Why the Spider-Man Critics are Wrong

THANK YOU!!!!

"It is, however, shocking to me is that very few people in the industry are speaking out about the fact that virtually every major theatrical critic across the country just broke one of the longest and most sacredly held traditions on Broadway."

---

OP, one could argue that normal length preview periods are a sacred tradition on Broadway and that it is the producers of this show who could be opening a can of worms by their actions.

I really don't have a dog in this fight and I DO hope the show does well because that would be good for the industry (and hopefully create a new, young generation of theater fans), but I had no problem with the critics acting when they did. What's to stop future producers who can see in rehearsals that their show isn't getting any better to just decide to stay in "previews" for 6 months to make as much money as possible while avoiding a critical appraisal?

---

Updated On: 2/16/11 at 02:35 PM

They are 'wrong' because the show is great, or 'wrong' for publishing reviews after MONTHS of previews with the highest ticket prices in history to a show that did not even have an ending when they opened the doors? I could understand if the special effects were still being worked on, but jesus, for Taymor not even to have WRITTEN an ending?

Besides, unless you are going to rag on anyone who tweeted, blogged or posted on a message board (all new phenomenon since this "tradition" was started, then don't harp on the critics.I believe they have the best interest of the audience at heart and did not feel like seeing them ripped off until March 15th or beyond...

---

SueleenGay makes a good point. When this "sacred tradition" was started, word of mouth took longer than ten seconds to get around. The critics are pretty much the last ones to review a show anymore, and word of mouth spreads like wild fire. Popular blogs are becoming more popular than newspapers, and the bloggers don't have to wait to be invited to let us know what they liked and what they did not. At the end of the day, the show has had more than a reasonable amount of time to preview their show. The word of mouth has long gotten around, and in many cases reflects the critics opinion.

The problem with saying that a show has to be frozen to be reviewed limits the creative team more than it limits the reviewers. What about the case of Next to Normal at Second Stage, they were rehearsing every day throughout the run and making changes. Does that invalidate the reviews that were given?

Dreamgirls and Les Miserables are two other shows that had drastic changes made after opening.

There are many shows that are effectively frozen at the time that previews start, and many that continue to change until the day that they close.

If the Spiderman creators were smart, they would use the criticism that was given and address the problems that were identified (they may be doing it, I don't know), and then invite the critics back. It could work wonders.

---

sacred tradition my a-- this is not the fifties or sixties or seventies, internet has changed the world as much as radio, telephone tv, things are never going to be thecsame.

And if the type of person that LOVES Spider-Man: TOTD becomes a theater goer, it's only going to perpetuate more lackluster and overblown garbage to hit the boards.

To refute that thought anyway: we've had a number of people here tell us that even their 12 year old nephews, sons, etc didn't like it much.

Many of these people that DO like it, may very likely believe B'way to be a once in a lifetime experience.

---

I can only speak for the future theater goer that I'm raising. My 12 year old son is a reluctant theater goer who winds up liking most shows I drag him to. I would guess he fits the demographic they are hoping to get, as he watched most of the spiderman movies. I asked him if wants to see spiderman and he looked at me like I had three heads. BTW, his favorite show by a large margin was Bloody Bloody at the Public.