Spider-Man rep speaks out on the "early" reviews- Page 3

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:35pm

Calling writers who have worked in the industry for decades "not legitimate" must be the worst stament by a producer that I know of. Paris Hilton must write their press releases.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:44pm

Has Julie has gone into hiding? I have to say despite all my grievances against her, I actually feel sorry for her today.

Updated On: 2/8/11 at 05:44 PM

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:47pm

I don't. She had 8 years to make this an amazing show...she has failed. And the fact that she wont change a single thing except for a few crap lines here in there and leave in the mass of dog poo that is already in place just speaks even louder for her ego.

[pvie]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:49pm

I did not read all the other explanations, I did read what was posted by the NYT. The level of reasoning is so low that I wouldn't consider that an explanation. Let's see...

"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."

If the show never opens, why should they review it? People going to previews are not forced to paying $500 or whatever they ask for it now. They know that the show hasn't been reviewed and if they pay that much is because they want to.

Unless the NYT is arguing that people are stupid and that they wouldn't go to the previews if they had heard what the NYT has to say about it. If the opinion of the NYT or any other outlet for that matter determines whether you go to see a show or not, it should not change your decision if you read it today, 3/15 or the next postponement.

To me the statement feels like: "We pretty much hate this show and we want to write it down so badly that we decided not to wait anymore" I even share part of the feeling, I was somehow disappointed by the show too, but just expected a higher standard from the NYT.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:55pm

I'm sorry, but are you seriously defending the whole "we're in previews!" junk?

Yes, the audience is not forced into seeing the show and forking over the money. However, the show is being advertised by it's creative team as being a piece of "theatrical history" and how it's one of the "most groundbreaking show" ever. Now, if they did the previews for a reasonable amount of time, and did not keep delaying and delaying, then I could see the frustration. However, they have had more then enough time to work on this piece of crap. In fact, they have had almost a decade to get a decent book and memorable score in place. The have yet to do so and they have been in previews for ages.
And let's not forget that they are NOT changing anything else. If they were still working hard on fixing the mess that is the book and the flop that is the score, then there is merit to anger. BUT, Queen Taymor has stated that she WONT be doing any of that.
Get over it, the critics have had enough, and people buying tickets thinking their getting a near-finished show that is decent need to know what the hell is going on.

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:55pm

I was quite shocked that The Times did an early review, because it seems unprofessional to write a review before invited, but its a hot topic and their first job is to stay on top of the news and be relevant right? I imagine this show is going to be critic proof anyways, so it was mostly for the drama of it all.

Honestly, I LOVE reading Brantley when hes being cranky, even if I enjoyed the show and wholeheartedly admit to being a sucker for a good spectacle.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:55pm

If the show never opens, why should they review it?

Why shouldn't they? We can explain it to you with apples, but you won't get it either way, it seems.

If thousands of people are buying a ticket to a show with producers and creatives feeling entitled to change their opening night as they see fit, the reviewers felt entitled to tell those thousands of people what they're in for.

Yeah?

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:58pm

And a special note to Michael Cohl to go with my above message:

All of the above goes for you as well. Bono convinced you to come in as a personal favor, and you did. But do not presume to speak about the New York drama critics circle in the manner you have chosen, just because you bought a turkey and are regretting it. I'm going to dissect your statement to Entertainment Weekly and show you where you're wrong.

"Any of the people who review the show and say that it has no redeeming value are just not legitmate reviewers, period."

Well, I'd say they kept their jobs pretty nicely all these years for people who aren't legitimate reviewers. A critic's job is to offer their opinion of a piece of entertainment. Some of the public considers their points, especially with an obvious flop, but occasionally the trend is bucked (see Wicked's reviews versus box office gross). I've seen your show. I paid good money to see it, money that is likely now in your pocket, and as someone who paid for the right to my opinion, it has no redeeming value. This many critics and attendees can't agree on that point if there's not something wrong with it.

"It's hard to have people that don't get pop culture reviewing a pop culture event, isn't it?"

It's not their job to "get pop culture," which is leaving aside the fact that if many of them didn't, they've clearly been exposed to it by now, judging by how many musicals these days are based on material from television and films. It's their job to review the show on its merits as a dramatic musical work, and in this case, as in many cases, it has absolutely zero merits. Many connoisseurs of "pop culture" have agreed that your "pop culture event" is a pile of trash. What are you going to say to that? That they don't get pop culture either?

And finally, your press rep's intriguing cap-filled comment had me laughing. "The PILE-ON by the critics was ridiculous and uncalled for. Their actions are unprecedented and UNCOOL!"

First, an aesthetic point: Are they teenagers? "Uncool"? Really? The last time I myself used the word "uncool" was in the seventh grade, and even if one were to use it in private or as common slang, one does not make such a word part of any press release. It's unprofessional. Secondly: "ridiculous and uncalled for" is pushing back your opening date four times, presumably to avoid the acid pens of those "not legitimate reviewers" under the guise of working during the preview period.

