Michael Riedel on CNN... People Actually Being Rational About This Show — Page 2

Why do I get the feeling that these people who are calling for SPIDER MAN to be closed don't care as much about actor injuries as they advertise themselves to be?

---

It is true, everyone likes to see people injured, it is a morbid curiosity thing built into human nature. Lots and lots of money gets made off of that notion. That is why many people watch NASCAR or the UFC. That is why people used to flock to see a public execution.
None of that changes the fact that Riedel was the wrong person to go to make any point at all about this show. He is already jaded. His opinion is marred by months and months of saying the show needs to close down. Even before it went into rehearsals he was saying this. Like I said, it is CNN's fault for getting the wrong guy to make the right point.

Anyone who addresses Riedel as the voice of rationality is clearly not interested in unbiased reporting or credibility.

---

Are you 4 years old?

---

Is it me, or does Michael Riedel look like a child at Christmas every time he gets to talk about Spiderman. It's like the Christmas Gift for him that just keeps on giving!

TD

---

He's not even pretending to not give a review. He called the show the biggest trainwreck he's seen in 20 years of being a theatre "critic".

The other thing that's weird is that he presumes people are buying tickets to see an accident. That's HIS ghoulish fantasy that he's projecting onto people whose heads he simply can't get into.

---

from DMM "What the hell? What do you do for a living? If you found that it could possibly put you in a hospital or take your life, would you not speak up?

That kind of mentality is disgusting. Scaring actors into thinking that they have to PUT THEIR LIVES AT STAKE to keep a job through the Holidays?!?!?! "

Actually, DMM, I'm an accountant, and have also been an actor with professional theater and opera companies. I'm not "scaring actors" into anything. I SAID (and you mis-read it) that the ACTORS are the people who have to make the choice to keep the job (which is dangerous, just like fire-fighters, and that comparison was also apt). The opinions of people unattached to the situation are not important, and I think it's ridiculous to jump on one's moral high horse and pontificate on what "should" be done when one isn't involved in the show.

These people have jobs, and may want to keep them. If not, they can quit. And, if the show's a disaster, it won't run, and this will all be over then. But, it's not YOUR job to decide what's acceptable/right/reasonable/etc. Certainly not in this case, but also not ever for anyone other than yourself!

::I think it's ridiculous to jump on one's moral high horse and pontificate on what "should" be done when one isn't involved in the show.::


Where have you been all these threads, figaroindy? Here's hoping the deliberately exasperating DMM and the odious nomdeplume see what you wrote and take it to heart.

---

"Performing on Broadway isn't a high-risk job? THINK AGAIN!

The issue here seems to be the public's understanding of what a Broadway show IS.

Technically speaking, a "Broadway show" is ANY event held on a Broadway stage, whether it be a comedian's one-man show, a play, a musical, a Cirque du Soliel show, a dance show, a concert, etc.

A NUMBER of past "Broadway shows" have included "high risk" activity, including raked stages, extremely difficult choreography, flying, magic effects, pyrotechnics, swordfights, gun-shots (remember the actor in the UK who recently lost an eye due to a malfunctioning firearm?).

The reason SPIDER-MAN is having difficulty is because the performers cast to execute these stunts do NOT have the training to perform them. In addition, it is unclear whether or not the technical supervisors and crew have had sufficient experience in designing and executing similar stunts.

The argument shouldn't be "THIS ISN'T A BROADWAY SHOW!" because that is just silly. I give them kudos for attempting to bring something "different and new" to Broadway (whether you think it is "different and/or new" is your opinion). The argument -- or question -- should be "WHY DIDN'T THEY CAST ACTUAL, EXPERIENCED STUNTMEN?"

Wishing for the show to close is ridiculous. Instead, wish that they ALTER the show so that they can execute these maneuvers PROPERLY. The management of this show made mistakes. Duh!"

well then everything you do is high risk in that case!my issue is that why didn't they get people who are actual acrobats and stuntmen/women performers who had training for a show like this.yes,they should close,try to fix their mess with a better plot/story and get people who can actually do the stunts and i think we all know what a broadway show is or could be considered.everything in life has a certain amount of risk,every job has a certain amount of risk as well but would you say that the risk an actor may take is the same risk that a Firefighter,police officer,or a soldier in the army may take?acrobats too,since they are always way above the audience doing stunts in the air why not give them a call?yes an actor's job isn't always easy but not really one where you have to constantly pray to come back alive every night.unless your in this show i guess.

Updated On: 12/24/10 at 11:56 PM

"...my issue is that why didn't they get people who are actual acrobats and stuntmen..."

That's precisely what I said, so I am not sure what you disagree with?

DRSisLove -- yes, they can get non-union members. It would have to be with special arrangement with AEA. Technically speaking, they would be pure stuntmen and wouldn't dance nor sing. So they are a "specialty performer."

Equity-League contracts clearly state that if all options are exhausted to find AEA performers have failed, non-union performers may be cast by special permission.

---