Talk:The Producers (1967 film)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Untitled

I propose taking this film out of Start class, now that it has references, a Reception section, etc. Lexein — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Shouldn't the modern equivalent of the original budget be shown? 77.99.57.229 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plot clarification

There is no error or irregularity in Max's books. What Leo points out is that Max's last flop actually made a small "profit", simply because he raised several thousand dollars more than the show cost to produce. This leads to the realization that, as no one is likely to audit the books of a flop, etc, etc, etc. I might rewrite this when I have time.

14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSommerwerck (talk • contribs)

It is some time since I have seen the movie, but from memory the scam involved not only raising more money than the production cost, but inflated shares as well, eg giving 50 people a 30% share each, which I presume is definitely illegal. I can't remember, but did the original 'flop' do this? Wolstan Dixie (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Leo says that they have signed contracts for 25,000% of the profits. No, the original flop just raised a few thousand dollars more than needed, which Max casually misappropriated, instead of using it to pay the show's debts or returning it to the investors. Cptbutton (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger de Bris

Bris is indeed the Yiddish for circumcision, but the character's last name is an obvious pun on the French word debris, commonly used in English to mean wreckage or rubble. Lexo (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a pun on both: there are all sorts of Yiddish jokes in Brooks' movies. "Bris" is an obvious one, adding the "de" to make it sound like an actual last name, which also puns on "debris", is just icing. I'm pretty sure this is how Brooks' mind works (and thank god for that). freshacconci talktalk 18:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan's Heroes

Heavily edited, then moved this text from the article to here for discussion:

The film was released during the run of the TV sitcom Hogan's Heroes. The series thematically lampooned Nazis as inept, found dark humor in an otherwise dead-serious predicaments, and used Jewish actors to portray Nazis. Critics of Hogan's Heroes found that scripts were often very funny, but sometimes terribly inappropriate for the subject matter. It is possible that Brooks may have been emboldened by the success of the show.^{[citation needed]}

--Lexein (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can find a source which actually compares the two, including this would be WP:OR. Saying that "Brooks may have been emboldened by the success of the show" is a reach: do we know that? has he ever said so? I doubt Brooks needed to be emboldened by anyone, plus films tend to be bolder than TV (at least in the 60s) as they could get away with more (on-screen married couples shared a bed far sooner on film than on TV--we had to wait for The Brady Bunch to see a couple on TV actually sleep in the same bed). freshacconci talktalk 18:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set in the 1960s??

The top line says this film is "set in the late 1960s". No, it was made in the late 1960s and set in the present. Mel Brooks did not use a fricking time machine to make this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.98.188 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You´re an obvious troll longing to be contradicted: google 'The Monster of Nix' video ( which also includes a reference to the original year 1940 'bookies vs waterloo' movie this movie intends to parody ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.70.77 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a shot of a newspaper in the film when the casting call for Hitler goes out. It clearly shows "1967-1968" on the cover. I think this pointless argument can be put to bed. --345th (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title Doesn't Literally Translate in Sweden

In Sweden, however, the title literally translates as "Springtime For Hitler".

What title is this referring to? The context is missing, since The Producers doesn't literally translate into Springtime for Hitler. Instead I found a reference that they changed the title for the Swedish version based on the play within the film and the theme naming often used in that country.

"Theme naming films based on the people involved used to happen somewhat regularly. The best example is arguably Mel Brook‘s filmography. I assume the sentiment was that The Producers was kind of a dull name that translated or not wouldn’t really indicate comedy. The movie was retitled after the play-within-the-film, Det våras för Hitler (Springtime for Hitler). Fair enough, but then they took the Springtime ball and ran with it. The Twelve Chairs became Det våras för svärmor (Springtime for Mother-in-law). Blazing Saddles became Det våras för sheriffen (Springtime for the Sheriff). After that, we got springtimes for Frankenstein, the silent movie, the psychos, the history of the world, Hamlet, space and the slums. The streak was finally broken with Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which got the direct translation Robin Hood: Karlar i trikåer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HEXdotXXX (talk • contribs) 05:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside references and pop culture

