Michael Riedel's interesting view of "Spider-Man" vs. the critics

[SallyF]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 6:39am

They hope the reviews will appear higgledy-piggledy, each one barely being heard above the noise already surrounding the show.

What they don't want is an avalanche of bad notices on the same day.
Michael Riedel

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:22am

I'm with Riedel on this one -- they should review it en masse at the former February opening date. This has gone on way too long about a show that's a piece of crap in the first place.

[dramarama3]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 10:05am

Theatre's a wonderful thing. Magical. But then there's SH*T like this and it really just ruins it.

If they're promising quality March 15, why not wait till March 15? If we wait, and it's not quality. Down with Spiderman. Give them hell. That simple.

[DrewBill]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 10:31am

I kind of have to agree with Riedel on this one. The media environment has changed significantly for theater criticism, especially in relation to this particular show.

As long as "Spiderman" remains the number one focus of the theater press, and tickets continue to be sold at full price, I don't think the critics have a choice -- they review it soon en masse, or become irrelevant.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 10:49am

I find it amusing that the critics really care so much about when they are allowed to review the show. Shows delays openings. Shows even close before opening. Critics are supposed to publish reviews on opening night, whenever that may (or may not) occur. I don't know why they are so eager to shred it now as opposed to later. Addams Family is proof that good reviews are not needed for a successful run. Perhaps the critics are still bitter about that? If the critics are so intent on reviewing a show early, why don't they just start doing it for every show? They wouldn't dare. They just don't want Spider-Man giving them orders. It's petty and completely unnecessary.

[amoni]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 11:13am

Let them come, who cares, the show is critic proof anyway. It's not 1975 where the only info someone had about a show was a full page ad in the Sunday Times. People are now treated to the first day of rehearsal via video. The only thing interesting and I use that word loosely when Riedel is in the same sentence, is that he admits critics are basically useless now.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 11:17am

I am sure that there are people who are seeing the show because they are fans of the Spider-Man franchise and are actually curious about the musical adaptation of it. I am also sure that there are others (like my brother and his girlfriend) who expressed interest in seeing the show only because it has reached car crash like status with regards to how often it has been in the media.

Regardless of the reason, people are eager to see this as proof of its good numbers. Yet, I don't see why the producers would mind if someone were to review the show at this particular time. The numbers are good, and I do doubt that a negative review will change that. I do believe that gone are the days when a critic can kill a show with just one stroke of the pen. I think that this show is proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity and that even the negative news stories that this show is getting is enough to get people to want to buy tickets regardless of if they are Spider-Man fans or not.

Yes, I do agree that critics should follow the unwritten rule that you should wait till opening night to publish a review. However, with a show like Spider-Man, that has delayed opening time and time again, I don't see the difference between a critic choosing to buy a ticket and reviewing it on their own time and the difference between a theatre blogger or message board poster spending their own money on a ticket and writing a review afterwords.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:56pm

I dont agree at all because the chances are all the critics will be back on press night to review it again.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 3:44pm

"I dont agree at all because the chances are all the critics will be back on press night to review it again."

I doubt that very much. If they review it early, and pay for their own ticket, they will likely not be invited to press night because they have already reviewed it.

[JacksonMaine]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 3:54pm

Well, of course, whether they're invited or not isn't really the issue. I am sure their newspapers or magazines paid for the tickets during previews and will pay again if they see it again once it 'officially' opens.

I am usually with the crowd that says wait until it opens before reviewing it, but I understand the frustrations. There were many who said 'ok, you're delaying again until February 7th, I'll give you that' only to be told of another delay to March 15th. At some point enough is enough. While I do not believe this is an intentional strategy on the part of the producers (I don't give them credit for being that clever) I do think their greatest wish would be that the reviews come in scattered here and there and not, as Riedel points out, to have them all come out at once. So it may very well work in their favor.

And I agree, this is a critic proof show, so what's the difference?

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 4:27pm

Critics may not be as powerful as they once were, but a lot of very negative reviews can still have an effect. I told my friend a month or so ago that I wanted to see Women on the Verge and he said that he heard it was "bad" and wouldn't want to see it even though he knew nothing about the show itself. Whether that's official reviews or word of mouth can't be known for sure, but I have a feeling the negative tone of some reviews (or, on the other end, the positive) can affect what some people still see.

