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

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

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

---

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.

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

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

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.

---

"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.

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.

---

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?