Spiderman Preview Thread!- Page 14

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 1:40am

I personally think that the box seats would be too far to the side for this show. The center is where you want to be.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 1:44am

Of course the NYTimes covered the show. They should have covered it.In fact they should review it. I'm really over this "don't review the show until we tell you to, during the week we tell you to, and don't publish it until after the night we call our "opening night".

If a review is supposed to guide the public in helping them choose where to spend their money when picking a show then if tickets are being offered for purchase the review should be written and printed.

This "courtesy" needs to stop! You are charging a LOT of money. I want to know what I'm in for before I plunk down the cash.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 1:48am

"This "courtesy" needs to stop! You are charging a LOT of money. I want to know what I'm in for before I plunk down the cash."

No one is forcing you to see a show in Previews. It has nothing to do with that. If you don't feel comfortable spending money on something you don't know someone else's opinion of yet, then don't. I mean, you can certainly argue the merits of charging full price to previews, but holding reviews till opening night allows a show to work out certain things with an audience there. It's an important step in the process.

Now, it remains to be seen how Previews will be used in this particular case, but that's another discussion...

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 1:53am

Hey Capn Hook, your story of the English trio is only one example of why it is so WRONG for directors and producers to put on a performance, charge money for it, a LOT of money, and try to excuse away anything that's wrong as saying "it was a preview,"

Spiderman has an intense and massive built-in child base. Imagine the family of a 9 year old boy that has begged and pleaded to go see spiderman. The family has skrimped and saved to get tickets for the family. They go and they encounter a disaster like tonight. Makes you wonder what Stan Lee, Spiderman's creator, thinks about the show especially about this "preview" and how it disappointed so many kids....well, at least the ones that could stay awake for the 3 hour 15 minutes.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 2:10am

sondhead, no one is "forcing" anyone to see any Broadway show. But I will say it again. The reviews exist for one reason and one reason only, to guide the public in choosing where to spend money.This is the reason why reviewers have a job. They are not an extension of the PR company for a show. If a show has a ticket for sale- reviewers have an obligation to let the public know what the show is like BEFORE they spend $300 for a seat.

A review for a movie appears in the press the same day that you can pay money and walk in to a theatre and see the movie. With the theatre ticket prices of today, there is NO justification for a review not to be written and published from a "first preview". The show is selling tickets to the public therefore it is a "show" ...a product being sold to the public.

A review is published for CDs the day , if not earlier, that the public has a chance to buy it. CDs and movies have a price that is nothing compared to the price for a "preview".

You want to "refine your artistic vision" fine do that. But do it BEFORE you charge money for someone to see it. You want "audience reaction" to your show- that's what an "invited dress" is for.

I will say it again and I stand by it. Reviewers not to stop extending this "courtesy" to shows. If you let an audience in and charge them money to see your "show/preview" you have a professional obligation to actually perform a "show" and not a "rehearsal".

[A Director]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 2:10am

crewdude - You joined this site tonight, so perhaps you know little about theatre. Broadway shows have had preview performances for years and years.

[A Director]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 2:13am

wonderwaiter - Who cares what David Merrick would do, he's dead!

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 2:24am

Actually A Director, I have been working professionally in theatre/film/television for over 30 years. So I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe I do "know little about theatre".

I actually do know that Broadway shows have had preview performances for years and years. I've worked quite a few of them over the years and years. That doesn't mean I think charging people money to see these rehearsals is right. That doesn't mean I think people that see these "previews" should not go public about what they paid money to see.

It also doesn't mean that I believe anyone that speaks ill about a show is a "vulture".

When I chose to create a profile that masked my identity before I chose to write on here doesn't make my opinion any less valid than yours or than any of the rest of this sites "members" that are fans of Broadway or that work on Broadway or were in the audience tonight at this travesty of a public performance or asked to pay money for any "previews" that they are asked to excuse away as "a work in progress".

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 2:39am

"wonderwaiter - Who cares what David Merrick would do, he's dead!"

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:00am

See, wonderwaiter, I would have had the same reaction about crewdude. What is it about this people who suddenly appear to trash a show on the night of a first preview? Is crewdude another incarnation of kyle4 (because there's that whole "work in progress" theme), or just another attention whore?
Updated On: 11/29/10 at 03:00 AM

[julesboogie]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:05am

Crewdude, i have to respectfully disagree. The system is not perfect. However alot of people love the idea of seeing previews, and then seeing the finished product. For those who don't maybe 5 minutes of research would better help them decide when and where to spend their money. (To see what HAS actually been reviewed.)

