Why the negative reaction to Spider-Man? — Page 2

fingerlakessinger- I'm not criticizing those who dislike the show solely because it's "Spider-Man". Everyone has different tastes and opinions. If you're not a fan of the Spider-Man character, it's perfectly logical that you wouldn't want to see the stage production. The individuals you refer to are not the people going online posting hate filled rants about the show. And so what if people think Spider-Man defines a Broadway musical? Art evolves over time and there will always be various forms. You have art house films and major motion pictures. Each may receive a slightly different crowd. But art is all about individual interpretation. So if some individuals think every Broadway musical should be like Spider-Man, who are you to criticize?

CurtainPullDowner- Here's why investors funded the show... Spider-Man is a character who transcends cultures and is recognized worldwide. U2 is a mega, internationally famous rock band. Basic common sense dictates that this could be a very good combination for commercial success. There is an argument in saying that the creators potentially did not execute to their full potential. However investors can not predict the future, and it's fairly understandable to see why there'd be significant interest. Yes, Spider-Man's business model (with touring and subsequent productions) is a huge gamble. Like any other Broadway show, it may have to be scaled down to a degree. However in an arena setting, I'm sure they'd attempt to execute as many tech elements as possible. And I seriously doubt that at this point in Michael Cohl's career, he would waste money to be "associated" with U2. The two are already close friends, and Cohl was never supposed to be the producer of Spider-Man. The original producer was unable to raise enough funds and the production went bankrupt. Bono called Michael and asked him to take over. And that was a funny typo! : )

willheim2- I agree with your post. And you're completely entitled to not like the show. As I prefaced my original post by saying... "As patrons of the theater, we have every right to share our opinions on the music, book, actors, production elements, etc. And if you don't like Spider-Man for those reasons, I'm not going to criticize. I may even agree with many of your points."

PReeves2 - I'm not sure why you bothered replying to a thread which you obviously didn't read. I clearly stated that I have no affiliation with Spider-Man. So I'm not exactly sure how this has become "my" show. But moving on... Who are you to say that this show belongs in Vegas or an arena, and not on Broadway? Last time I checked if a show can get enough funding and support, they have every right to play a Broadway stage. This is a COMMERCIAL industry, not a public run theater company. The world does not center around you, and there's certainly a large population out there who enjoys this kind of commercial art. If Spider-Man doesn't belong on Broadway, why was it the highest grossing show last week? I personally believe this show is innovative... you said it yourself "the tricks in your show have been done before but not on broadway". While that statement is not entirely true, the fact that these stunts have never been attempted on Broadway makes the show unique in this particular domain. I don't understand your accusations of "resort(ing) to an injured cast member, who could have lost his life, to send out "good" press." What are the producer's supposed to do? Unless you believe Michael Cohl personally injured Chris to create publicity (which is ridiculous), they're simply making the best of a situation. Should they be creating negative press around the situation? They did the right thing... address the safety issues and make sure Chris was taken care of. If Chris agreed to attend a performance and conduct interviews, it was not because he was forced to do so. Your argument simply does not make any sense. What is the point of hiring a publicity department if they don't help properly address disaster? And how do you know the actors are being put in danger every night? Do you work on the show? Are you familiar with all the stunts and technical elements? The NY State government does and they approved all of the stunts in the show. So who are you to make statements with no actual basis (except for what you read in the news)? Your next point... WHY would the actors get a portion of the weekly gross? That makes no sense! Do you not understand how Broadway productions operate? This is so atypical. The only times I've ever seen actors get a percentage of the gross is when a major star is involved. In addition to their weekly salary, producers will offer extra incentive to make Broadway a more attractive offer. "Julie, Bono, Michael, et al, have yet to show themselves on the flying stunts." HAHA seriously? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would the director, composer or producer do flying stunts meant to be performed by actors? I'm not sure what your point is. "this show shouldn't be considered "SAFE" until we get the clip of them flying over the Foxwoods Theater." Again your argument makes no sense and you do not make a valid point. NY State has deemed the flying stunts safe and the actors are specially trained to preform these functions. I'd really love to hear your explanation as to why Julie, Bono or Michael would even considering getting up there... It's not their job, so that would be merely a giant waste of time. If I'm producing Mission Impossible, do you suggest I get in a car and do the stunt men's job to see if it's safe? As long as authorities have approved the safety, we can only hope everything goes according to plan.

