theater critics may have saved Spiderman. Michael Cohl should thank them all.

[PReeves2]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 1:55am

what would have happened if the critics had actually waited until March 15th to publish their reviews? Even if they knew parts of the show weren't working Julie would have much more power over the producers. Michael Cohl wouldn't be looking at the onslaught of negative reviews after opening night wondering what to do? The critic's gave him all the answers in the papers and a way out by publishing reviews while still in previews.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 2:18am

The producers are still god, even after a show opens. In fact, the director usually signs off on the show and the day to day stuff falls into the hands of the stage manager and sometimes a resident director. If the show opened and got these reviews, the producers could still close it and fix it, or close it and let it die, neither of which would need the previous director. Love Never Dies is a good example of that.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 10:22pm

As Ken Davenport stated in his blog you have to admire these producers. The reviews are in, were pretty unkind, and yet they managed to remain one of the top grossing shows on Broadway week after week. They could just sit back and let it ride. Instead they are willing to continue to pump the money in an effort to fix it and create a better experience for the audience. You may not agree with how they are going about it, but they are at least attempting to do something.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/25/11 at 10:43pm

Well they certainly didn't learn anything from the critics who said the show was unfixable and one of the worst musicals ever. The way they are hiring people (and firing others)it's certainly gonna be interesting to see what kind of a mash-up they end up with.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:15am

I agree with everyone here basically. I think the reason the producers are going to such lengths (and expense) to try and fix the show is because of the high stakes for breaking even (full capacity for some insane period of time). Yeah, tickets sales are brisk for a show in such trouble, but the original pedigree (Taymor, Bono, Edge, and brand) created a strong advance sale, further bolstered by negative publicity and injury, but it's beginning to wane. If they try and run the show that critics witnessed, then the run will end no later than the end of this year. But if they can clean up a good deal of the mess (such as slashing the Geeks, taking a can of Raid to Arachne, etc.) and sharpen the storyline and strengthen the score (or at least how it plays) they might get a longer run out of it. They'll make a tidy sum just on people that saw the first version revisiting alone. I think Chase Brock has nothing to lost by taking this show on. If the thing still doesn't work, he'll be forgiven for trying to fix and “unfix able,” “unsalvageable” show. As much as I've laughed about all the shenanigans, I honestly believe the producers are making some necessary moves. Taymor had clearly lost all objectivity about her “vision,” and couldn't let go of much or any of it in order to make a more cohesive and comprehensible show. I always loved the way the producers and creative team kept protesting the bad word-of-mouth by saying that “Spider-Man” should not be judged under the same terms, standards, and paradigms of other Broadway shows, but I always thought, then why put it on Broadway at all? Just build your own venue in the middle of say, Vegas, and fly and crash by your own rules. It seems the producers have come to their senses about that. They were just peddling Taymor's stock retort and ultimately discovered (yeah, no thanks to the critics and lots of theatergoers) that it wasn't paying off. The Emperor really did have no clothes. At this point, I sincerely wish everyone involved, well.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:21am

You make some great points egghumor. The producers are definitely taking some much needed steps in the right direction.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:59am

I'm glad that they're doing something, but I question their motivation. If they're making changes solely because of the bad reviews then they're fighting a losing battle because the critics are never going to like the show. It was never going to be a show the critics would praise no matter how good or bad it turned out to be. The only reason to make changes now is to make the show more enjoyable for the audiences and if that's their main goal then I think it's an achievable one.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:39am

^ I think they are improving it for the audience. A lot of the problems with the show has to do with a plot that the audience can't understand or follow. By making these changes they are are not only making a better production (hopefully), but they are also making it a better show for the audience. I'm sure they would be happy if the critics liked it, but now I think they are focused on making this the best show they can.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 9:19am

For me, it's a little too little too late. I still have a problem with the fact that they opened this show to paying audiences in the shape that they did. Sure, I have bragging rights to have been able to say I saw it at it's worst, but I would have rather have seen a completed project. BTW, I saw the show xmas weekend, so the show SHOULD have been open by that date (almost) originally.