Spider-Man rep speaks out on the "early" reviews- Page 2

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:13pm

Another thing that a Foxwoods rep. could verify is that Young Frankenstein was doing better financially at this point.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:16pm

LOL Scott! We heard it from YOU and your alleged conversation with Julie Taymor herself!

[billyboyA]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:16pm

Man, there is nothing I enjoy more than trashing critics! What the New York Times did to the original "Kiss of the Spider Woman" was unconscionable and unforgivable... And over the years I've watched shows that have touched me on a gut level and that I enjoyed be ripped to shreds by critics who seemed more interested in proving how intellectually superior they were as writers, than in giving a fair assessment to the shows themselves. You should have seen the TEARS rolling down people's faces as they left the theater after the original production of Chess, which was then summarily trashed and destroyed by critics who seemed bent on destroying "the musical by Abba".

But in THIS case, having sat through Spider-man last Wed night, and having gone with an open mind and REALLY WANTING to like it... I think the critics all got it right and were, on the whole, VERY fair in their reviews. It's no news that Taymor and the producers have said no to pretty much every uber literary agent in the biz who offered up their clients to help clean up the book. And it's no secret that the biggest complaint that people HAVE with the show is the book and inane story lines that don't emotionally connect, go anywhere, or in most cases even get resolved. And if Taymor had put her ego away and opened her heart and said to the world "I got it wrong on some of the story elements and such and such who I highly respect is going to help us fine tune the story and lyrics over the next month", then I HAVE to believe the critics would have stayed away and GIVEN them the chance to resolve some things. But it's clear that wasn't what's been happening over at the Foxwoods. Instead it's band-aids. Let's face it - Taymor couldn't have made the Lion King what it WAS if she wasnt artistically brilliant. But remember: someone ELSE wrote that book and it follows the movie VERY closely. And for a lot audiences, her "Across the Universe" didn't fully connect either. I could write paragraphs about why, which I won't do. But again, that script had extraneous story lines ("Dear Prudence"? Who cares. We don't KNOW Prudence yet enough to CARE about her angst, and then she becomes almost a footnote anyway. And what about the kid's father? SO rich for developing, but no, it was just dropped and off we went on our magical journey and not given a chance to connect with HUGELY important part of the lead's inner psyche... Similar to what's been glossed over and left out of Spider-man... )

I honestly HATE seeing Broadway failures and I want people to stay employed and see lines of people outside of theaters lining up for tickets. And I think the detractors on here like to think that those of us being critical of the show somehow WANT to see it's demise. But that's simply not true for all of us. Yes, I think there are SOME on here who clearly hate the world and probably hate their lives SO much that they sit in their dark little holes spewing venom at true theater lovers here on the message boards... But I think there are probably a lot more like myself who feel that EVERY success on Broadway is a win for the art form and will continue to allow what we love to thrive.

So it's with a heavy heart that I say what I've said about Spider-man. And it's with a heavy heart that I have to stand behind the critics and acknowledge that their reviews are very fair.

I will give Spider-man a second chance. After March 15th, I'll go back again and with an open heart and open mind... And believe me, if the problems with the book that I detailed pretty specifically on another thread are resolved, nobody will be more vocal than I will be, in support of the show.

And I HOPE they prove me wrong. But what I think the critics are realizing is that the writing is on the wall: smoothing out rough edges and more rehearsals and band-aids aren't going to save a book that honestly never should have seen the light of the day.

And in MY humble opinion, if Miss Taymor DID admit that she made some mistakes and put the life of the show and the millions in investment and the future of her cast members ahead of her own ego, and brought in someone to rewrite the book, she would have SKYROCKETED in my opinion of her. We're all human and nobody can ever get everything right. There were, after all, three major directors on Gone With the Wind. Would it ever have been the classic it became without having Cukor AND Fleming's stamp on it?

I honestly think Miss Taymor would have made a LOT of friends and gained a lot of fans if she had been humble enough to admit that she got some things wrong and brought in someone to make it right. That would have proved artistic brilliance to me.

(I apologize for any typos - I'm still getting used to my iPad!)

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:19pm

Scott,

Please tell us what this tremendous work is, because, as far as I can tell from what everyone has posted, it's not a tremendous amount, it's hardly anything at all.

[pvie]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:23pm

"You obviously didn't read the review. An explanation was clearly given and Brantley trashed the whole thing, not one technical problem - please, don't be naive."

I did read the review. Would you care to offer their explanation and make sense of it? Maybe you and Brantley are too bright for me, but I do understand that he commented on other problems of the show. I even agree with some of those. I do think, however, that it is a cheap shot to start the review of a preview by making a big deal of something they say they are working on.

