Spiderman Preview Thread! — Page 16

>> "at the very least she knows how to create a cohesive vision"

I gather you've never seen the uncut version of ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. TITUS was a slapdash affair with so many "visual metaphors" that it made no sense at all unless you already knew the play. And I doubt many people here saw GREEN BIRD, which, lovely as it was, was a mess with no through-line, just a lot of "Aint this cool?" moments.

Sorry, no. She's a genius when it comes to ritual theatre design, but I would have to think long and hard before turning a 65-mil production over to her.

---

If this has been mentioned, my apologies. I have been trying to read everything posted since page 13 as I stopped reading last night around that page.

Regarding reviews of theatre, cd's and movies...Someone posted that cd's and movies are reviewed the day they come out. Well of course they are. They are a finished product. My cd is not going to change after I buy it nor is the movie going to be different from opening day to day 3 or 10. What I do agree with is that theatre preview performances should be cheaper since they are tweaking the show. People seeing previews up until the show is "frozn" may not be seeing the exact same show as the critics and opening night audience. On the flip side of that, preview audiences may get to see scenes or hear songs that may not end up in the production presented to critics. But still, I think the preview performances should be discounted. I was reading the comments after Riedel's column and feel bad for that person that had the discount ticket that the show would not honor for another performance. The person was told that he/she had to pay full price even though the show the ticket was for had been cancelled. Seems they may have honored the full priced tickets though. JMO

---

"It’s a shame when people who know little about theatre end up accidently booking for a preview but it’s not those people who we hear moaning about it, the ones who annoy me the MOST are people on boards like this who watch a preview that is bumpy etc and then moan about it. You ALL know on here what previews are, you know the technical complications of this show and what they are attempting etc so if you chose to see a preview (especially a first one) and then thought twice about it when the show was not perfect then you have nobody to blame but yourselves."

There's a difference between a first preview in which there's a 5-minute scene change glitch... and a first preview running nearly four hours with five lengthy technical stops.

That isn't a "first preview". That's a tech run-through, in front of paying audience member who probably, no matter what they know about previews, did not plan on a sitting around waiting for Spider-Man to get back in the air over and over and over again.

The preview process is to make sure everything runs smoothly and that the show is working cohesively. It's a time for minor artistic adjustment, or at most the cutting or replacing of a set, costume, or song. If you're in front of a paying audience, you should be ready to present a product worthy of the admission. Not apologizing and presenting a 3 hour and 44 minute tech run without an ending.

---

leefowler-You just made me laugh out loud with your #5 on the list.

---

So basically, the consensus of this thread is that this show garners the same response as every other show during previews on Broadway. Some people like it and some people don't. And some people were going to hate it no matter what.

Got it.

---

Kad a preview is to work out kinks and problems, Spiderman was clearly going to have more than most with it standing as the most technical show on Broadway, people on here know that, people still booked, nobody can pretend its a shock that the show had tech issues which stopped the show. Everybody is reacting like it's never happened before and Spiderman and the producers should burn in hell because they did what so many other shows have done before. It's a new set of challenges for Spiderman, nothing like this has ever been done on Broadway, with new challenges will come new problems, that's what happened. It happened during Titanic as well, Gone with the Wind ran 4 and a half hours on first preview and so on and so on. You want to see a finished show, dont book for a preview.

and to this


"(1) Whenever someone walks out on stage attached to a wire, they're going to fly. If they have a ring around their waist, with several wires attached, they're going to fly over the audience. If there's no wire, they won't fly. For the most part, the flying isn't very impressive, except for the battle scene between Spider-Man and Green Goblin. The flying in American Idiot is much classier. And don't EVEN bring up Peter Pan. Or KA"

Well damn, if only they could fly for real without those pesky wires. And from everyone elses accounts the flying was stunning.


"(2) Why do reporters in comic book musicals dress and talk like it's 1943?"

Because they do, that's the comic book style, just like people bursting in to song in musicals, it's what they do. The show has done the same, it's sticking to it's roots, that's no bad thing.

"(3) I thought the tone would be similar to the more gritty comic book movies, like "The Dark Knight". Rather, they've gone fore a sensibility more akin to the last two Batman movies that Joel Schumacher directed."

Well thats you own expectations, nobody said anything about the show going down the Dark Night route in tone

"(4) People used to always talk about how great it would be for rock and pop writers to create their own Broadway shows. Do we still feel that, after Capeman (Paul Simon) Tarzan (Phil Collins) Dance Of The Vampires (Jim Steinman) and now this?"

