ridiculous Spider-man pull-quote

[robjohn99]

Posted: 6/15/11 at 11:58pm

I've actually been a big supporter of Turn Off the Dark and have sincerely been rooting for them (and am looking forward to seeing the revised version after having seen 1.0 twice, etc., notwithstanding the carping that has persisted on this board )...However, I have to say that I'm quite turned off by how cynically they distorted this review from the Chicago Sun-Times (particularly annoying since there were actually plenty of "sincerely" positive reviews or at least potential quotes for them to use without having to resort to this). Is this truly how things are "normally" done? It certainly makes me as a consumer feel manipulated (again, to me unnecessarily):

Here's whats on the Spiderman webpage:

A visual feast! Unquestionably spectacular!
– Chicago Sun-Times

and here's the original actual review (the "pulled quotes" in caps):

"With crushingly weak and puerile writing, an almost total lack of storytelling momentum, a numbingly bland score by Bono and the Edge, but UNQUESTIONABLY SPECTACULAR sets by George Tsypin that only underscore the puniness of the material, “Spider-Man” is like a giant insect hopelessly thrashing its legs, yet unable to spin the crucial web of awe and wonder."

(later):

"But you can’t just eat the scenery, even if Tsypin gives us quite A VISUAL FEAST. "

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:18am

While it's shady, everyone does it.

I mean that publication did use those words in reference to the production.

[egghumor]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:21am

I imagine they'll be plenty more of that... Remember these guys (not Bono, The Edge, or Taymor) have $70 million at stake here.

In the end, audiences will determine the life span of Spidey2.0, not the critics.
Updated On: 6/16/11 at 12:21 AM

[bk]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:34am

Sorry, that pull quote is beyond shady - it gives shady a whole new meaning. He is NOT talking in reference to the PRODUCTION - he's talking very specifically about the sets. Period.

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:41am

...the sets are part of the production.

[bk]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:53am

Oh, you know exactly what was done but if you enjoy being pedantic have at it.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 1:03am

Who cares? Everyone does it. And the sets are part of the production, and they are spectacular.

[vf]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 1:28am

Yeah, OP, you're right that's really ridiculous. People don't get called on that? That's totally deceptive. The New York Post ought to write about that.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 1:37am

If you're going to give a scathing review you should at least be able to write it in a way that you won't give them possible pull quotes. It's the product of failure of the reviewer & good marketing.

People would flip if David Merrick were still alive.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 2:01am

Well, I don't think people are going into Spidey thinking that they're in for some kind of sophisticated, intellectually satisfying show. They go for the spectacle and bragging rights. The pull quote is about the spectacle that the audience will experience, and I think it's fair.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 2:05am

^ Exactly. If the critics say something positive and rave about a certain element of the show, then the show has all rights to use those words to promote their show.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 2:23am

I don't see what the big deal is. It's industry standard to find positive pull quotes from reviews no matter what. And I'm sure there have been worse offenses than this. Wasn't there an issue recently regarding a show that simply pulled words and turned it into a quote?

"The show is a mess and I would go to great lengths to stay away from it" becomes "The show is great".

But honestly unless they're totally fabricating quotes I don't think there is anything to get our panties in a twist over. It's been done before and it'll be done again.

[uncageg]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 10:00am

The tv ad that kind of irks me is the one for Priscilla that says it was nominated for best musical. It gives the impression that it may be for a Tony but it says in small lettering what awards it was actually nominated for.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 10:02am

I don't actually thing the pull quotes from this one are terribly bad...they did use them in a positive light for the sets and the visual aspects.

We've all seen far worse. It's not like the critic if you were expecting something VISUALLY STUNNING (or whatever the quote was) you will be disappointed. They were meant as positive, albeit limited, remarks.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 10:36am

The pull quote certainly doesn't convey the tone (or point) of the review--i.e., it doesn't say "This critic actually hated the show"--but I don't think it's misleading as to what the reviewer DID like.

It in no way implies that he liked the writing, direction, acting, singing, music, etc.

If somebody calls a show a "visual feast" I pretty much assume they mean the sets. I suppose it could mean the costumes, but I think I'd expect them to say that specifically.

[philly03]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 10:43am

WONDERLAND did a lot of those deceiving pull quotes (including somehow calling themselves "Inspirational" from the NY TImes), and the NY Post responded by saying that it was not a good show! That one was a worse offender than than the Spider-man one... it clearly referred to the original plot of Alice in Wonderland:
WONDERLAND is not a good show

[Bardolph]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 11:14am

Broadway critics are very careful about the words they use. Every writer with an ounce of experience knows that every word in his or her piece is available for advertising. If he was not OK with Spidey using those words to promote the play, trust me, he would not have written them.

That's why most of the critics who panned the musical save the superlatives for the negative thoughts and use double negatives for the positive thoughts. For example, Jonathan Mandell says, "while Spider-Man is no longer a catastrophe, neither did I find it the thrill that the hype would have you believe."

What's Spidey going to use? "NO LONGER A CATASTROPHE!" *L*



Updated On: 6/16/11 at 11:14 AM

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 11:22am

It's a business. Reviewers know that everything they write is fair game for a pull quote. This happens all the time, unless the writer really has it in for the production. Like what Brantley did with the Ragtime revival. He went out of his way not to give them any pull quotes.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 11:48am

More fun for Jon Stewart, Letterman and the TV gag monologues.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 12:44pm

What's Spidey going to use? "NO LONGER A CATASTROPHE!" *L*

Be honest. The newspaper ad would be a little longer:

"NO LONGER A CATASTROPHE... I FIND IT THE THRILL THAT THE HYPE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE."
- Jonathan Mandell

[Bardolph]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 1:11pm

Be honest. The newspaper ad would be a little longer:

"NO LONGER A CATASTROPHE... I FIND IT THE THRILL THAT THE HYPE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE."
- Jonathan Mandell

Now THAT would be dishonest and would require a retraction, since it completely contradicts the context.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 6/16/11 at 1:40pm

Just using the quotes is shady, but standard. Adding the exclamation points seems wrong though. Is that standard as well?