Spiderman Preview Thread!- Page 36

[jdtp12]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 5:01pm

As far as I know they won't have 8 performances a week until they open. Unless I'm mistaken, haven't they canceled almost all of their matinees until opening night?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 5:01pm

Oh, I don't know. I can totally see this turning into another Wicked. Of course, the realization is that is HAS to turn into Wicked and and be at 85 or 90% capacity pretty regularly.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 5:23pm

I dont see how people are comparing this to WICKED.
I know WICKED is not a well liked show on these boards so I'm going to tread lightly here haha but WICKED (again...I'm speaking about the general audience...not the people on these boards) is a show that of course has the glitz and glam and the bells and stuff...but it also has a story the audience can follow, characters the audience falls in love with and music that sweeps them away. Spiderman at this point from the general audience reaction doesnt have any of this except for the glitz and glam and that is not going to carry it for long. If production value is what carries a show then Tarzan, Shrek, Little Mermaid, Women in White, 9 to 5, Dance of the Vampires and many other shows would be still running

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 5:26pm

And I just want to clarify so this does not turn into a "Wicked sucks" argument...that I was just using WICKED as an example cuz its been compared a lot to Spiderman...a comparison I do not see. I know people on here hate it...but the show is obviously warranted if its been doing so well for so long. Spiderman does have the potential...but at this point, it is lacking both in score and book.

[corkystclair2]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 7:33pm

Here's another comment to fan the flames here!

I have nothing to say about Spiderman "for" or "against" other than hoping that it does well because a ton of people will lose money if it doesn't - people who didn't have any input on the content. The show crashing and burning will not be good for the business as a whole. That money just disappears and it causes people to tighten-up investing in musicals going forward.

Count how many shows are closing in January and think of the numbers of people being put out of work by this. Happy New Year... you've been downsized.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 8:44pm

Being on another continent doesn't inhibit anyone from composing or tweaking songs during previews, especially with today's communication technology.

But they're not watching the show nightly, getting a sense of what is working and what isn't. The only person doing that is Queen Julie, and no one else involved with the show seems to have the gumption to tell her that act 2 is a total mess. Also, if Queen Julie is the only one giving notes to Bono and co., then you have another problem. Bottom line: the composer of a major new musical should be present during previews.

[helloworld2]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 9:08pm

But they're not watching the show nightly, getting a sense of what is working and what isn't.

Actually, I read an article that said that Michael Cohl (sp?) was filming the show and streaming over the internet the next day. Not ideal, but it's not as if they're burying their heads in the sand. They're trying. I still think that they should just bring some other people in, but I don't think that'll even come close to happening.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 9:24pm

The idea that Ms. Taymor isn't aware that the second act isn't playing well, is preposterous. She knows what she's doing and I'm confident that she's trying her best to fix the problems. Give her a break. Why all the hate?

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 9:32pm

The idea that Ms. Taymor isn't aware that the second act isn't playing well, is preposterous.

But does she really? This show was supposed to open 9 months ago, was the second act still the same? Is this the improvement?

Hop off Taymor's tit, sweety.
Updated On: 12/6/10 at 09:32 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 9:38pm

Nah, no bitchy queens here...

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 10:28pm

Wow... I am just amazed how how bitchy and tacky some people can be.

[crewdude]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 11:31pm

"The idea that Ms. Taymor isn't aware that the second act isn't playing well, is preposterous. She knows what she's doing and I'm confident that she's trying her best to fix the problems. Give her a break. Why all the hate?"

Let's start with the fact that the show has spent YEARS in development/"master class"/workshop and supposed to OPEN NIMNE MONTHS AGO.

Then let's acknowledge that she has $65,000,000 "developing" the show.

And in ALL that TIME AND MONEY she didn't stop and say "The second act is a piece of artistic masturbation where I abandon any resemblance of a plot line".

"knows what she's doing"???? On Nov 23 in an interview to the NYTimes she admitted she "DIDN"T KNOW HOW TO STAGE" the ending for a show that she was going to start charging people money to see in just NINE DAYS. WHat the hell did she do with all the money and time that she waited for people to pay money to see a performance before she became "aware that the second act isn't playing well."

It's not that it's not "playing well". It's that the second act, especially, is written poorly. That it is a piece of "artistic visionary" masturbation.

