Why the Spider-Man Critics are Wrong

[RyanB83]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 10:43am

My post on Ryan Scott Oliver's Crazytown blog about the critics reviewing Spider-Man while it is still in previews.

http://www.crazytownblog.com/crazytown/2011/02/look-out-here-comes-a-spider-critic.html

[bryan2]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 11:12am

THANK YOU!!!!

[ggersten]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 12:00pm

If there had been an out of town tryouts, there would have been reviews from professional critics in those towns. so, reviews of shows before they open officially is not unheard of. How is it different for SF critics to have reviewed Wicked before it went to Broadway or the LA Critics who may have killed Leap Of Faith? I just consider this long preview period as a long out of town tryout.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 1:07pm

"It is, however, shocking to me is that very few people in the industry are speaking out about the fact that virtually every major theatrical critic across the country just broke one of the longest and most sacredly held traditions on Broadway."

[newintown]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 2:10pm

Yawwwwnnnnnn...zzzzzzzzzz....

What? Did somebody just say something about the Siege of Carthage?

[BrianS]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 2:35pm

OP, one could argue that normal length preview periods are a sacred tradition on Broadway and that it is the producers of this show who could be opening a can of worms by their actions.

I really don't have a dog in this fight and I DO hope the show does well because that would be good for the industry (and hopefully create a new, young generation of theater fans), but I had no problem with the critics acting when they did. What's to stop future producers who can see in rehearsals that their show isn't getting any better to just decide to stay in "previews" for 6 months to make as much money as possible while avoiding a critical appraisal?

Updated On: 2/16/11 at 02:35 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 3:55pm

Musicals have always been reviewed at out of town tryouts. If you really want to pretend that this overly long, constantly extended preview period is just like an out of town tryout, then why don't you pretend all these reviews are also for the out of town tryout. In the mean time, let the rest of us believe the critics from what is evidently a mess. If this had an out of town try out, it never would have made it to Broadway. The out of town reviews would have done everyone a favor and killed it first.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 4:12pm

They are 'wrong' because the show is great, or 'wrong' for publishing reviews after MONTHS of previews with the highest ticket prices in history to a show that did not even have an ending when they opened the doors? I could understand if the special effects were still being worked on, but jesus, for Taymor not even to have WRITTEN an ending?

Besides, unless you are going to rag on anyone who tweeted, blogged or posted on a message board (all new phenomenon since this "tradition" was started, then don't harp on the critics.I believe they have the best interest of the audience at heart and did not feel like seeing them ripped off until March 15th or beyond...

[tourboi]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 4:18pm

Having seen the show, there's no way this mess can get fixed by March. It needs a complete rewrite.

That said, the idea is that critics don't review shows until they're "frozen."

And when you're writers come out and say that not many changes are planned, AFTER your producers say that the opening was delayed for changes to be implemented... I say have at it.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 4:23pm

SueleenGay makes a good point. When this "sacred tradition" was started, word of mouth took longer than ten seconds to get around. The critics are pretty much the last ones to review a show anymore, and word of mouth spreads like wild fire. Popular blogs are becoming more popular than newspapers, and the bloggers don't have to wait to be invited to let us know what they liked and what they did not. At the end of the day, the show has had more than a reasonable amount of time to preview their show. The word of mouth has long gotten around, and in many cases reflects the critics opinion.

[tjjster]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 4:36pm

Wait a minute..... the show isn't frozen?

I know that julie has gone on record of saying that it needs fine tuning to work out the stunts... but she has also said that she is NOT changing anything to the script or score.

So if nothing to the material of the show is being changed.....then why not review it.

Do they really need and extra month to make the production safe?

Because really....it should have been safe from the beginning.

[ElphabaRose]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 5:04pm

The problem with saying that a show has to be frozen to be reviewed limits the creative team more than it limits the reviewers. What about the case of Next to Normal at Second Stage, they were rehearsing every day throughout the run and making changes. Does that invalidate the reviews that were given?

Dreamgirls and Les Miserables are two other shows that had drastic changes made after opening.

There are many shows that are effectively frozen at the time that previews start, and many that continue to change until the day that they close.

If the Spiderman creators were smart, they would use the criticism that was given and address the problems that were identified (they may be doing it, I don't know), and then invite the critics back. It could work wonders.

[lakezurich]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 8:07pm

This is hardly the first show that has pushed back opening night so many times that critics have decided to review the show during previews.

[willheim2]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:01pm

sacred tradition my a-- this is not the fifties or sixties or seventies, internet has changed the world as much as radio, telephone tv, things are never going to be thecsame.

[brettystar]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 12:28am

A lot has been made of STOTD being good for Broadway in that it appeals to a younger generation and boys/teens etc who will then see other shows. But do we really believe that? They may love Spiderman to death but then get them in to see something like GYPSY or Sunset Boulevard etc a few months later and bingo that will be the end of getting guys to the theater in my opinion.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 4:19am

And if the type of person that LOVES Spider-Man: TOTD becomes a theater goer, it's only going to perpetuate more lackluster and overblown garbage to hit the boards.

To refute that thought anyway: we've had a number of people here tell us that even their 12 year old nephews, sons, etc didn't like it much.

Many of these people that DO like it, may very likely believe B'way to be a once in a lifetime experience.

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 7:46am

If you read "Not Since Carrie" you'll find that many of the things happening with Spider-man are not new, including the critics reviewing the show during an over-extended preview period. Spider-man is another flop for the pages.

The sequel to "Not Since Carrie" should be "Along Came a Spider"

[iagowasframed]

Posted: 2/19/11 at 3:23pm

I can only speak for the future theater goer that I'm raising. My 12 year old son is a reluctant theater goer who winds up liking most shows I drag him to. I would guess he fits the demographic they are hoping to get, as he watched most of the spiderman movies. I asked him if wants to see spiderman and he looked at me like I had three heads. BTW, his favorite show by a large margin was Bloody Bloody at the Public.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/19/11 at 3:29pm

Neither of my kids want to see it. The 10 year old boy, had marginal interest, but after hearing my thoughts could care less.

80% of my drama students have little to no desire and another 10% simply have the morbid curiousity factor.