Yes, why not?, because a few have failed? (also the score had very little to do with the failiure of a few of them)

"(5) Did Julie Taymor really think it would look cool to stage the cage match with Peter Parker battling what looks like a huge plastic sex toy with a thyroid problem?"

Can't comment

(6) When faced with the most pivotal moment in the show (Peter Parker getting bitten on the neck by a radioactive spider) is it particularly inventive to dangle a spider on a long string from the top of the proscenium? Especially when said spider looks like it was purchased from a magic shop in Chinatown.

Can't comment

(7) Having just seen "The Nutcracker In 3D", it was surprising to see two awful musicals in a row that feature an annoying Rastafarian drummer.

Cant comment

( Whenever a set piece came out drawn in "comic book style", I kept thinking of the TV musical version of "It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's Superman".

Really, because the set pieces have been praied to high heavens after last night, especially the pop up effect

(9) Big, complicated action scenes are actually very well suited for big budget movies. Big budget musicals...not so much

Again, people (other than a couple) have all said the action stuff is great, the book and some of the score was a problem. And live action sequences can be thrilling.

(10) If Julie Taymor is a perfectionist, why isn't Spider-Man perfect?

Stupid comment

---

"I gather you've never seen the uncut version of ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. TITUS was a slapdash affair with so many "visual metaphors" that it made no sense at all unless you already knew the play. And I doubt many people here saw GREEN BIRD, which, lovely as it was, was a mess with no through-line, just a lot of "Aint this cool?" moments."

I have not seen the uncut Across the Universe. I didn't care to as I didn't like the theatrical cut (the visuals were lovely but I didn't feel invested in the film save the funeral scene near the opening). I did, however, love Titus to pieces but fully understand those who don't. I've never even heard of Green Bird, but a cursory search leaves me very interested.

I think the problem with Taymor for wide commercial appeal is that she assumes that people A)know all the references she makes, B)are open to deconstructing visual metaphors while a performance/film is going on, and C)want to be challenged the entire way through a production. There is no breathing room in her vision and I respect that. I'd say she's more crazy than genius, though, in the vein of a Laurie Anderson. When it works, it works really well; when it doesn't, it's unbearable.

"So basically, the consensus of this thread is that this show garners the same response as every other show during previews on Broadway. Some people like it and some people don't. And some people were going to hate it no matter what.

Got it."

Haha, my thought exactly. Wish there was a story to this show, but it looks like there is not. So, it's just a big pageant with interchangeable sequences.

I'd see it, but much like the last comic-to-stage adaptation it seems like a missed opportunity.... only a lot more expensive.

---

Actually, this thread seems to consist mostly of people who actually saw the show, and didn't enjoy much of it, versus people who didn't see the show, but are angry at anyone who would criticize a work in progress.

I would be interested in reading some posts from people who actually saw the show, who have constructive ideas about how it might be fixed (and NOT people whose only familiarity with the show is reading these posts and seeing the feature on 60 Minutes). Having seen it last night, I can't think of anything I would do to improve it, other than cutting down the length of the damn thing.

---

"It sounds to be like Julie Taymore and Spiderman are the James Cameron and Avatar of Broadway.

Both artists received major flack for the amount of money they were spending. Both are visual spectacles with a terrible script.

Let's see who is laughing all the way to the bank..."

The difference between the two is that Avatar had a story you could follow, and Cameron didn't have to keep paying for running costs or cover ups for people getting hurt.

OK, I can ignore the comments about stoppages and I understand the concept of its being a first dress/run through/preview. But what really is getting to me (unless I missed it) is a single comment from anyone that says, "wow, the music is great" or "super score" or anything other than that basically the music is boring, dull, and even "ugly" -- that's upsetting to me. It IS a musical, right?

Mister Matt,

I have to say I disagree about the failures of Tarzan and Dance Of The Vampires having nothing to do with their scores (even if the scores weren't the main problem). And in the case of Tarzan, although there were a few songs from the movie, almost the entire score was newly created by Phil Collins. But you're right in one sense, since if the score to Tarzan was brilliant, the show would have probably had the same fate.

My point was that the talent to write pop hits doesn't translate into an ability to create a Broadway score. But you're right about Elton John. He is one pop superstar to truly achieve Broadway success. Is there anyone else I've forgotten about? (maybe Duncan Sheik...)

---

If Bono and Edge have in fact fled the country I only wish they'd had the courtesy to flush before leaving.