Bono disses Spiderman..

Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:35pm

At least he opens up to the truth about it all.


But to have the musical composers put the show down before it officially 'opens'...ouch!

Is it right to do this in public? or at least wait til it recoups?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/bono-spider-man-musicals-bad-reviews-13642612


"we have a lot to learn.."

Updated On: 5/20/11 at 04:35 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:49pm

Seems more like he was dissing the previous version and not 2.0 which is practically Gypsy compared to Julie's version.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:50pm

Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:57pm

cats- i see that..but this interview aired yesterday. I wonder when this interview was filmed.

Updated On: 5/20/11 at 04:57 PM

[ahhrealmonsters]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 4:59pm

I think he's 100% right in saying that a big problem was lack of a theatrical producer. The reason The Lion King worked so well is because Disney kept a tight hold on Taymor. These producers have just let everything fall to pieces and keep adding millions on a weekly basis.

Posted: 5/20/11 at 5:50pm

Yet, he doesn't say his music was CRAP! hmmmmmmm....

[kyl3fong2]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 6:10pm

^^ Exactly what I was just about to say Deena. While there are many memorable songs from the music that I enjoyed, most of the fast upbeat tunes were simply unbearable.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 6:15pm

or at least wait til it recoups?

lol, like it's ever going to do that.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 11:43pm

"Seems more like he was dissing the previous version and not 2.0 which is practically Gypsy compared to Julie's version."


Most of the songs in the second version were heard in the first version. And they were bad in both. There's a new song at the beginning of the second act that is even worse than these, and that's saying a lot.

If he's going to blame anyone, he should start with himself.

[Little-Lotte]

Posted: 5/20/11 at 11:56pm

Wow, very interesting! They were never very vocal in the press when it first started previews about it being a great piece of theater and now we know why. I'm betting that they had very little creative control under Julie's tight reins which made it just as frustrating. They're capable of brilliance when it comes to their music, so the fact that apparently the majority of the score is so subpar means something else was happening behind the scenes.

This wasn't a situation like Lestat where they weren't around during the majority of rehearsals, prepared to tweak, and now after all this time and their own music careers are rightfully take priority.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 1:29am

I don't think the music is the problem with the show. I actually really like it and think it works for the show, especially now that it is incorporated better into te story.

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 9:04am

"They're capable of brilliance when it comes to their music, so the fact that apparently the majority of the score is so subpar means something else was happening behind the scenes."


Why can't they just be held accountable for their own work? Did someone force them to write the songs the way they did?

[willheim2]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 12:41pm

I thought Bono was cool. Unpretentious, at ease with an extremely difficult situation, sympathetic to investors and deadlines, forthright about Julie without being catty, humble about wanting to learn, and candid that he felt there were problems as well and didn't disagree with the NYT.

I give him an A+ on this.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 1:11pm

I Agree, he came accross really well, and i will say it again, i like 90 percent of the score, especially the 2.0 version

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 2:05pm

I'm with you songanddanceman, I enjoy the score as well!

[scott68]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 3:03pm

The full piece on Nightline gives the quotes they pulled there some more context, I think. Bono even goes as far as to say that "in many ways [he and Edge] were guests of the last production," taking some responsibility for its failings.

[kyl3fong2]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 3:42pm

@After Eight---EXACTLY. I was kind of annoyed at that last question asked at the end when Cynthia McFadden asked if they felt that they were responsible for not being there as much for the 1.0 version because they were on tour.

In my opinion, yes Bono was at fault. He should have been focusing on the show and not touring the world given how bad it was when it first began.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 3:47pm

^ There's nothing he could have done during that time. Taymor allowed next to nothing to be changed during the extensive first preview period, so even if they wanted to make changes, they would not have really been able to. Bono and the Edge were there for some shows, but they already had shows booked well before they knew how the show would turn out. They can't just cancel their concert tours that have been booked for a long time.