"He was going to trash it anyhow, he just did it earlier. Time management."

Yes, the only thing I got from the review were Brantley's superpowers to see into the future. He reviewed it now because he traveled 6 weeks ahead, came back and informed us that nothing about the show will change. If he was going to trash it anyway, what's the difference between doing it now and 6 weeks from now? They will still read his review then. Was there something personal here? He clearly wrote something personal and unnecessary about Taymor, another low I was surprised to read.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:33pm

He reviewed it now because he traveled 6 weeks ahead, came back and informed us that nothing about the show will change.

Give us a break.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:33pm

Explanations:

NYT:
I would like to acknowledge here that “Spider-Man” doesn’t officially open until March 15; at least that’s the last date I heard. But since this show was looking as if it might settle into being an unending work in progress — with Ms. Taymor playing Michelangelo to her notion of a Sistine Chapel on Broadway — my editors and I decided I might as well check out “Spider-Man” around Monday, the night it was supposed to have opened before its latest postponement.


Hollywood Reporter:

Official opening is not until March 15, but following repeat postponements and what feels like 30 years of previews, The Hollywood Reporter is observing the previously scheduled opening of Feb. 7 with this review.

Washington Post:

Preview performances began Nov. 28; a formal opening night had been scheduled for Dec. 21. The musical's producers pushed back the date to Jan. 11, and later to Feb. 7, and then to March 15.

Reasonable observers can differ on how long a news organization should wait to inform readers about the merits of any production once it has been running for months (and charging as much as $275 for an orchestra seat). Based on the preview period's ever-expanding length and the intense public interest generated by the nationwide news coverage, this newspaper decided, like many other outlets, not to wait out the latest delay and observe Feb. 7 as the opening.

How could you miss all these? And there's tons more.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:35pm

Thank you, tazber. And if she feels entitled to make this a 4 year long work-in-progress at full prices, then anyone is entitled to review it too.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:36pm

If producers are going to charge full price for previews than I think they are fair game to be reviewed before opening. Across the board...not just Spider-Man.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:40pm

This always happens when a bad show gets bad reviews. The critics see more shows a year than most of us - if the show had major potential they would have pointed them out, it just doesn't. It sucks today and it will suck in a few weeks too.

Critics gain nothing by trashing a show, they have a reputation too.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:43pm

What's also confusing about the producers' claims to wait to review until the show is "frozen" is that MANY shows on Broadway have opened (supposedly "frozen") and FAIRLY major changes were implemented after opening. Beauty and the Beast added a new song, changed theatres, changed the number of cast members and configuration of the set in "Be Our Guest," etc. Scarlet Pimpernel CLOSED and REOPENED with MAJOR changes and a new cast. Shrek changed songs during the run of the show. West Side Story REMOVED a LOT of the Spanish after opening.

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:45pm

billyboyA, very well put.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:49pm

Agree!

[Q]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 3:52pm

Diva - I don't know if this was added after-the-fact, but this is from an earlier (updated) post by Scott:

"Quickly, from what I know - and it's limited - they have made major changes... A scene has been cut. A new one added. Yet, another soon to be added. A flying sequence added. Many of the lines have been rewritten or tweaked. A song has been cut and several verses have changed on existing ones. Actor's intentions have changed, the pacing has changed and much of the technical issues have been worked out. AND, I am not even the expert on this subject."

[hmpeterson]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 4:06pm

Scott: with all due respect, changing a line, adding or deleting a seeing, adding flying sequences aren't MAJOR changes to what sounds like a terrible book. It's putting lots of band-aids on gun shot wounds, stab wounds, and lost limbs.

I haven't seen SpiderMan yet but from what people say on here and friends and family I have talked to who have seen it all say the same thing...the book is awful!! another poster on here (sorry I can't remember who) said exactly what my best friend said...I thought this was supposed to be a show about SpiderMan? Instead, the main focus seems to be on some chick Arachne and other than him being bit by a retroactive spider and MJ and GG being in it, this show has nothing to do with the SpiderMan story.

Like you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it sounds like your opinion of MAJOR changes is different than other people's.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 4:14pm

John Simon says reviewing the show early is "like grabbing a dish from a restaurant kitchen before it is fully cooked."

However, if a food critic was repeatedly told his main course was being delayed, I'm sure he would leave the restaurant early and have a lot to say about it!