"Unprecedented," you say? Other little shows tried that trick, and they were met with a similar "PILE-ON," as your caps lock addicted press rep called it. The reason you (and to be honest, I) don't remember their names is because they're mainly found in a little book by Ken Mandelbaum called Not Since CARRIE. You know what that means, Mr. Cohl? It means that much like your show, they were unmitigated flops.

My suggestion to you -- and the other producers and investors -- is to close this show. Now. My special suggestion just for you, Mr. Live Nation concert promoter, is to go sit in your fucking corner and read the instruction book before you ever dare approach a Broadway stage again and try to play the game without learning its rules. Good day to you, sir.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 5:58pm

Several people who have seen the show multiple times have commented, here and elsewhere, that tremendous work has been done since the first preview and continues to be done.

Ever since Pirate Queen, I take those types of responses generally with a shaker of salt. I saw the show at the beginning and the end of its Chicago tryout. There was tons of talk about the SIGNIFICANT changes made that GREATLY IMPROVED the show. This was utterly false. The changes were minor. Then the same chatter went on about the Broadway production during previews. What was reported ad infinitum regarding the show's inherent problems were never fixed. Addams Family did the same thing, but has a cast that sells tickets. Spider-Man is showing the same problems as Pirate Queen (except I actually found Pirate Queen more interesting). This isn't an Aida that's happening here. The biggest problems with Spider-Man simply aren't being improved or fixed and at this point, I have little confidence they ever will.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:01pm

The question is: Can it survive these reviews?

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:08pm

On another forum, people are using the excuse "Wicked was bashed by critics but it is the biggest show on Broadway"

Ummmmmmm....WICKED has (though people on here would argue, but hey, I'm just gonna say it) a sensible plot, and music and characters the audience connects with. AND all the bells and whistles one would want from a Broadway show.
This is what has saved many famous musicals from critics. POTO, Les Miserables, and others recieved less then rave reviews but survived. Spider-Man does not have any of the things I mentioned above except for the spectacle part. But even that is not enough to hold the show for too long. People in the end want to walk out of the theater feeling like they went on a journey with the characters and experienced great music/spectacle on the way.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:13pm

And for the NTH time: Wicked was NOT bashed by critics. At all. It got mixed to positive reviews and was the season's award favorite.

Completely different story.

[landryjames2]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:13pm

I agree with every word of gvendo2005's two posts in this thread. The half I saw of Spider-Man is absolutely not salvageable unless they plan on starting completely from scratch. A few minor (or even major) changes are going to do nothing to help what I witnessed.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:16pm

I'm dying to ask Cohl if the USA Today reviewer is "legitimate". She saw it before it opened and gave it a rave.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:21pm

Thank you gvendo2005 for laying it all out.
"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."
I think that is my favorite quote about this whole debacle so far. I keep wondering if Julie Taymor thinks what is up on stage is actually good? Does she really BELIEVE it's good? Because I can't imagine how it made it to the stage in it's current condition.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:21pm

Thank you gvendo2005 for laying it all out.
"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."
I think that is my favorite quote about this whole debacle so far. I keep wondering if Julie Taymor thinks what is up on stage is actually good? Does she really BELIEVE it's good? Because I can't imagine how it made it to the stage in it's current condition.

[hmpeterson]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:24pm

I have to agree with gvendo2005. And not to sound like an old fart clamoring for the old days, but this is exactly what is wrong with Broadway these days. It's comments like this that drive me up a wall:

"It's hard to have people that don't get pop culture reviewing a pop culture event, isn't it?"

Since when is a Broadway show a "pop culture event?" Like gvendo2005 said, this isn't a Cirque Vegas show or a concert at Madison Square Garden. This is BROADWAY!! Other than possibly the West End, isn't Broadway supposed to be the finest and best theater in the world? It seems like most of the respect and reverence for Broadway is gone. And believe me, I am in the business world and know it's about making money and not just the "art" anymore but who says you can't have both?

It's absolutely infuriating to hear comments like these producers have made because they obviously don't get it. And who are they to knock the theater critics? Believe me, I'm not a Ben Brantley fan at all. But to say he isn't legitimate reviewer? I'm not sure how long Brantley has been reviewing theater but I'm sure it's around 20 years at least. You may not like what he says but respect he has been doing this a long and it quite legit.

I also think the whining about reviews during previews needs to stop. This show isn't a preview anymore, whether they want to admit it or not. This show has been rehearsing for at least a year, I think, and in previews for over 3 months. The show is what it is at this point minus some minor adjustments. It doesn't matter if they review it today or in a month, it will still be the same show from a music, book, and thematic standpoint.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:29pm

I think the answer for these producers is when is it considered time to be reviewed? How long can you delay your opening? Do they expect to be able to run on Broadway no reviews for 6 months? I mean come on. The critics had every right to finally review it.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 6:43pm

I think the problem lies within Taymor as a director-bookwriter-conceiver-puppet designer. It is too much of a monopolization. There is not enough of a TEAM for this project--it's Taymor taking the lead with Bono and the Edge, Glen Berger, and Michael Cohl working at her fingertips trying to please her because she convinced them it's going to be the biggest thing in Broadway history. (And in some ways, it is----just not the biggest hit in Broadway history).

