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

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!

---

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

---

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

---

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

>> 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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---

So many shows have changed there endings during previews

---

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.

---

>> 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.

---

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."