We're not talking about reviewing the show after a couple of previews here. It's been months, and there isn't any guarantee that the producers couldn't postpone opening night again. The critics have given them enough the show quite long enough to at least be in a fit shape to have some kind of judgement passed.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 4:18pm

Whats really annoying me is how people are whining about "they are still in previews! It's not fair! Waa waa! Their changing things! Big changes are on the way! Blah blah blah"

THE CREATIVE TEAM HAVE SAID ALREADY THAT NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE MADE!

Nothing substantial has been changed since December (oh, I'm sorry, spidey does a pathetic 30 second flight at the end)

The show keeps delaying, ticket prices are crazy high, and they are basking in the fact that they have so much press surrounding them, yet know that critics would not review it till they opened. Well, guess what, enough is enough. Months of previews with no major changes implanted or planned, it's time for this show to be seen for what it really is.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 4:19pm

I was actually expecting more of a grand, self-aggrandizing "Critics are hurting the theatre community with this gesture...how can artists create like this...the New York theatre scene is becoming increasingly inhospitable to artists like Ms. Taymor" kind of statement.

Something tells me I should...wait.

[leefowler]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:04pm

This is exactly what Spider-Man wants...Since the critics have come early, they can complain, "we weren't ready, they're trying to destroy us, it's not fair"! Riedel says this was their strategy when they postponed the opening for a 4th time, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:06pm

Anything said below is said as a paying ticket-holder, and an observer of the events that followed. Be warned, it's lengthy, so I don't want to hear any "tl;dr." Either read it or don't.

-------------------------------------

I attended several previews, because the word-of-mouth from Michael Riedel's column alone suggested this was the show to see if one wanted to see an epic catastrophe. Unlike some other people's opinions of him, Mr. Riedel, true to form, has never let me down. I extend no sympathy to the creators and producers of Spider-Man. They bought a turkey. "Epic catastrophe" is putting it mildly when it comes to this show.

I've been working in professional theater since I was 15, and trust me when I tell you that contrary to public perception, first preview is almost always treated like opening as far as designers, directors, and producers are concerned. You better have your shit together and get the show up and running.

* Having scenery that isn't even built and installed in time, especially on a show with this much hype and this kind of money behind it, is absolutely inexcusable.
* Having the rigging not teched-out and properly rehearsed before you have that kind of audience is absolutely inexcusable.
* Not even having the last ten minutes written until a couple of weeks ago (my timing may be slightly off) is absolutely inexcusable. It is an insult to the patrons and an embarrassment to the production.

All of this talk about "what do you expect from a first preview" is ridiculous. I expect a finished product and a competent production team. Final product or not, the show should have been more ready for previews than it actually was, especially when the team has had literally over a year of rehearsal and at least planning time to work out the kinks, more than plenty of time. Saying the preview period is going to be extended to iron out the problems is ridiculous, and being "in previews" is no excuse for these shenanigans. The preview period isn't the time to rework the entire show, which Spider-Man desperately needs.

The present state of theater dictates that buying tickets to the first preview of a technically complex Broadway show practically guarantees that there are bound to be hiccups. But these weren't hiccups. This was a drunk heaving in a public bathroom. It is unfair for people to pay enormous prices for imperfection. (In the comments on one of Riedel's column's pieces on the show, already we're seeing signs of shady tricks by the producers to attempt to make their money back: one consumer reported he bought tickets for one preview, and then when the producers canceled the performance, they refused to replace the tickets with comparable seats at the same price for another performance, no refund. That is shameful, grossly unfair, and poor business practice.) I almost felt like I'd walked into a real version of The Producers, and half expected to find Leo Bloom and Max Bialystock in a bar near the theater.

I was later made aware that the show had not had a full run-through until the first night. They had no clue what the full running time was; apparently no one had ever thought of running the whole thing from start to finish to see if it needed cuts, or if there would be any problems with the special effects. Is this Broadway now?

First preview, the show had to stop four times, and that's not counting an intermission that stretched on forever due to tech difficulties, and an additional ten minutes before the show could come to an end. Is this Broadway now?

If this is Broadway now, then the Broadway I love lies dead and buried six feet in the ground. The Broadway I know and love has been replaced by a theme park, with Vegas/Disney attractions rather than theatrical productions. Good writers with good pieces of work? Who cares! It's all about what will sell to the masses!! This show is clearly more about money and egos than art!!! The Broadway I know would have never let this happen, or at least had the bugs worked out. See, they used to try Broadway shows out of town before bringing them in. It would be worth it to spend the cash trying it out elsewhere, rather than losing all that advance sales cash and closing prematurely.