This line is in the article "According to critic David Ehrenstein, the film marked the first use of the term "Creative Accounting."[26][27] However, a philandering husband uses the term in the 1962 movie "Boys Night Out" when he makes up the name of a class he is supposedly taking." If the film isn't the first to use the term "creative accounting", why even list it here? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit tag added

Just added a copy edit tag; the copy in this article really needs some work, as it currently reads like a book report written by a high school student. --345th (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Producers (1968 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100107085108/http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/p/the-producers-script-screenplay.html to http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/p/the-producers-script-screenplay.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infulence..?

A Perry Mason epsiode "The case of the Wary Wildcatter" about a murderous/Blackmailed/Conman who oversells stock in a oil well-which to his shock-pumps oil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.87.37 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date consistency

The movie was officially released in 1968. The info box says "1968". The theatrical release was in 1967. The first lede sentence originally called it a "1967" movie (which I changed to 1968). Do we stick with 1968 (1968 movie, released in 1968) and explain the 1967 discrepancy, or do we call it a 1967 movie and maybe change the infobox to match? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FILMRELEASE it is a 1967 film so I have corrected the inconsistencies. It was not uncommon for older films to have slow roll-outs or roadshows over a year or two before going to a national release. We should use the date that people started paying to see it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Producers (1967 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/20080417215554/http://www.u2faqs.com/history/d.html to http://www.u2faqs.com/history/d.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Producers (1967 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/20101127170720/http://rialtopictures.com/prod4/prod4.htm to http://rialtopictures.com/prod4/prod4.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would this scam work?

I've never seen anyone address this. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP The idea is not original to Mel Brooks, though I don’t know if he thought of it independently or read Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943). In the novel, it was the same scheme run by a housing developer and his cohorts. I rather suspect the idea was not original to Rand either. I’d wager it has been attempted previously and/or subsequently; perhaps successfully, perhaps not on one or more occasions, though I have no definite information of such.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A difficult part of such a scheme is finding people to back a bad play. In the movie, Max already knows a large number of lonely rich old women and is a talented con man.

Cptbutton (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm remembering incorrectly or a plot hole?

In the article it states that after the fraud the duo will flee to Rio de Janeiro. Is this actually mentioned in the original movie? Although I’ve seen it several times over the years, I haven’t in awhile. I don’t recall such a plan being discussed. If it was, then in retrospect it seems a major plot hole. If the idea is to afterwards run, then why even bother with the expense and work of putting on a play, terrible or otherwise? Just collect the money from the investors and book. For that matter, even after the play turned out to be a most unexpected smash they could have fled to Rio anyway if that was the original plan. I thought the idea was that as long as the investors didn’t put their heads together, the plan would work with no one ever suspecting that a fraud even occurred. I assumed Max collected money from old ladies who didn’t know one another. So is this Rio plan in the original movie? Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk)

Yes, Max says that is the plan and even sings briefly about Rio.Cptbutton (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess

I'm not sure how the wikiquote links are generated, but it comes off extremely sloppy if visitors have to go looking for it themselves because the date of the film release keeps getting changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8720:CDC0:B03E:FA48:2138:F882 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title is wrong and appears to have been hacked

The movie came out in the year 1968 and I'm having a great deal of trouble restoring the original title.InsulinRS (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie premiere was November 1967, even according to the TCM website. Article was moved from 1968 to 1967 title in 2017. Schazjmd (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Producers (1968 film" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Producers (1968 film and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#The Producers (1968 film until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Publicity vs. Writing & Development

In the Early Publicity section, it says that there was a mention of the film in a trade paper with the title "Springtime for Hitler" in December 1961, then in the next section, it says Mel Brooks made up the name as a joke in 1962. Those two statements conflict with each other. Jimindc (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]