[kyl3fong2]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 3:52pm

I see...I just feel that Bono should have taken some responsibility for the disaster. The show is a spectacle, set design, costumes and the flying are all amazing. There are some really good numbers but the only real fault I found with the production is the score and some dialogue that can still be fixed.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 4:33pm

It is the directors job to take responsibility of the show's failing. If the score wasn't working the first time around, it was up to Ms. Taymor to say we need this song replaced, it isn't working in the show.
If Bono and the Edge didn't like the way the show was going they may have been able to retract their score. That may have caused a lot of legal complications though.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 4:42pm

^ Exactly. They were working under Taymor, and they could not make changes without her permission, and she was not willing to change anything. They have nothing to be sorry for in my opinion, but this is coming from someone who enjoys most of the score

[noodlemantra]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 7:16pm

It's not like Bono and Edge could be there all the time, you can't forget that they happen to be in the middle of the biggest concert tour in history. I think I read that it will take in $700 million by the end of it!

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 10:59pm

I saw it this past week. The last thing I thought I would walk away from this show thinking was that it was boring, but unfortunately that is exactly what it was. It moved so slowly. If anyone here has ridden the spiderman ride at Universal Studios, they know how much fun Spiderman can be. Bullying Buy Numbers is the single worst song I have ever heard on a Broadway stage. I felt so bad for the actors doing this show, because they are giving it their all, but its really just not that exciting or well put together. I wish them all the best of luck in future because they were all amazing performers, they just deserved better and more interesting material.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 7:50am

Agree, Lavie--- was bored to tears-- Never looked at my watch so fast at a musical before, and thought that the score was the weakest part of the show.

Posted: 5/22/11 at 8:20am

Bullying by Numbers is embarrassing.


Thinking Back, as a U2 fan of the 80's,
U2 really never had instant pop hits. Most of their songs were always sleeper tunes, which took a lot of time to gain momentum and popularity due to the 'underculture' of being 'alternative' in the early 80's.

Hits like 'With or Without You', 'Where the Streets Have No Name' took months to climb the charts and were never instant successes or good on the ear upon first listen. (which is what you would need if you want a Broadway hit show tune).
They struck gold and got credibility in the late 80's and early 90's because they oozed cool and crafted musicality that was easy on the ears but still appeared and claimed themselves as 'outsiders'.

but realistically speaking,...

U2 has had a 30 year plus career in music and in thirty years they have only managed to chart a #1 hit Twice.

'With or Without You- because it was a pop ballad- against the norm of what they did. And 'I still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For' because it was the follow up hit with a down to earth music video juxtaposed against the Michael Jackson and Madonna videos dominating the MTV scene in 1988/89.

The other 20 or so songs they released never even managed to crack the top 10, and were NEVER radio friendly.

So I never knew why people made a big hoopla about U2 even being a part of this.
I always felt it was a bad idea from the beginning to even match them up with composing for Broadway.

Once they 'sold out' and jumped on the cash bandwagon with the "Zoo-station" Tour and created songs like 'Lemon' and bolstered their tours to become a visual experience with lavish sets and screens... they dominated the music industry as a tour to be reckoned with and now have mastered that domain for live tours-being one of the world's top grossing bands.

but the music? kinda sleeper and boring....
it's give or take with U2. Most of it sounds like one long song.
Which Spiderman turned out to be.
I too spent a lot of time looking at my watch.

I think it all depends if their style fits you or not and you have to be in a certain kind of mood to enjoy U2.

I just don't feel their music isn't hip enough for a Broadway stage and most of it falls flat for Spiderman.

Does having hits mean you're set to write for Broadway? no.
But look at the wonderful one-hit pop wonder Duncan Sheik-who penned Spring Awakening...

Or Boy George and the memorable songs like 'Terrified', 'Everything Taboo', 'Il Adore' and other memorable songs from that show....

They crafted great songs for the stage and it worked because they vigorously worked on it, lived and breathed it.

U2's music for Spiderman was definitely dialed in.
But I don't know- I feel a lot of U2 is a lot of hot air and self-importance and ego.
They are a fun band to enjoy Live.. but for Broadway?