All of the press has been bad; all of the word-of-mouth has been absolutely horrible. It did attract people at first to see it for the spectacle of it all (in the sense that a car wreck on the highway is a spectacle), but spectacle can only go so far in the theater. The reviews are now in, and they, too, smell like the raw sewage of the Hudson. I doubt there's any chance of a Tony, even for sympathy, in the show's future.

Any good reviews, a Tony, good word-of-mouth, even minutely good press, could have salvaged this show financially. But there's not even one "pull quote" between two negative reviews. And so it's going to fail financially, as if there were any doubt. Money-wise, the backers of this production can never make their money back, especially with the unrealistic conditions required to merit a return on their investment, let alone any profit after the fact.

To break even, they need to sell out every seat in the house for over four years. First of all, the seating capacity is too small regardless of ticket prices. Secondly, four years? It seems this show couldn't even make it four weeks without something going so horribly wrong that Actor's Equity was halting performances, and OSHA and the New York State Labor Department were looking into unsafe workplace practices.

Insurance? On this show? Probably, say, a million dollar deductible. If anything, they should be looking into cutting back the special effects drastically to save what little money they have left, rather than adding more sequences as Mr. Briefer has reported.

Now, as a working producer, I view this as a very serious issue. The kind of black holes caused by ventures like this hurt all of us who have to raise money to effectuate plays and films. In terms of score, book, direction, and much of the casting, this show needs a Scarlet Pimpernel-style makeover from top to bottom (as someone else mentioned in this thread), but there should be no excuse whatsoever for why the book and score are so horrendous, when they've had enough time (and money) to make five shows with a budget of $13 million each work, rather than spending all $65 million in one place.

(Quick note: For anyone who felt the book and score couldn't possibly be that dreadful, they are, darling. The score, including one recycled U2 tune, is mediocre, and the book is dreadful. Evidently these pressing issues were ignored in favor of getting a lot of "cool" special effects that don't really seem to do anything consistently other than screw up or injure people passed by Equity boards. Likewise with the staging. I found myself muttering, "Julie Taymor directed this play? Seems to me like the job was done by Howard, Fine & Howard." My misgivings about some of them aside, I hope the cast are getting hazard pay, but it seems like so far $65 million has produced jack shit, so somehow I don't find it hard to imagine the cast being overlooked.)

I'm not one to wish anyone ill-will. That being said, however, I am no longer just hoping for, but applauding the failure of this monstrosity now that I've actually seen it. It embodies all that is wrong with Broadway. If I want to see this kind of nonsense, I'll go to Vegas and see Cirque. There is more at risk right now than finances. The safest -- and sanest -- thing to do on the part of the producers and investors is to accept that they're taking a huge bath, and flush this show down the toilet. It's done. Stick a fork in it.

P.S. As a parting note, a quick commentary on those who reported a standing ovation at the end of the show: every performance from Broadway to church basement gets a standing ovation these days. It's not a barometer for anything other than people accepting any type of low-rent manure that's shoved at them. And by the end of that show, after all the stops and the mind-numbing crap, when we got up to applaud, it could have been anything on that stage. It could have been Christ on the cross for all I cared. I was thankful to get up, and get the hell out.

[beensince1987]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:21pm

They could totally change the show before the official opening (so far it's still on 3/15 but who knows with this show), then every critic will be giving favorable review then.
From across the street, you could hear "Anything can happen if you let it...

I don't like producers of the show is saying they will raise the price once it opens (if it opens), I think it is the way to make people buy it in advance so they could say they have great advance sale before it opens. "The Producers" just raised the price without mentioning it, because one of the reasons was it got GREAT reviews.

Somehow I don't think that's happening in March or April or May....

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:22pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Not_Legitimate_Reviewers_Says_SPIDERMANs_Cohl_20110208


Bwahahaha! "Not legitimate reviewers" Burn much? Of course, had it gotten glowing reviews...

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:25pm

I can imagine Brantley's response "You're, then, not a legitimate producer."

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:31pm

This is just a joke. Why do I get the feeling that the producers/reps would have released these statements regardless of whether or not the critics reviewed the show before opening...?

SPIDER-MAN isn't a legitimate Broadway musical, so I guess having "not legitimate reviewers" critique it seems fitting. Shut this mess down.

I've seen a crapload of news shows on TV today covering the scathing reviews. Ms Taymor and Mr. Cohls' attitudes have COMPLETELY turned me off from rooting for this show's success, which without their comments, is still one of the worst things I've ever seen onstage. It's not that I wish it ill-will, I just couldn't care less. It's an awful, awful show and it deserves every single one of the tomatoes being tossed at it. Sorry.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:34pm

But it'll be good in a few weeks!! They promise!!!