I dont think that 5 technically driven stops is acceptable...but testing things on a real, paying, melting pot of an audience, is much different than testing on a gaggle of friends, well wishers, and theatre enthusiasts that would attend a dress rehearsal.

Its a tough thing to solve. You need several nights(and in some cases weeks), to learn what you cant learn in one dress reh. And since you know the economics of the business, you know those weeks cant be full of papered audiences. And in most cases, the show people are seeing is what the creative team is hoping will be the finished product. But sometimes after seeing how it lands, changes have to be made.

How would you fix these things?

[PReeves2]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:14am

i willingly paid over $100 to see a preview tonight and, lucky for me, i knew what i was buying. perhaps people should do a little research before they shell out cash to something they know nothing about and then come on this board and gripe about it.

[binau]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:17am

I don't think people should have to research whether they expect professionalism in a Broadway show, lol.

[PReeves2]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:21am

there was nothing unprofessional about tonight. it was a preview anything can happen in a preview and it was well explained before the first downbeat of the conductor.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:24am

ghostlight, i appreciate you throwing the word "attention" in there before you called me a "whore". I can assure you I am neither nor a combination of both. I really thought I could just state my opinion like your people and the conversation would keep moving forward.
I am no "incarnation" of anyone. I am only one person that decided maybe I could actually "join" this site finally after reading it so many years. There was finally a topic that i not only felt passionate enough to join but to also write about.

I do have to admit that I was like many many others that just lurk this board and only read it and never "join" . A chief reason being that this is not a very hospitable board to any one that is new, as is being demonstrated by several people on here so far. If anyone new dares to "join" the board/discussion their contribution is either ignored or they are ridiculed as "being new" so they can't really know anything or they must have some nefarious reason for why they "joined" when they did or for saying what they say.

Thank you for welcoming this "whore" so warmly to your community.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:45am

Preeves and Julesboogie. there are two issues. Charging money for a preview/rehearsal and in this day and age of instant media why should any reviewer be expected to not review any performance they see, be it "preview" or "press week" or "opening night" or "performance number 300" or "3,000" . FACT: If you are going to let people sit in an audience and charge them money they will talk about the show. The will twitter about it, They will blog about it. They will post on this board their reactions to it. Why should the print media be expected to hold back their opinion?

You both seem to forget that Broadway tickets are being sold to more than the little tiny community of theatre "fans" that would "take the time to research" what they are going to go see.

FACT : A show that sells tickets to a family that just wants to see Spiderman on "Broadway" has no idea that they are paying to watch rehearsal. It does not matter that someone tells them that at the downbeat. These people have net been following the cancellation of other previews they only know they bought tickets for a SHOW and are expecting to see exactly that. Not an evening of stopping and fixing.

FACT : The public is being sold tickets to a show, a professional Broadway theatre experience. Again, I say, the vast majority of tickets being bought for Spiderman are by people that have no idea that they are going to be seeing a rehearsal and a fully ready to perform and charge money show. They are not theatre "fans" or Broadway nuts that read every website about the show. They hear "Broadway" and "Spiderman" and they think this is the best of the best of live theatre they can see. They plunk down their money for the Broadway brand and the Spiderman brand. For producers to have allowed the public to see this evening's atrocious excuse of a show causes irreparable harm to the Broadway brand and the Spiderman brand.

Disagree with me all you want, Respectfully or otherwise, these are my opinions. Opinions are not right or wrong, they are just different opinions. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[Route9Colleague]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 3:49am

I am really sorry you did not understand that tonight was the first preview performance of a new show, the most expensive musical production in Broadway history. It has received a lot of publicity. There are few people who are interested in the theatre and Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark who do not know it. Furthermore, by all accounts an announcement was made before the performance began. If you did not want to see a work-in-progress, the announcement was your opportunity to get up and get a refund, or better yet, to sell your tickets to those eager fans who were outside the theatre hoping to buy last-minute tickets. If you are the experienced theatre professional you claim to be, you should know better.

