Broadway Pulse: First Newsday, Now Bloomberg 'Reviews' SPIDER-MAN- Page 3

[sergio_27]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 1:30am

Thanks to both. I had heard about the changes made on Wicked after the tour and some of the international productions opened, and I also noticed that some of the lyrics were different from the OBC recording when I saw next to normal.

I guess they wouldn't change significantly the book or the score this season, at least not before the Tony awards. I hope, though, they (Marvel, Disney, Stan Lee, anyone other than Julie Taymor) could do something in the future to make this a better show. It's a shame to waste all this technology on a book that may have been doomed from the beginning.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 1:36am

That's why I loathe SPIDER-MAN so much. If you're going to put $65 million into a show, you could at least put it into a well-written show!

Between last year and this year when the show was postponed due to financial reasons, WHY DIDN'T THE PRODUCERS PICK UP THE SCRIPT AND NOTICE HOW AWFUL IT WAS THEN? But Taymor is still working on it. Most of the problems were in Act 2, and that is what she specifically stated she is fixing. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt -- and believe me, there is strong doubt -- and wait until they think they fix it before seeing it again and making a final judgment.

And I can say all this, DMM, because I actually saw it live!

[toosoontotell]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:09am

A couple of points: while SPIDERMAN may eventually play an innordinate number of previews (60+), it hasn't yet. Jeremy Gerard (and Linda Winer) didn't review the 60th preview or the 50th preview or even the 30th. The reviewed the 20th, or less than most Broadway shows, including transfers get.

The new opening night date was on the front page of the NYTimes and the NYPost (a google search for SPIDERMAN opening night returns over 1000 news stories). I don't think the producers are hiding this information.

Jeremy Gerard paid $292 for his ticket. The average ticket price to SPIDERMAN last week was about $100 (weekly gross/attendance percentage x capacity). He must have bought premium seats ($275 plus those ridiculpus TM fees), which every Broadway show sells. This doesn't surprise me since critics usually sit in the best seats in the house, for free, when they are invited.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:42am

I was just thinking this..... "What would MargoChanning say with a show like this?" He is much missed by people who knew him on this site. from RC in Austin, Texas

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 12:05pm

I go back and forth when it comes to this show.

When the show was originally set to start on 14 Nov, opening night was set at 21 Dec. Savvy ticket buyer or not, a lot of people have bought tickets have bought tickets from around now through February expecting a show that was past previews.

With the opening pushed back, that's millions of dollars worth of tickets for a show people thought would be a finished product. So I think there should be some viewer awareness for what they're getting now, if not a full-out review.

[TheatreDork3]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 12:22pm

Poor, Poor Spidey!!!

I'm torn on this topic. Part of me is against the idea of a show being reviewed while it is still in previews. Another part of me thinks Spiderman is a special case because of all of the hype and sensationalism around the topic (I mean on the night of the first preview they did run a 60 minute special). And then there's part of me who wonders if the day of true preview periods is over because of social media. Let's face it. In the last month, there has been more reported and discussed about Spiderman on these hallowed pages of BroadwayWorld.com than could have even been imagined a decade ago. Here are ultimately the questions I am left pondering:

Is the review cat finally out of the bag?

If the cat truly is out of the bag, does this mean that producers need to start seeing previews as less of a chance to work on the show than it is to build your brand?

I'm truly torn on this issue. Part of me really things previews are necessary. But I also realize that it's too easy to spread information in today's world, so is expecting traditional journalists (who are already fighting for their jobs and industry) to wait for opening night even realistic?

TD

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 12:30pm

Of course it's realistic. A social media review is for us theatre geeks. A published review in the Times is for Tri-State area residents and tourists.

And they did NOT run a 60-minute special. They ran a segment during the TV show 60 MINUTES which lasted, what? 4 minutes, I think? Regardless, promoting a show is COMMON even before you begin previews. ELF performed a song during Broadway On Broadway. MARY POPPINS ran brief TV spots to warn viewers that the wind was changing. GREASE and LEGALLY BLONDE both had TV reality shows to cast some roles!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 12:38pm

Is this the 60 Minutes piece you're referring to? If it is, it was a 15 minute segment, 1/3 of the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1fLZ-P0ZOo

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 1:02pm

15 minutes?? Hot damn! I never watched it.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 1:52pm

>> Years after WICKED opened, they altered a moment during the opening sequence. There used to be a giant twirling hat on stage. Now there is a green witch projection.

