ridiculous Spider-man pull-quote

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. "

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

...the sets are part of the production.

---

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

---

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.

^ 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.

---

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.

---

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.

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

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

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.