I am really sorry you were disappointed and could not enjoy the special performance for the truly once-in-a-lifetime experience it is. However, your logic defies logic. By your logic critics should simply review shows when ever they feel like it, or perhaps you mean when ever you tell them to review a show. Live theatre is not finished until it is refined before a live audience. Even motion pictures are frequently test-screened for audiences before actually "opening." Sometimes motion-picture test screenings are free, but oftentimes they are part of a double-feature for which full price was charged. But there is really no comparison: Motion pictures may cost a lot of money to make, but a live Broadway show costs a lot more money to perform than a motion picture costs to project. Live theatre is a different animal, and a special one. No new show, especially a a musical, but also plays without music, can be finished until it has played in front of an audience for a while. Playing for paying audiences is necessary because of the costs. The show you saw tonight is undoubtedly very different from the next performance of the show. Much will change and much will be fixed for the next performance. And much will change and be fixed between the next performance and the one that follows it. And so on and so on for at least several weeks while the show is created. Only so much creation of a live show can be done in the vacuum of a rehearsal room. Some shows seem great in the rehearsal room, but fall flat the first time they are performed in the theatre for an audience. If they were reviewed at the first performance they might all die and never reach the greatness some of them achieve. If you have any interest in or fondness for Broadway and its rich legacy of great shows, you should appreciate and respect the preview process, because almost no classic, esteemed, highly regarded, great Broadway musical would have met the standard you insist it should. If things were done your way, there would be no The Lion King, no Oklahoma!, no Gypsy, no A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, no Dreamgirls, no A Chorus Line, no Annie, and on and on and on. Theatre critics understand it and generally allow creators to finish their work, and generally, so do movie critics.

If you wanted a finished product, you should not have gone to the very first public performance ever. It is very different when a show tours, because in most cases the touring production has been finished. Still, even many touring shows need a technical rehearsal and possibly a dress rehearsal in each new theatre, and probably even several previews. And that is for a show that is refined, finished, and set in a production that has been up and running for a while.

A new show needs time to be created. Even if you are disappointed, you should not be seeking to condemn Spider-Man and all future Broadway musicals.
Updated On: 11/29/10 at 03:49 AM

[binau]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 4:19am

I'm not saying there should be print reviews for first previews (for shows that are running for possibly hundreds or thousands of performances it seems unfair that the first couple should reflect the entire run)....

I don't know if GYPSY et al. would have had to stop the show 5 times, have a 40 minute intermission etc.... 'back in the day'.

I mean, I know it's a first preview - but isn't the point of the preview to work out small glitches and test the show with an audience? The problems with the Spider Man (and Women on the Verge) first preview seem to be that the show just isn't ready to be seen by an audience. Because both did postpone the opening I guess there was nothing they could have done except postpone even longer, so I'm not really sure if there was a better thing they could have done. I just don't think that when you pay so much to see a "Broadway show", even if it is a preview, it should be considered acceptable to see what seems more like a dress rehearsal than an actual performance.

Maybe I have got the wrong idea though (I've only been to one first preview - La Cage, which had it much easier since the show was already written and that production had already performed with Hodge etc..).....can anyone give some other (preferably older) examples of first previews that went the way Spider-Man and Verge did? Is this a new thing or not?

Updated On: 11/29/10 at 04:19 AM

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 4:21am

Route9colleague, thank you for your well thought out and well written response.

However, as I have said, having worked Broadway, Film and Television for over 30 years, I understood what I was in for, I understand the preview process. But the world has changed. Costs have changed. The price we expect an audience to pay has changed.

The comparison of film and theatre is valid. Film costs a LOT more than theatre. Using your analogy of the cost of the projectionist and comparing it to the cost of an entire Broadway show is not very accurate. The job/function of the projectionist at the movie is more akin to the usher at the theatre. Films are tested on many on lot tests of "suits" before they are given their "free" test screenings.

You're right. I agree with you an many things, Working in a rehearsal hall is not the same as working in the theatre itself. But it's cheaper. You move a show into a theatre and now the producers have to pay crews and house staff. The reason they speed thru tech to get to first preview is to get money coming in to start paying for things. Shows no longer take the time they did to make sure a show was ready for an audience because producers don't want to pay that cost when they know they can tell the public to excuse things away as a "work in progress". That is NOT the way it was for almost every single show you listed. Trust me as one who has been there and done it. Use the excuse of modern technology taking longer, or more costly crews, use any excuse you want, but the facts are that producers have gotten the public convinced it's ok to pay to watch a rehearsal.