Posted: 12/6/10 at 11:44pm

Hi! I've been a stocker on this board until now. My first official post.

OK, I get that the reviews are less than perfect, but we only get to New York once a year and this year we are traveling with 2 little boys as well as my teen daughter. All of the kids really want to see Spiderman. I'm crossing my fingers that the "issues" are worked out before we visit in the spring.

Here is my question . . . It is seating. Available seating seems to be pretty limited in spite of the reviews. The tickets are horribly expensive for families. We cant chance rush, so we are going for the 150 or lower tickets. From reading the thread, it seems that the back rows are out due to very limited visibility. tickets. If you have gone to the show, would you please share where your seat was located and the + and - of the view you had. Thank you soooooo much:o)

[leefowler]

Posted: 12/6/10 at 11:59pm

This is a little bitchy, so forgive me...

People keep acting as if Julie Taymor has created an amazing body of work, so OF COURSE, Spider-Man will me a smash, if only we'll let her do her job. Well, forgive me, what is this based on? In her entire career (she's 57) she's created one, count 'em, one hit, The Lion King. Okay, it's a gigantic hit, but it's not like she has a track record. In general, she's known for works that, though occasionally visually interesting, are overall failures. Especially in the story-telling department.

Compared to people like Susan Stroman and Jack O'Brien, she's actually had very little success. So why are people trusting her that she'll make Spider-Man a huge hit?

Updated On: 12/7/10 at 11:59 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 12:26am

Has anyone seen the Spiderman commercial playing in the back of cabs? It is like a news report touting the fact that Spiderman sold a million dollars worth of tickets after the first preview. They interview people attending the first preview one guy says, with a big smile," This is the third time I bought tickets!" Sort of suggests that it is the third time he has seen the show, not that the show was canceled two times on him! I laughed my butt off!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 12:37am

1. I don't hate Wicked. (I don't love it, but I certainly don't hate it.

2. My comparison to Wicked had NOTHING to do whatsoever with content, but only Audience reaction/box office success. That it might be another Wicked just meant to imply the box office income: Wicked has consistently brought in more than 1 million bucks a week (or close to it) for years. THAT is the figure Spidey NEEDS to clear, so it IS possible.

3. Any other comparisons are just that that a show doesn't HAVE to be a critical success TO succeed. Remember, most reviewers were not crazy about Wicked, either. Many folks "in the know" see the flaws.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 12:39am

Since my last reply to this thread, I have not read ANY other replies after mine...that is except whatever page we are on now.

To the poster who says they don't wish for the show to do badly because it will "lose a lot of people their millions of dollars that they put into a show where they have no creative control over...":

If they wanted creative control, they would either be a producer or on the creative team (director, choreographer, writer, designer, etc.).

The $65 million was theirs to LOSE. And by "theirs" I refer to the investors. The investors are the people who gave the money to do the show. IF YOU HAVE MONEY TO THROW AWAY INTO INVESTING A BROADWAY SHOW, THEN I AM NOT WORRIED ABOUT THEM LOSING THAT MONEY. It's called an "investment" for a reason. It is a GAMBLE. Not just on "SPIDER-MAN: TURN OFF THE DARK" but on ANY show. That includes WICKED, MAMMA MIA!, JERSEY BOYS, CHICAGO, THE PHANTOM THE OPERA, CATS, LES MISERABLES, and THE LION KING. That includes ELLING, THE BLONDE IN THE THUNDERBIRD, and HIGH FIDELITY. That includes CAROLINE OR CHANGE, NEXT TO NORMAL, and AVENUE Q.

Investing in ANY piece of commercial theatre is a gamble, and investors willingly put their money at risk. So do not worry for them. They will be fine, even if SPIDER-MAN closes tomorrow.


crewdude - I am *SO* on the same page with you. A show that gets delayed NINE MONTHS should have the very basics of the piece together: the LIBRETTO. I can understand questionable designs, questionable choreography, questionable direction, questionable acting choices, technical mishaps, and nerves...but for the very foundation of the show to be a WRECK shows that the producers didn't give a rat's tail about the book. They probably saw the equation Flying Spectacle + Bono & The Edge & U2 + Marvel comic book hero and thought it would equal $$$$$$$.