They took out the hat???

Damn.

I liked the hat.

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 2:31pm

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146127-Newsday-and-Bloomberg-News-Offer-Observations-of-Spider-Man-Times-Will-Not-Wait-Forever

"When asked whether the Times might review the $65 million production early, Jonathan Landman, the Culture editor of The Times, wrote in an email, "It's easy to see why they did it and completely understandable and I admit that we've been tempted. After all, these guys are raking in the cash, charging some people more than $200 a ticket. Still, it's clear that the producers really are making significant changes and a review that's out of date when the show opens isn’t all that useful. So we'll wait, but not forever.""

So, if they extend again, will The NY Times run a review as well? :)

[Midnight Radio]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 2:43pm

um, why has my critique of BWW publishing articles written in the first person disappeared?

[PopAria]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 2:51pm

That 60 Minutes segment is what made me want to see Spidey more. I had known about it, but that made me really excited about it.

And as for the frozen show comments; it's true, shows change all the time after opening. It's live theater. Lines are changed, songs are changed, parts are cut. Mary Poppins changed an entire song and cut a bunch of stuff since opening night. i've seen bootlegs of the show and when I saw the show on stage there were lots of changes. Updated On: 12/27/10 at 02:51 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 3:19pm

I cannot believe people are defending the show getting reviewed because of all the hype the shows had.....that makes no sense at all. Many shows have had lots of hype and had TV segments run on them as the show was previewing that does not mean its open to be reviewed.
A Preview period is ESSENTIAL for any production, what he has done is reviewe a work in progress which is so wrong.
As somebody mentioned the show has only had about 20 preview performances at this point, far less than most so why review it now? If they reviewed it at the end of January i would still be shocked but at least the show would have had the chance to sort its problems out, at this point its not like the show has been in previews for a long time. Anyone thinking the preview period is over because of Social Network sites etc clearly has no idea about previews.

It’s one thing having an audience member posting a review, it’s quite another for a respected publication to do the same....THIS CRITIC HAS DONE IT FOR ATTENTION PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

The preview period is longer for a reason. It's opening cold and is a huge undertaking for all involved, it's had problems and needs time to sort them out and as the Times says the team are sorting the problems out.

What makes me laugh is so many posts have said over the past few weeks that Spiderman should not be given special treatment because it’s just another (more expensive) Broadway show, however the amount of gossip on sites like this and in the press show clearly the show is something different, and that something different wants to get it right before allowing the press in.

They have not extended the preview period to hold off bad reviews so they can make more money, they have extended it to allow them to present the best possible show to the critics and audiences once it's open.

The people saying ‘they should have known the book was not working in rehearsals etc' also need to get a clue and try working on a new show. Do you think people set out to put a bad book/score on stage?, the team clearly thought what they had was working, it's hard to tell until an audience are sat in front of the show and give you feedback. I’m sure the creators of Carrie, Legs Diamond etc all thought the work they had done was going to have a positive reaction on audiences until it got in front of them and then they had little time to fix it. No creative person just throws something on and thinks 'oh to hell with the book'.

And it's that reason why preview performances are essential. Most shows have a few months out of town and then a few weeks of previews in NY, Spiderman in that sense is having the same length of time that all those shows do just in one theatre.

As for the remarks about ';it should not be charging full price during preview' well i agree, but ALL shows do that now not just Spider Man, so why is this getting knocked for something all shows do?

And again the show is spoke about all over the world recently because of bad press its getting so people are fully aware it's in previews, it's not trying to fool anyone.

Stop being sheep and jumping on the 'bash Spider Man' train that the press are doing and think about things as theatre fans and people who know that it's wrong to review in previews.

[winston89]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 6:12pm

Songanddanceman,

I just wish to point out that you have said time and time again that actors getting hurt is part of the job. And, that there is no reason why people should be getting into such a state about an injury in this show compared to an injury in another show. But, considering that this show (as you said) is not like any other, could that raise warning flags? I am going to add that this show getting so much negative press clearly isn't helping.