Again, the world has changed. Anyone with a computer or a phone is now a critic. Producers need to go back to the days of paying for the longer tech it takes to make a show audience ready. The notion that it's ok for a preview to be anything less than the best that the show intends to be is just not how things were done nor how they should be done.

ANyone that goes to ANY performance of a Broadway show has the right to expect a performance not a rehearsal.

If you are charging people for a product, it should be finished. If I pay to go to a movie , I am not told to come back in 6 weeks when we finish it. If I buy a cd, they don't tell me to come back in 6 weeks when we rework it. When you buy a book, 6 weeks later it hasn't been rewritten.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 4:26am

"I guess there was nothing they could have done except postpone even longer, so I'm not really sure if there was a better thing they could have done."

Yes, there's a better way. Producers have to learn that they need to schedule longer rehearsal and tech time in the theatres before an audience sees the show. Yes, it costs money, Yes that means more weeks without money coming in, But in this day and age of twitter, and the internet and chatboards like this, the PR damage that was done on a night like could have been avoided.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 4:33am

"By your logic critics should simply review shows when ever they feel like it.."

Why shouldn't they? The show is selling tickets. The job of a reviewer is to inform the public of what is out there so they can make an informed purchase. A show is a product. Consumer Reports reviews products whenever they want to not when the manufacturer tells them to.

Plus anyone with a cellphone or a computer is a reviewer now days, why limit the professional reviewers to only get their reviews out when the manufacturer/producer says they can?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 4:51am

1. I agree it's ridiculous to charge full price for previews.
2. I agree that not everyone that attends previews REALIZES the chance of interruptions and of changes to the product.


What I don't agree with is the vitriol you seem to have toward "us", the board. WE are not responsible for what has happened here. When did anyone call the early critics "vultures"? Of course, non-professionals are going to write/talk about what they saw last night. (And some folks LOVED it.) That door swings both ways now: it can help OR hurt the show.

The reason that reviewers WAIT is because they DO understand the process. And some critics have already given us info about what is happening or rumored to be happening. Some will mention things that happened tonight. But they will wait the until the APPROPRIATE time to pass complete judgement because they do not want to be part of the the "PR damage that was done", unless the END product deserves it.

Theater is unlike any other art form since it is performed live. You cannot compare it to a cd or a movie, because it is already dead. You might have the beginings of an obituary for famous people once they turn ill or reach a certain age, but you don't print the thing until they die. Well, you don't print a review for live theater until it OPENS.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 5:07am

Wow, this thread is insane. ANYWAY, here are my thoughs, type on my phone as I head toward the airport for my 6 am flight back to Chicago (and yes, I am heading straight to work from the airport--gonna be a long day):

-The show is incredible to look at. The scenic design, projections, and flying are amazing.

-The score is awful, and I couldn't understand the majority of the lyrics. It's THEATER, people. Enunciate.

-The entire second act was completely non-sensical. Truly a narrative mess.

-The faming device of the comic book geeks needs to go. I'd hate to see actors lose their jobs, but they'll be better off without this show anyway.

-The cast, overall, is good. Natalie Mendoza is great. I feel sorry for Patrick Page.

-It's an entertaining show. But while it's a technical marvel, it's an artistic mess. I'm still glad I saw it though. It truly is unlke anything you will ever see on a Broadway stage. Or above and around a Broadway theater, for that matter.

[crewdude]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 5:23am

Drammamamma, You will find on page 12 of this thread a post by "A Director" that reads

"Posted On:11/28/10 at 11:59
I see the Broadway Vultures are in full flight tonight. After feasting on WOTV, they've dropped a load and moved on to Spiderman. Pity, what little lives you lead!"

That would be when someone referred to people posting their opinions as "vultures."
Hence my response that anyone paying the price of admission has the right to an opinion and the right to express. If it is negative or contrary to your opinion that does not make them "vultures'.

The same "member" and a couple others questioned my right to have my opinion based on my just "joining" the site. That I "knew little about theatre" based on when i "joined". As well, as calling me a "fame seeking whore" or some other degrading term and trying to imply that I was some other "member" in "disguise". If you took my response to their overtly unwelcoming and intentionally degrading posts to a "newbie" as "vitriol", I apologize to you.

My response was directed to the individuals making those posts. I thought when i hit the "reply to this post" button that things would actually indicate what post i was "replying" to.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/29/10 at 5:48am

The "reply to this message" button is useless.