And as far as Spider-Man goes, a lot of people are just interested because of the hype. It has definitely turned into a very hot ticket. I personally almost spent more on a ticket to it than I did on the other four shows I saw combined this past weekend just to say that I saw it. And when I did see it, at least 10 people asked if I or any of the actors were in any danger throughout, in a joking way, but still. The word about this show, though mostly about its problems, is spreading like wildfire.

[JacksonMaine]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 4:52pm

What did you think of it, bwayfan?

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 5:38pm

Maybe it's just me, but...

It kind of seems like they're using previews as a cheaper alternative to an out of town tryout.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 5:47pm

They could never go out of town with this show.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 5:57pm

I think reviewers are more relevant to drama than musical these days, as 'The Addams Family', 'Mary Poppins' and 'Wicked' would be long gone by now, musicals are affected by word of mouth, which is a major selling point, us who adore theatre see loads of shows so therefore can make comparatives on good or poor quality and a lot of people already have on here by proclaiming that 'Spiderman' is a "Car Crash", we are in a minority of hundreds us aficonardos. Punters who see a show once in a blue moon, more than likely will say 'wow!' As they will be blinded by stunts and scenery, like they have never been seen before, these punters number in their hundreds of thousands.
Updated On: 1/19/11 at 05:57 PM

[yournamehere]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 7:00pm

I disagree with this simply because I don't think the reviews will affect Spider-Man one way or the other. Word has spread about the musical and people in my every day life, who I suspected had no idea anything about musical theater, have heard about Spider-Man and everything going on with it. These people will not bother to read a review - yet, the show will stick in their mind when they go to see it.

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the reviewers in their decision to delay. I think the show simply needs it and isn't ready to open. That's pretty apparent.

I think Reidel makes reviewers just a little too important especially for a musical like Spider-Man. Spider-Man will make its money off of tourists. When I went, people literally were just like "Oh we saw this and my son just LOVES Spider-Man." They just went on the Spider-Man name alone. They, however, didn't return for Act 2. They stayed for all of Act 1 so there goes their refund.

[CateBroadway]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 8:27pm

Do we think the reviewers who jump the gun and come during previews will even be invited again once the show is ready to open? The only thing worse than a bad review is a bad review twice

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:07pm

Word of mouth amongst tourists isn't awful, though. Sure, there will be people who dislike it, but I heard from behind me while at the show (and I quote): "This is the best thing I've ever seen."

JacksonMaine- I'm sorry to say that I strongly disliked it. I loved the effects and such, which were exhilarating, but the music was collectively a huge dud and the story was a shambles to me.

And the producer of the show (who I think wasn't Michael Cohl, but I could be wrong) clearly stated that this was instead of an out-of-town, which would be an okay excuse except that even an out of town and previews combined wouldn't run for four months...

[dramarama3]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:16pm

I agree.

There's always that taxi driver who seems to say what your seeing is great, no matter what it is you're seeing.

[finishmyhat]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 12:02pm

"clearly stated that this was instead of an out-of-town, which would be an okay excuse except that even an out of town and previews combined wouldn't run for four months..."

Except you only preview a handful during an out of town and then get REVIEWED out of town. Then when you come to NY you preview and get REVIEWED again.

2 REVIEWS for an out of town tryout. This production thinks they only deserve 1 after they selfishly correct things that should have been done in the last 9 years,

[willep]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 12:57pm

"Maybe it's just me, but...

It kind of seems like they're using previews as a cheaper alternative to an out of town tryout."

It's not just you, they come out and openly say that before every performance. They had to completely redo the theatre to accommodate the show, can you imagine how much all of you guys would be yelling and screaming if they inflated their budget to redo an out of town theatre so they could do a tryout before bringing it here?

Let them have the time to fix their piece, that's how I feel. I know most of you don't agree with me.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 1:05pm

Honestly, I would love to see Book of Mormon do the same thing. If they had months of previews, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 1:06pm

It's petty and completely unnecessary.

Someone posted the other day that more than 200,000 people have seen the show already. Personally, I don't think it's right that so many people have seen it before the critics have been able to. The longer they wait the more pointless reviewing it becomes. I say let 'em review it.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 1:58pm

According to the grosses, around 85,000 have. No where near 200,000.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/20/11 at 3:22pm

In the good old days, would I be right in saying that shows didn't have previews, they just opened up cold to reviewers on day one?