tazber- That's completely understandable, and it's your right to not buy a ticket if you're unhappy with other's reviews. But when you say "it isn't something I would spend the prices they are charging", it makes it sound like Spider-Man is charging more for a ticket than any other Broadway show. Every production charges full price in previews. They need to in order to recoup their operating expenses. And if Julie Taymor wants to leave "Deeply Furious", so be it. Staging a Broadway musical is not a public process. Julie is executing her artistic vision, and that is the choice of the show's producers. If the public disagrees with the final product, people will not go to the show. And ultimately Taymor will be looked on poorly for not making the proper changes. But right now Spider-Man is the highest grossing show on Broadway, so it seems that most of the audience doesn't really care. But I don't think any artist deserves derision for not wishing to compromise their creative integrity. As long as they're able to accept positive AND negative consequences that may accompany their choices.

Updated On: 1/17/11 at 07:57 AM

I don't understand why there has been a negative response to the show BEFORE it even started previews? It's like people have had a vendetta since the beginning... Surely no one can determine a show is bad without seeing a performance.

Welcome to BroadwayWorld. And the Internet. People can determine anything is good or bad without seeing or reading or hearing--or even thinking, for that matter. As long as you have a computer and access to the Internet, you are are entitled to state your opinion.

If you don't like their opinions, you can state your own. (But in addition to double-spacing between paragraphs, your should say what you have to say in fewer words. Your last post was twice too long to read and anything good points in that post will be lost.)

I have not seen Spider-Man yet--I am waiting till it is closer to frozen--but I have complete confidence that it is on its way toward becoming as critic proof as Wicked and that it will run as long as or longer than that show, which was also derided here. All Julie Taymor and her collaborators have to do is make it "just good enough," because given the storyline problems, it will probably never be "good."

If they succeed in making it just-good-enough, it will play to the male version of the eternal-teenage-girl Wicked demographic: the eternally teenage boys who grow up to watch and read science fiction and techno-thrillers and still read comics and go to Comic-Con and will probably play games on their electronic devices for the rest of their lives. If the show is good enough to give them a thrill, it will run.

And I doubt if it matters if the Broadway production is profitable any time soon. It has the potential to make enough money on the road to offset any Broadway losses. Most Broadway shows are created for the intimacy of an 1800-seat Broadway theater and then are dwarfed when they go on the road and play in 3000-seat theaters. Spider-Man will look perfect in those larger theaters, where the potential for profit is huge.

But don't come here and tell people they "shouldn't" feel one way or another about something.

And I agree with songanddanceman2 that no one should say what should or shouldn't be "on Broadway." As Gerald Schoenfeld used to say when he ran the Shubert Organization, "Any show that puts asses in seats belongs in a Shubert theater."

---

Updated On: 1/17/11 at 11:11 AM

I agree completely with Kalimba. While on one hand I don't think its fair for the producers to be charging over $100 a seat for something that is still so clearly in development stages... some of the responsibility should lie with patrons. While I acknowledge that not everyone going to see Spiderman is a theatre buff, if I am spending over 100 on something, regardless if its theatre, wardrobe, electronics... I do my research before hand. I make sure I know EXACTLY what I am purchasing and spending my hard earned money on.

The producers haven't hidden the fact that the show is in previews (they haven't flaunted it either...but who would? That's poor business). Is it really the responsibility of the producers to say "hey, there might be some problems...its a work in progess"? I don't think so. I am personally not ready to drop over $100 on the show until it has officially opened...but thats me.

"And I agree with songanddanceman2 that no one should say what should or shouldn't be "on Broadway." As Gerald Schoenfeld used to say when he ran the Shubert Organization, "Any show that puts asses in seats belongs in a Shubert theater.' "

I could not agree more with that statement Pal Joey. Just because something doesn't appeal to me, doesn't mean it shouldn't have a place on Broadway. Ideally, Broadway SHOULD have something for EVERYONE. Comic book geeks included. Wouldn't it be great if Spiderman was a 16 year old straight boy's gateway into the theatre world?