We'll see if they're right...

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 2:25am

Hollywood Blvd. has been a mess all day long for a preimier at the El Capitan Theatre. I was trying to get to a show at Hollywood and Highland and it wasa nightmare. I thought it was for TRON.

NOPE. It was for THE TEMPEST.

F**K Julie Taymor!

[corkystclair2]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 7:37am

To CapnHook.... I was not referring to the investors and never said so. The people who stand to lose are the many cast, crew, ushers and vendors who will be joining the ranks of the unemployed if the show fails to succeed. As I also stated, the ripple effect of a big-ideas show such as this not succeeding will be to cause others who want to risk doing something on this scale to be gun-shy. Big shows employ large numbers of people. Plays do not. I don't know about you but I am not impressed with the trend in Broadway theatre of late toward smallers sets, smaller casts, smaller bands - everything smaller except the ticket price!

Also... for your information... on a show like Spideman, it is extremely likely that the "producers" and "creative team" and "writers" on the show DON'T have the ability to guide the process enough for their possible losses to be considered of their own making. In addition, designers on a Broadway show, work for months and months for up-front fees which are laughable when considering the outlay of hours worked for the promise of a windfall if the show succeeds. IF. This gamble is a result of how the business works and not a choice per se. These same designers have ZERO control over the content of the show such as the script or the music.

Updated On: 12/7/10 at 07:37 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 7:59am

But all those people know exactly what they signed up for. And many of the designers have more than one project going on at all times.

I'm less concerned with smaller sets, cast and band -- and more concerned with quality. I'd rather see 10 shows like the Scottsboro Boys and Next to Normal, than 2 shows like Mamma Mia and Rock of Ages. (And I'm not coming down on those that are fans of those shows.)

[corkystclair2]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 8:15am

Quality is absolutely important. No question.

As for knowing what they're getting into, or course everyone in the business knows that Broadway is risky. 80% of musicals do not succeed.

The point that I was making is that the overt desire for Spiderman to fail exhibited by many people out there (Michael Riedel) is callous.

Never mind though. No need to confuse the "discussion" with facts.

[p.s.]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 8:56am

This is a question of numbers. What I mean is I have sincere questions about the $65 million production cost figure (which I believe is somewhat real); and the $1 million weekly "nut" figure (which is so round that I'm believing it was pulled out of somebody's ass).

Is the (so called) $65 million all used up, or is there some left still to be used? Could it really already be $70 million, and growing? After all, the show is still being developed.

And the $1 million dollar nut (whatever that means) -- I've not seen anybody actually acknowledge that number. Will it turn out to be closer to one and a quarter million? 1.4? 1.5?

Finally, assuming, for example, a future steady $1,500,000 reported weekly gross -- what portion, part or percentage of that is actually available to be applied to the weekly nut? And is the remainder then applied in full amount against the production advances (ongoing paybacks to the pure investors)?


I'd appreciate 1. General explanation of the recouping process, and 2. Application to the specific Spider-Man numbers (whatever those numbers really are).


p.s. If you forget to press the shift key for the $ sign, you get numbers up into the 400 millions.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 10:00am

The $1M nut & $65M budget has been all over news reports.

All of the money goes to the nut before anything else. Paying back the investors is their after thought.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 10:10am

If they are reporting $65 million you can be sure it is more then that. There are lots of hidden costs that are accrued. With every little change during the preview period more and more money is spent.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/7/10 at 10:19am

""The idea that Ms. Taymor isn't aware that the second act isn't playing well, is preposterous. She knows what she's doing and I'm confident that she's trying her best to fix the problems. Give her a break. Why all the hate?

Let's start with the fact that the show has spent YEARS in development/"master class"/workshop and supposed to OPEN NIMNE MONTHS AGO."


It shows how little people know about producing.
You can workshop etc all you want but until you get something in front of an audience you have no idea. We put a show on recently that i wrote and produced and going in to the production i was convinced that it was not going to be great. Everything i thought could be problematic turned out not to be, in fact many of the things that i had huge fears about turned out to be fave moments by critics and audiences, we then went on to be nominated for a Broadway World UK Award.

You can think you have the greatest show in the world, but the audience is the true testing point.