RIEDEL: Spider-Man "The Biggest Fiasco in Broadway History" SHOW is OFF.- Page 4

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/31/09 at 12:28pm

Not knowing the ins and outs of all of it, that was kind of my thought also. That's why I posted it to see if anyone might have thoughts or knowledge about it.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 1:00am

I believe Sony had some money in the pot with Spiderman too.
Spiderman may be put on the back burner or it may be dead in the water. It all depends on the licensing and who has what rights for how long.
All of this will have to be hashed out.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 1:21am

ignore Updated On: 9/1/09 at 01:21 AM

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 11:53am

You made a great point BroadwayLocal and that is very likely what may be going on. The only thing that puzzles me about the fiasco is how a show of this size can shut down production for nearly a month and still plan to open on time. It's the producers' insistence that nothing has changed regarding the schedule/plan of attack that makes me question the show's future.

Posted: 9/1/09 at 1:39pm

Other things that made no sense were:

1) How could the Hilton let them walk away and leave the theater in such a shambles?

2) Why were Bono, the Edge, Taymor, Cummins and others saying so little about getting shafted?

Until yesterday, I thought they must have been well-paid to keep their mouths shut. But since yesterday, it makes more sense to believe they were told "don't worry, it will all get better soon, but we can't say why."

I agree they'll still be challenged to open on time, but I'm no longer confused about the reasons behind their shutting-down-but-not-for-good announcement a month ago.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 1:55pm

It is dountful that the Disney merger is going to affect Turn Off the Dark at all.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 2:38pm

1) How could the Hilton let them walk away and leave the theater in such a shambles?

Theaters usually insist on a deposit when a show books it that they give back when the show closes and leaves the theater in good condition. Sort of like a security deposit on your apartment. Let's hope the Hilton got a nice, big one.

2) Why were Bono, the Edge, Taymor, Cummins and others saying so little about getting shafted?

The producers are entitled to stop production at any time, for whatever reason. It happens all the time, just not usually so publicly.

Updated On: 9/1/09 at 02:38 PM

[loveapiano2]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 2:41pm

it seems to me like they have no choice but to find the money and keep the show going. i can't even imagine all the money just flushed down the drain if they dont'. and i imagine that the lhilton is going to make them restore the theater if the show doesn't happen. and that would be even more money down the drain. what a mess!

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 2:54pm

I completely disagree. I think they absolutely have no choice or option to continue in any way. Can you imagine all the money they will lose if they keep going and continuing a show that will never make a cent back. By continuing they will only be throwing more MILLIONS down the drain. Cut losses now. Thats the only financially logical and responsible option, for anyone who knows money.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 3:15pm

I doubt DISNEY will be hands on with SPIDEY,
(guys swinging around the theatre has got to bring back bad memories) and I believe there is serious "bad blood"
between DISNEY and Taymor.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 3:47pm

Do tell, CPD, do tell!

[LoveIsCompany]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 4:00pm

Trust me, it's not happening. Just as CPD said, there is some bad, bad blood. As someone who has worked for the mouse, I'd put very, very good money on the fact that Disney's acquisition has permanently halted production, for good. I had some friends involved in the production and it's always a shame to see people out of work, but there was no way this production was going to work with the absurd productions costs that Taymor had slated. Even those involved were skeptical that I know. All I have to say is that if someone is a *true* visionary, they shouldn't need an approximate 900,000 a week operating cost to bring their vision to fruition, especially in this economic state. I'm sure it would have been incredible visually speaking, but really? I'll gladly eat my words because of the employment potential, but it's not happening. Disney just nailed the coffin shut with this acquisition.

[CAX]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 4:41pm

Although I was curious about what this thing would have been, I can't help but agree that the shear amount of financial waste, especially in this economy, is absolutely unbelievable. How many new plays could you produce in NY for 45 million bucks?

Can anyone tell me how Taymor's "stock" stood before this project? Also curious about this "bad blood" between her and Disney?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 4:49pm

I think to dump 45M (although I have heard the figure is over 50 and closer to 55) into almost any artistic production is wasteful in ANY economy.

