Spiderman 2.0 — Page 6

Mr. Matt, by your definition if I could get an audience to pay to watch me take a dump down stage right in a Broadway house, that's a Broadway show. Not so simple I'm afraid.

It is precisely that simple. If you took a dump down stage right at the Snapple, it would be an Off-Broadway show. Subjective connotations of images inspired by the word "Broadway" doesn't change the basic fact that any show produced in a Broadway house, regardless of material, is a Broadway show by definition.

---

Caught the new production last night - I guess its more coherent than Taymor's vision, but my God is it boring. Seriously, it makes PEOPLE IN THE PICTURE look like the BOOK OF MORMON in comparison. I spent most of the time thinking about what I should wear on the bus to DC to see FOLLIES today.

For all the mess that 1.0 was, I greatly preferred it - at least you had no idea wherethehell the show was headed in its crazy second act; and the stuff with Arachne and the shoes was camp heaven.

I suppose the reboot may be more commercial, but I still think it will get terrible reviews.

Rush now includes first 2 rows of the center orchestra

Is how much Spiderman material there is to choose from. I understand Spiderman 1602 isn't going to be it, as fun a read as it was, but how bold would it be if Act one ended with the death of Gwen Stacy?

If you have an overlong, boring show, and have run out of time to make extensive revisions, then the solution is to make the boredom less protracted by cutting it. There's a lot of dead weight here that needs to be excised.

One of the major problems of the new version is it takes much too long to get into gear. Too much unnecessary exposition, too much background explanations Get Spiderman into his suit as quickly as possible and get the show going

To start off the show with the Arachne scene is a big mistake, and immediately digs the show into a hole. People have come to see the story of Spiderman, not Arachne, and this is what the first scene is devoted to? You have to capture an audience's interest from the get go, and here the show is immediately throwing it away. I understand they wanted to retain the effect of the weaving scene, but I just don't think it's worth the negatives. If they cut Arachne entirely like they did the Geeks, think of the dead time that could be shaved off.


But since they seem intent on keeping this scene, and thus, the character, there are other early scenes that could be done away with. "Bullying by Numbers" is a bad scene and song, and adds nothung but dead time. You see Parker taunted by the other kids in the classroom. that's sufficient to get the point across.


Then the scene in the lab is also inert and without interest The Green Goblin is interesting, the scientist is not. And the song is horrendous and needs to go.

The solution would be is to change the classroom scene to a science class, with a lesson on spiders, where Peter can explain the myth of Arachne, we could see the tableau, and then can say he's looking forward to the class visit to the scientist's lab since he's a specialist in spiders. Someone can enter the class with a sudden announcement that the class trip has been canceled because on the news they announced an accident at the lab. There was an explosion, the scientist's wife was killed, but they can't find the scientist, and one of the spiders also is missing. Have the spider come down and bite Peter, and
show the Green Goblin peering into the classroom window, and then get that show going!

After Eight-
A late point of attack for this show is not a bad idea- everyone knows the origin of Spider-Man, for god's sake. We don't need to know his origin story. Again. But your suggestion is just unwise playwriting. Urinetown put it well: "Too Much Exposition". All telling and no showing is just as boring as all showing and no telling. And such an exposition-heavy scene would be so obvious, heavy-handed, and boring.

A smarter production team would've had the story start with Spider-Man already created and done something from there. Spider-Man 2 was the most successful of the films because we didn't spend half the film establishing who the hell Spider-Man is or why he is. We got a little exposition about Doc Ock and then a very strong film with strong character arcs. There is no reason why the musical couldn't have done that, aside from Taymor wanting to put her mark on the whole Spider-Man mythos.

It's clear they are just taking what Taymor created it, doing some pruning and some remolding and then calling it art. But at it's heart, it sounds like this thing is mostly the same, now instead of being bizarre, crazy, bad, and kinda boring, it's now just boring.
If they want to make a Spider-Man musical that works, they're gonna need to scrap it and start anew, which is just completely unfeasible.

---

I caught the show last night and I enjoyed it. Sure, it isn't the best Broadway show out there but the set design and flying sequences did indeed WOW me. I agree with the story dragging at times, and I absolutely despised the book. The dialogue was horrendous at some parts and I am VERY disappointed at U2's songs. I really liked Arachne's songs and all of the Peter Parker/Mary Jane Watson duets.

"Boy Falls From the Sky" was also one of the highlights. I read somewhere on this thread that there were no memorable songs and the person who posted that comment said that all they got out of the show was the guitar riffs, which I entirely agree with.

That being said however, I really liked Reeve Carney, Jennifer Damiano and TV's performances. Patrick Page was also AMAZING as the Green Goblin. All in all, it is indeed a very tourist-y show and kind of theme park-like, but it was a fun show nonetheless.

Kad,

I agree with you. There should be no exposition at all. But they seem intent on keeping Arachne just for that tableau. My suggested solution tried to take that into account. It might also be boring, but it would be a lot shorter than all the boring stuff excised, so that would be a net gain. And one of the problems with keeping that Arachne tableau, is in that tableau, the myth of Arachne is told, not shown. What a deadly way to begin!

Whatever they end up doing, they absolutely must cut that awful military song.

I read in an interview, I think William Phillip McKennly(sp) was saying how they wanted to change it to get more of the tourist which in mind met more "spectacle" and since his background is the big splashy stuff...then the producers and creative team have done their job, if that is what they are going for!

I wish Jennifer Damiano had a 11 o'clock number in this production. Her talent is somewhat wasted in this show. But at least they expanded her role more now...

Anyone feel they were just watching "How the GRinch stole New York?"

I can't remove Patrick Page's performance out of my head with Grinch.
Which he did so well...with a better book and score.

And now...I just hear and see Grinch's voice and mannerisms with an updated costume sans Santa coat and hat.....but with spiky arms and hands....

same humor, same eye rolls...and smile and vocal tone.

I agree with Jordan. There is not much spectacle. If they had kept all the talk about the millions spent on the production quiet I think people would have enjoyed the show slightly more. It's still as boring as Spiderman 1.0 only less confusing. Having now seen Wonderland and Spiderman in the same week, I think the production elements of Wonderland are better. The choreography in Wonderland is also more exciting and varied than Spiderman.