It's also an ego thing. On "The Producers", Mel Brooks was producer, composer, lyricist, co-bookwriter, and the one who created the original film, but he allowed Susan Stroman and Tom Meehan and Glen Kelly to tell him flat out that a song sucked or an idea was bad. And he would re-work it if it was necessary (example: The original opening number of "The Producers"). They work together. As a PRODUCTION TEAM.

[TheatreDiva90016]

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

Q, thanks for that post, but I had already read that paragraph and was looking for a more detailed explanation from Scott.

He seemed to write reams on his thoughts about what the production team was thinking and feeling and about all of those people he spoke with (the ushers during pre-show, every guy in the bathroom at intermission, the light or sound guy and then Julie herself) but he doesn’t really explain the changes.

What song was cut? Since no one else thinks there was a song cut...
What are the lines changed?
What scenes is he talking about?

It’s all so vague.

And thanks for that post, gvendo. It’s very concise and touches on just about everything that has been discussed here.

[Brick]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 9:11pm

Well, as invalid as these early reviews might be, as the producer claim, their argument is going to be just as invalid because of these critics have said they will return for the March 15 performance.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 9:33pm

TheatreDiva90016: I have written what I know. As I've written before, I have only seen the show the one time and my account of changes is only based on what I was told.

Personally, I think adding what seems will be 2 new scenes, a new flying sequence, new music and lyrics, cutting other music, a scene and tweaking much of the other dialogue seemed like a lot of work to me. (Still does, but it seems that isn't shared my some posters here.) Spider-Man ran 2hrs. and 45mins last Thursday and I was told that the plan is to bring it to 2hrs and 30mins while still adding another scene implies to me a lot more cuts and revisions.

In addition to these changes, I've been told that the actors have worked tirelessly with Ms. Taymor to clean up their interpretations of their character and their respective arcs. I assume with the purpose of bringing more clarity to what most people here claim a rather confusing second act.

I used the word "tremendous" and admit that is a personal judgement. I am just taken back by those who insist that there were and are to be "no" changes. This is just false. I realize that many of us read that Bono and The Edge said that there were to be no changes to the score. This was reported incorrectly. They have been and continue to work on the music.

My point is - and has always been - everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the tone and energy here is really ugly and I believe completely inappropriate. Many people have written about Ms. Taymor's ego and even more ridiculously here "motives". From many accounts, the Spider-Man company is extremely tight AND they are enamored with their director. The things that people have accused Ms. Taymor of is just truly malicious and unnecessary and in many cases downright lies.

* * *

I am sort of disgusted with this board, so if I don't respond as frequently, it may be because I'm sort of keeping my distance. You may all now once again jump on me for being a bad sport since my opinion isn't shared my most here. Not so, I don't mind the criticism when it's stated as opinion. I do mind the nastiness and speculation that I know some to be wrong and lies and others to be just creating and spreading rumors.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 10:09pm

So, your opinions are all based on here-say.

Okay, got it.

"I've been told that the actors have worked tirelessly with Ms. Taymor to clean up their interpretations of their character and their respective arcs."

Who are you getting all of this information from? The ushers?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 10:21pm

Tirelessly? Since they are in performance mode, they are very limited to how much they CAN rehearse. Which is why a few performances were cancelled when they pushed back the Opening date to it's current date. So those few weeks the cast put could have a little more rehearsal time.

And no one here is spreading rumors. I've seen the parts about no major changes, no music changes, etc, in a number of articles from various sources. Some of it was repeated again in one of the recent reviews (I think it was the UK review). So "someone" is putting that information out there.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 2/8/11 at 10:34pm

TheatreDiva90016: I am not a part of the Spider-Man company. In addition to reading much of the same misinformed reporting that you've read - and perhaps many here - personally, I spoke with several ushers (extensively with one who's seen every performance), two technicians on the show and Ms. Taymor herself. (Who by-the-way was gracious and kind and genuinely interested in discussing the work.)

And, please, what are your opinions based on if not "here-say"? You seem to have just as much information. In fact, I'm very curious have you've come to know Ms. Taymor's motives as well as those of the producers. From reading your posts one might assume that you've been having intimate conversations with their therapists.

Again, my point... Have your opinion. It's welcome here. I believe everyone's should be. I just find the comments that assume facts where there are none and intentions when they are just nasty speculation, inappropriate.

If you, in fact do have information that justifies your comments - other than those that are just opinion - fine. Please advise us of your inside knowledge. Otherwise, why spread and be part of malicious rumors and downright falsehoods?