I hadn't visited the site before 30 seconds ago...but in huge letters it says "NOW IN PREVIEWS. OPENS MARCH 15TH"

http://spidermanonbroadway.marvel.com/

Is it really their job to explain what previews are underneath it? That just seems like poor business and unrealistic to me.

I do agree that if the show needs this much work, it is unfair to charge full price for it...but I do think some of the responsibility needs to lie with patrons.

Right. I've seen many shows in previews and its never told me when I've bought them from Ticketmaster or Telecharge. Or mention it on their website. Why should Spiderman be different? And it in fact DOES mention it on their website.

Side note: I do believe that Spiderman would be better served by closing for a week or so and getting their business together.

PalJoey- Everyone is perfectly entitled to their opinions. I'm entitled to mine as well... Everyone who demands that Spider-Man closes, criticizes their change of opening dates, acts like they're an authority on the business of Spider-Man, or makes grand statements on everything but the creatives merits of the show LOOKS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. I'm simply asking why this chat board makes uneducated and delusional comments? You're certainly allowed to express yourself, but your opinions are meaningless if they have no basis or go against factual information. I agree with most of your commentary about how the show will be successful. But that has NOTHING to do with my initial post. I've already commented several times how Spider-Man will make its profit on the road, so you obviously have not taken the time to read any of my messages. I'm not telling people how they shouldn't feel. I prefaced my original post by saying "As patrons of the theater, we have every right to share our opinions on the music, book, actors, production elements, etc. And if you don't like Spider-Man for those reasons, I'm not going to criticize. I may even agree with many of your points." I also said "Who are you to say that this show belongs in Vegas or an arena, and not on Broadway? Last time I checked if a show can get enough funding and support, they have every right to play a Broadway stage. This is a COMMERCIAL industry, not a public run theater company. The world does not center around you, and there's certainly a large population out there who enjoys this kind of commercial art. If Spider-Man doesn't belong on Broadway, why was it the highest grossing show last week?". So you should really read and digest information, before you criticize other people with *surprise* no basis.

Kalimba - " Do you really believe they're selling a product to an unsuspecting costumer? Michael Cohl comes out before every performance and discusses how the audience is about to see a preview. Beyond this board, I don't see too many members of the general public discussing how they've been "duped" by the producers." Again, this is a comment from a previous post. Can you please answer my question?

wendilin622- I made the original statement "Who are you to say that this show belongs in Vegas or an arena, and not on Broadway? Last time I checked if a show can get enough funding and support, they have every right to play a Broadway stage. This is a COMMERCIAL industry, not a public run theater company. The world does not center around you, and there's certainly a large population out there who enjoys this kind of commercial art. If Spider-Man doesn't belong on Broadway, why was it the highest grossing show last week?" before Pal Joey did. I don't understand how people can reply to my posts when they have not read them. Also, it makes no sense for Spider-Man to close for a week from a business perspective (which is what Broadway is, a business). Why lose money when you're selling out and they can have rehearsals simultaneously with the show?

dramamama611- Can you please point out one other Broadway show on TicektMaster or Telecharge that's listed as In Previews?

In short, this is why the professional Broadway community does not really take any of these chat boards seriously. The majority is extraordinarily bitter and makes statements with no basis that goes against factual information. And when i speak up and say something, half the people on here can't even grasp the concept of what they're doing wrong. Luckily opinion here does not really branch out into the real world, as Spider-Man was the highest grossing show on Broadway last week.

Who here thinks that the b'way community even remotely CARES what we do or say here? Not too many. this is OUR board for our thoughts. Our opinions can't be wrong.

And I specifically SAID that Spidey isn't the only one to NOT mention previews.


What do YOU feel the show needs you to champion it? Many of us have said that it will probably run for several years, regardless of what we think. We are not the "average theater goer." MOST of us realize that.

---

marcblack, as you said Michael Cohl comes out before every performance. That is AFTER the audience members have already purchased their tickets. I will have to look at your previous post to see what question to me you're referring to.

Updated On: 1/17/11 at 07:20 PM

I didn't know that "Splash Page" referred to that, but it was a cool element. I thought it was just a song that I had missed since it was in the song list.

---