Spiderman Preview Thread! — Page 32

Have I seen the show? No. Have I read Twitter reports? Yes. Has a friend of mine seen the show? Most likely. Did I see the 60 Minutes report when it aired? Definitely. Have I seen U2 live? More times than I can count and long before many of you were born. Do I laugh at a lot of you musical geeks who think auto-tuned boo-shizzle on Glee is somehow better than rock music? Heartily.

Do I think most of you who are clutching your pearls and claiming the show should be shut down for the sake of the acting community are a bunch of phonies? Absolutely. Do I think you wouldn't be hurling half the invectives at Julie Taymor if she were a visionary male director? Totally because so many of you are idiots.

Do I think most of you should just shut the fudge up and go listen to My Fair Lady cast recordings and masturbate nostalgically for a time you never knew? Absolutely.

Just my two cents! XO

---

Updated On: 12/4/10 at 02:36 AM

Dramamamma, you say "I have a ticket to see the show." AND " I can chose to NOT support the show without seeing ". What? I suggest you reexamine the definition of "support".

You can "play" devil's advocate all you want, but no matter what words you type regarding all the reasons why you "don't" "support" the show the FACT is you "have a ticket". Which means you bought a ticket. Which means you "support" the show.

There's an old Russian proverb, "A man is judged by his deeds, not his words."

Type away with all your words about Bway not being the place for spectacle or a superhero, or about not liking Taymor's work or "mindless entertainment". But the fact is your actions of buying a ticket either reveal you to be a hypocrite or just a person bull ****ting everybody to create drama, mamma.

Either way. since you haven't seen it and feel free to not just espouse your opinions but to also speak out against those that have seen the show already only help to prove that you are not "playing" but just plain old bull ****ting.

Songanddanceman2 writes "It's amazing how none of the positive tweets get posted"

No, no. They both have been.

Crewdude: THat was my point exactly: that I DO have a ticket so I am seeing the show...but I can still allow those that don't want to see it their opinion based on their tastes and word of mouth. I don't have an opinion of the show yet...I freely admit that.

I wasn't badmouthing anyone, or anything. I didn't claim that those thoughts were MINE which is why it IS playing Devil's Advocate. I used "I" simply as a device.

Are you that obtuse, really? Or do you just going around being argumentative to each and every person that posts here?

---

Updated On: 12/4/10 at 05:43 AM

""Do I think most of you should just shut the fudge up and go listen to My Fair Lady cast recordings and masturbate nostalgically for a time you never knew? Absolutely."

Hahahaha it's funny coz it's true"


I don't find it all funny. I find it snarky/stupid. Absolutely. (Just like your response). And I wonder why he said "most of you." Who gets the bye, here? The people who DID know that time? What should they do? (And I shudder to think of his/your answer to that one.)

I think some of you misread my post about "drooling" over the prospects of failure. I wasn't saying anything about supporting a show if it is indeed bad. What shocks me is that many truly see m to delight in the idea that it might fail. Even if the show is bad beyond belief, true theatre supporters should be sad that it didn't work -- not thrilled that any Broadway show failed and sitting around waiting like vultures gleefully pouring over any possibility of an early closing.

Do I think most of you should just shut the fudge up and go listen to My Fair Lady cast recordings and masturbate nostalgically for a time you never knew? Absolutely.

Or the original recording of Promises, Promises. So many speak with benevolence about the alleged team of chiropractors on duty to work on the cast because of the rigorous choreography. I don't think I've ever read a single comment that expressed concern for the actors. Why? Because it was a different time? No. Because Bennett is amongst the celebrated so he gets a pass. Taymor directed The Lion King. Therefore, she is the Andrew Lloyd Webber of Broadway directors.

---

In the words of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah." (Man, we humans sure love to hear ourselves yammer on.)

How about those of us who think it's *both* visionary and an utter disaster?

---

"I would rather see her try and fail than see half of the directors working today succeed by playing it safe."

With who's money? Yours?

At $65 million, I hope you're willing to put up the $100 million for the next.

Disneyland Magic Man - Is it your money? No, I seriously don't think so. But if a producer is willing to fund her efforts, good for them. She is constantly trying new things and, if I were a producer, I would choose to support her projects over a project that is a lot of stuff I've seen before.

It is one thing to be visionary -- I will give Taymor that in spades. But her failing seems to be that, when the budget allows, she gets *so* *very* *visionary* that there's no stopping her from throwing paint around the room by the brushloads and then expecting us to (1) applaud and (2) clean up the mess afterwards.

I love her design work. I think her costumes for LION KING and MAGIC FLUTE were sensational. But let's bring this back down to earth a bit, shall we? As a director, what did she bring to FLUTE aside from some very pretty stage pictures? Her costume and prop designs were all, as usual, magnificent, with a whole vocabulary -- but what did it have in common with Tsypin's set? Anything? He had this very cool plexiglass cube with all these great geometrics that were pretty much ignored by the director, while her work was anything *but* geometrics. So much of what happened in that opera was staged in front of the cube that it might as well not have been there at all. So what was the connection in this vision that I somehow missed?

Her film of her own stage production of TITUS really talks to the problem -- and it *is* a problem. The original stage production was, by necessity, small but intense, with, again, several amazing stage pictures. But then she makes it as a film and expands these intense pictures out of all proportion, to the point where the "vision" becomes almost borderline laughable. I'm sure she was trying to convey *something* in that film, but I'm not sure many people actually got it -- simply because it was vision laid on with a cement mixer's worth of mortar.

As for SPIDEY... again, I have not seen it. But the visuals I *have* seen, either in photos or the 60 Minutes piece or the trailer, suggest that she went out of control in a MAGIC FLUTE kind of way. Everything came down to the power of the visual in some arcane, mysterious way that we mere mortals shelling out 100+ bucks to see must not be sufficiently aware to understand. It has aspects that look amazing -- the giant LED screens, the pop up runway that hurtles Spidey across the theatre. But so what? Once more, that's Tsypin's work, not hers. He's giving us billboard-scaled imagery, while she's giving us sparklers. I guess that's visionary, but at a certain point, it's not. It's just artistic masturbation.

---

I am seeing it on Sunday matinee Whats the running time of the show now ?? thanks