. (How does a character stay young after 40 years?) RobertGustafson (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Mel Brooks cameo?
Doesn't Mel Brooks himself have a singing cameo role in this film? (One lyric: "Don't be stupid, be a smarty / Come and join the Nazi party!" I know he's at least on the soundtrack for that line.) If I'm right, this should be mentioned in the article. RobertGustafson (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He also has the last line in the movie, after the credits the "Goodbye" song plays and he finishes it. Not sure if it is enough for a mention, but you are right.LM2000 (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, unlike the Goodbye song, he just has a cameo in Springtime for Hitler as a solider. The current listing for the song reads "Soldiers, Girls, and Company"... I think Soliders covers his part well enough.  He is already listed for the Goodbye song.LM2000 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Producers (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203033155/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/43532 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/43532
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719202230/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2005/12/16/producers/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2005/12/16/producers/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)