Disneyland,

It is not the producers job to educate the audience to what a preview vs being open. Most people would be confused if a show's website stated that they were in previews as oppose to saying that they are playing on Broadway. Saying on a show's website that it is playing on Broadway, regardless of if being in previews or not is not lying or being misleading. In fact, most tourists don't care due to the fact that all they care about is just seeing a show on
Broadway. I remember taking a trip with my college to visit NYC. Since I'm from here I ended up playing tour guide. We got off the bus in front of The Broadway Theatre. It was all set up for Shrek (which had yet to start previews.) When a theatre fan friend of mine saw the marquee out the window, he turned to me and asked about the show. I simply told him that I had yet to see it because it had yet to start previews. He did know what previews we're so I told him.


The point is that even casual fans don't know what they are and sometimes can't tell. Most people aren't like us. We would see a show in previews and go back after it has opened to see what changes were made. The
average person doesn't do this. They simply see a show once, regardless of it being in previews or not and that's that. They dint revisit it 46 times.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 6:18pm

A good compromise would be for them to announce "The preview period ends on such-and-such a date" after which any theater critic is invited to buy a ticket and review the show at his or her convenience. It's the best of both worlds.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:09pm

>> it's had problems and needs time to sort them out

Yes, because nine years' worth of development isnt enough to even figure out how to end it.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:11pm

So many shows have changed there endings during previews

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:14pm

And those shows didnt take nearly a decade to outline.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:27pm

You really have no idea as to how this process works do you?

Some of the biggest shows have taken 5 or 6 years to ever get to the stage and had much less problems than Spider Man has not to mention a far smaller budget and less tech to work out. Again, nobody knows what will take until it's put in front of an audience.

I know for one of my plays we changed the whole ending of the show as well as dropped a role during our previews as we saw and heard that certain things were not working from the audience. We had no idea our original ending was so weak. We had planned that show for 4 years and that was a fringe show.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 8:32pm

LES MISERABLES' process to getting onto the stage took forever. But probably the longest was THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 11:33pm

>> You really have no idea as to how this process works do you?

Yes, I do, thank you very much. I know that it sometimes takes years for a show to coalesce.

But to invest 65 million into something, with complicated effects up the kazoo, with NO IDEA HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO END?

Moronic.

[matty159]

Posted: 12/27/10 at 11:43pm

^^^exactly, SeanMartin. Moronic.

The first thought that came to me last night as I was leaving the theater was "Where did they spend all that money?" I was not wowed as I thought I would be. I thought the video screens were cool, but I didn't think I was paying big bucks to see a Broadway musical where a big fight scene boiled down to Spiderman playing Wii!

And the "ending"? What ending? I swear something had to have been removed as part of a safety measure, because there was certainly no payoff or big final moment in what I saw last night.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 12/28/10 at 12:56pm

I also noticed that some of the lyrics were different from the OBC recording when I saw next to normal.

The cast recording for Next to Normal was recorded after their run at Arena...I believe most of the changes that were made happened either before they started previews or during previews in New York. Most of the lyric changes were fairly minor between Arena and Broadway though.

As for other shows that changed things after opening, I remember Spring Awakening pretty much entirely changed the lyric for "The Song of Purple Summer."

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/28/10 at 1:41pm

Right or wrong, the ticket-buying public has the RIGHT to know what they are buying. It doesn't matter if a show is in previews or not. That was merely a "gentleman's agreement" between the press and Broadway producers to give shows a chance to be fully realized before a critic reviews it. And it was also during a time when ticket prices were cheaper for previews and the public KNEW what a preview was.

And with all the talk about how people shouldn't spend money on a show they haven't researched, how am I supposed to make an informed oipinion if there are no reviews or opinions? What's next? Telling bloggers not to express their opinions on the show because it isn't finished? You can't rely on the show's own commercials or statements, since they are selling a product they want you to buy. While I agree that reviewing a show before it's ready is wrong, I also believe that people have a right to know if it is worth seeing at this point.