[PastorErnst]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 4:53pm

I must agree that this news does not signal that Spider-Man has been saved. First, people seemed to have forgotten that shareholder approval and an antitrust review still need to be obtained before the acquisition of Marvel is completed by Disney. That process alone will take a few months. Second, Marvel is just licensing the Spider-Man property and has not contributed any money to the stage musical. Unless Disney is making a friendly gesture to please Marvel's shareholders, I don't see a lot of hope for this musical.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 5:11pm

I'd really like to know where the idea comes from on this board that it's somehow bad for the economy for companies to spend massive amounts of money on shows, supporting hundreds of workers, set builders, actors, etc.

[ActingIsLovee]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 5:34pm

Well here's some contradictions;
https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/RIALTO_CHATTER_Work_To_Resume_On_SPIDERMANs_Hilton_Home_20090901
^Work to resume
and
https://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007950.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562
^Disney unlikely to rescue 'Spider-Man'

and do tell about said "Bad Blood"

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 6:38pm

I'd really like to know where the idea comes from on this board that it's somehow bad for the economy for companies to spend massive amounts of money on shows, supporting hundreds of workers, set builders, actors, etc.

When all that money they're spending is actually a loan and the producers expect it all to be paid back, so they can take the profit and loan out it out to other shows. If one show wastes $45 million "supporting" the industry and never earns it back, that's $45 million that other shows, set builders, actors, etc. will never see. That's three large-scale musicals that now won't happen just so a few Spiderman fans can feel vindicated.

Please, explain where you got the idea that loaning massive amounts of money which will never be paid back helped the economy we're currently in.

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 6:44pm

orangeskittles is 100% right. It's not the fact that $45 million dollars is being spent or that hundreds are getting jobs that is causing the debate. If the same amount of money was divided amongst three shows ($15 million each), people would still be employed and we would get to enjoy three different big-budget shows; as opposed to (possibly) one bloated, over-the-top mess. The entire idea of Spiderman is simply not a feasible possibility in this or probably any economy given all the marks it has against it.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 6:49pm

Sorry I don't know the juicey details of the Taymor/DISNEY story, but at one point after the success of THE LION KING,
"There was talk of bringing PINOCCHIO to Broadway under her helm.
Then she started calling herself 'the Spielberg of the theatre'
and Schumacher began calling her a LOON."

And I heard that when Taymor saw THE LION KING in the Minsk for the first time, she blew an audible gasket in front of many people.

Wish I knew more.
Updated On: 9/1/09 at 06:49 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 6:54pm

Did she really call herself the "Spielberg of the theatre?" I'd never heard that. Is it from any interview?

I mean, it makes sense. We all know that Spielberg had one popular success amidst an endless slew of financially disastrous films that somehow managed to be pretentious and shallow at the same time, right?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 7:09pm

"I mean, it makes sense. We all know that Spielberg had one popular success amidst an endless slew of financially disastrous films that somehow managed to be pretentious and shallow at the same time, right?"

I assume you're being sarcastic? What films directed by SPielberg have been financial disasters? I can't think of one! :o)

[SNAFU]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 10:29pm

Taymor has had one success with a slew of financially disastrous films (OK THREE and with the soon to be released Tempest FOUR) and theatrical productions that have managed to be pretentious and shallow at once.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/1/09 at 11:18pm

In the 80's they would blame giving that much money
to a one trick pony (one financial hit) on the blow.
I don't know what they blame it on now.

[PastorErnst]

Posted: 9/2/09 at 6:48am

According to the New York Times, "modest construction work" is expeced to resume today at the Hilton Theatre. Since only a few workers can return to work, what is meant by "modest construction work" really is unknown. In the post, it was mentioned that Spider-Man's publicist still believes that previews will begin as scheduled in February. Weird...

Will anyone be walking by the theatre today?

Work to Resume on Spider-Man Musical Updated On: 9/2/09 at 06:48 AM