RIALTO CHATTER: 'SPIDER-MAN' Producers Refute Riedel To MTV, Re-Confirm Musical Will 'Swing' To Bdwy

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:26pm

Click Here to Read RIALTO CHATTER: 'SPIDER-MAN' Producers Refute Riedel To MTV, Re-Confirm Musical Will 'Swing' To Bdwy
https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/RIALTO_CHATTER_SPIDERMAN_Producers_Refute_Riedel_To_MTV_ReConfirm_Musical_Will_Swing_To_Bdwy_20090812

[lull89]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:36pm

Someone should make a musical about all this drama happening behind the scenes. THAT would be a show I'd be interested in!

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:42pm

Wait, they're still planning on going to Broadway? The sooner they stop the production, the less money they'll lose.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:47pm

Anyone want to bet on it opening on time?

Even with odds of 50 to 1, it is a bad bet.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:56pm

This show is giving me a headache already.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 6:58pm

I want to see all the designs! Especially the set!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 7:01pm

They do have six months. It's not like their planned start date is next week.

All they need is money. Plenty of people have disposable incomes and a desire in investing in the arts, and a lot of them don't care if they get the money back.

I'm sure they'll find someone to cough up the money they need.

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 7:22pm

I could be, and probably am, wrong but part of me feels this is partly a publicity stunt of some kind. I haven't seen this on any of the major entertainment programs (I missed it if it has been), and they make a statement to MTV News? Might be far fetched but I am just thinking of MTV's demographics and thinking they are directing this to these kids that they think will want to see the show. Just my very random thoughts!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 7:29pm

If this is a publicity stunt along the lines of the Chris Angel has died viral marketing or the Joan Rivers meltdown then the producers do deserve to lose their shirts!

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:21pm

Is this factual proof that Riedel is a douche?

[TheatreFan4]

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

Yes... the guy looks like a creepy mouse.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 8/13/09 at 3:37am

45 million dollars bet on Julie Traymor? Sucker's bet. Have you ever tried to sit through her movies? They're unwatchable. LION KING was perfect for her because it was a spectacle wrapped around a tiny story. SPIDERMAN is a much, much more complex concept. It's not really all about the special effects; they help sell tickets but the story is all character and that doesn't sound like what this musical is becoming. 45 million dollars? You could build a new theater for that, or start a school of Musical Theater at NYU. Instead, if it actually happens, they could lose it all in one night because every critic will be out with their teeth bared.

[HollyGolightly2]

Posted: 8/13/09 at 3:59am

If this makes the Febuary 25th preview date like they keep insisting it will, I'll buy an extra ticket, then eat it.

[fossemoves]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 12:41am

I don't get this veheamence for Julie Taymor?! What's everyone's deal with this woman?! She is one of the theatr'e innovators and has worked hard to carve out her own unique theatrical cvocabular. It's not like she through glitter onstage and said 'enjoy' - which having sat through Wicked more then once I feel is like what they did.

There is artistry and then maindstream theatre. Julie Taymor is part of that thin slice of director who has been able to combine her work into both.

Spiderman can work on stage... but I can't imagine another director who could make it work except for Julie Taymor.

I am forced to believe that Spiderman has that mainstream notoriety that could turn it into a long run hit like Lion King, Phantom, and yes, even Wicked.

If there is catchy musical and lots to look at, there will be an audience.

If it opens - it will sell. Why? Because people will want to see it. 1/2 because they think it's an awesome idea and the other half because they are hoping it will fail.

Grendel didn't fail. It was a mess to get on stage but it did not fail. Lion King didn't fail. And while her film ventures have been perhaps too theatrical and cerebral for some, there is real genius in the quality. Taymor is a bankable artist. She makes the impossible, possible.

THAT is why they hired her. I blame poorly prepared and inexperienced producers for this mess.

Geez people, calm down and lets let the show open before we rip it to shreds.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 12:45am

Because she kept needing MORE money to make the show bigger. The budget is so big that they just can't recoup & has been rumored to have a nut of almost $1M. This show is walking on Plywood stilts & a wrong move will make the show collapse immediately. All of this which is traced back to Taymor herself.

[mpd4165]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 1:56am

Allofmylife-have to disagree about your view on Taymor's films. Titus and in particular Frida are beautifully and haunting films, a great tribute to Taymor's distinct visual style.

Give Taymor her due, she can make something LOOK great...now with this Spider-Man musical, eh I'm up in the air.

[BrianS]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 3:17am

Fosse, the fact is that she's 1 for 3 on Broadway at best. Not a great track record. And yes it's a matter of opinion, but the majority seem to agree that her films miss the mark. While she is wildly creative, she is definitely not "bankable." I agree that the lawyer/replacement producer is the guilty party, but the budget and the weekly running costs are just irresponsible. Don't get me started on the "invest in the theater itself" aspect of the production.

I'm the first one to defend a show in development, but this is a case of people criticizing an insane budget rather than not giving a show room to breathe.

Also, fun fact, notorious is not synonymous with famous.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 4:19am

mpd4165, I have to disagree with you. I had the unique experience of sitting through the film with a group of directors and production managers who shared my feelings. We just couldn't warm up to the film. It was absurd and, to me, muddled. I thought Across The Universe was just plain stupid and after it was over, all I felt was, "Bad Baz Luhrman."

Your mileage may - and apparently does - vary.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 8:18am

"All they need is money"
How about a Leading Man?

[fossemoves]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 7:42pm

Clearly Taymor is not for all people.

1 for 3 on Broadway - sure. I buy that. But when only 1 in 5 shows are recouping their investment, she still is under par. Juan Darien was never meant to be a blockbuster... it didn't have mainstream appeal... it's transfer was more about allowing a more mainstream artist to see the work.

But then lets not forget her non Broadway artistic Success including productions of Grendel, The Magic Flute, Tempest, Titus, and Oedipus Rex

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 8:21pm

Not quite sure where describing Taymor as a "Cerebral Director" comes in. She choses images not so much for what they symbolize or how they relate to a story but more so because she likes the idea. Ask her ,why she chose a specific image and I am sure she will be hard pressed to tell you.
I sat through Titus and Fool's Fire and ended up asking over and over, "Why?". All her work has a distance to it. It lacks emotion and feeling. As if the audience is to hold her work at arms length and marvel at her talent. We don't know why she did it, she must be a genius!
I attended Lion King , Green Bird, The Tempest and for the most part thought, some really nice moments but boy can it be painful to get from one pretty picture to the next!
I will not even bother to discuss the time of my life wasted watching Across The Universe. She actually ruined most of the Beatles catalogue for me permanently.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 8:42pm

SNAFU is right on the money here. Few directors create images as utterly empty and meaningless as Taymor's beautiful tableaus.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 8:46pm

Michael Riedel is a pervert..plain and simple. A mousy, creepy pervert.

[fossemoves]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 9:40pm

LOL @ Bettyboy...

As to the rest... okay, I get what everyone is saying, it's just hard for me to reconcile it.

If anything it's not meaningless imagery, its self indulgent! There is TOO much thought and reason behind each image. Look at the Transposed Heads and those brothers holding onto eachother and forming the inverted triangle... the sheer idea is over indulgent. One can not exisist without the other!

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 10:15pm

According to Webster's:
pervert. n. lead astray; corrupt.
one who engages in abnormal sexual acts