NY Times pans--and I do mean "pans" Spider Man!
Feb 11th, 2011, 07:37 AM
#21
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, sort of, TC, but I don't believe any actual tickets had been sold then. They actually went to NYC to see a show that hadn't opened and wasn't selling tickets?
It's not unusual for delays with any musical. The upcoming Catch Me if You Can was first workshopped in 2005 for a hopeful 2006 opening. It then ran in Seattle in July of 2009 planning to move to Broadway. But it still hasn't opened (but hopefully will in March) although its first week of ticketed previews have already been canceled. And it's not a particularly huge or involved musical. There is no doubt that Spiderman is by far the most complex musical ever staged on Broadway, so it seems people should realize that.
Any INTELLIGENT theatre goer should know that buying tickets for a preview should mean "I'm seeing a show in progress that the producers do not feel is yet ready to open", so it seems odd to me that the critics would review it as if it were a finished show and then complain about it not being finished. This is regardless of what a complete mess it is or may still eventually be after it officially opens.
It's not unusual for delays with any musical. The upcoming Catch Me if You Can was first workshopped in 2005 for a hopeful 2006 opening. It then ran in Seattle in July of 2009 planning to move to Broadway. But it still hasn't opened (but hopefully will in March) although its first week of ticketed previews have already been canceled. And it's not a particularly huge or involved musical. There is no doubt that Spiderman is by far the most complex musical ever staged on Broadway, so it seems people should realize that.
Any INTELLIGENT theatre goer should know that buying tickets for a preview should mean "I'm seeing a show in progress that the producers do not feel is yet ready to open", so it seems odd to me that the critics would review it as if it were a finished show and then complain about it not being finished. This is regardless of what a complete mess it is or may still eventually be after it officially opens.
Feb 11th, 2011, 07:54 AM
#22
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take that back, TC. In checking, I see that indeed Spiderman did start selling tickets in Sept. of 2009 for a February 2010 opening (and previews scheduled for January 2010, but it was all canceled in early November of 2009, so clearly anyone with tickets for January had been notified at least two months ahead that the show was delayed until at least summer of 2010.
I've had tickets for Broadway shows that never happened at all or that closed during previews -- and of course I got my money back.
I've had tickets for Broadway shows that never happened at all or that closed during previews -- and of course I got my money back.
Feb 11th, 2011, 10:08 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get your point, Patrick, and indeed, my friends didn't get stuck for tix. However, the show had been announced to open and they planned their trip around including it. It's not that they missed the show, my point is, the show has had ample time to work out the bugs. They must have thought it was pretty complete if they were going to open over a year ago. What kind of train wreck would have been at that time, if it's still so bad now?
Feb 11th, 2011, 02:54 PM
#24
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick, you're giving most theatergoers more credit for being aware of when a show is in previews that is the reality of the situation. Especially with studies showing that 2/3 of all Broadway theatergoers are tourists, it's very doubtful that most are aware of when a show is in previews unless they are that theater savvy...and most are not. Intelligence has nothing to do with it!
While I'll agree that it is not that unusual for a show to delay its opening, the history of Spiderman's continuous delays are indeed well beyond the ordinary....and now fall into the "never before happening" or "excessive or both categories.
While I'll agree that it is not that unusual for a show to delay its opening, the history of Spiderman's continuous delays are indeed well beyond the ordinary....and now fall into the "never before happening" or "excessive or both categories.
Feb 13th, 2011, 10:29 AM
#25
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true, but then it's also just as unheard of and just as unprecedented for professional critics to review a show which has boldly stated that it is not yet ready to open!
Would a food critic sit for an hour in a fine restaurant waiting for his entree and then say, "at these prices I've waited long enough -- it should be ready" then march to the kitchen, sample his entree being prepared and report to readers that the food at this restaurant can be undercooked, tasteless, and not presented properly? It seems to me that while the show SHOULD be ready, it isn't and the producers have clearly stated so, and it seems unfair to review it as if it is a "finished" product and that is exactly what the critics did. It was one thing for critics to do articles talking about the known problems with getting the show ready, but quite another to give a full fledged review as if it was being presented as a finished product.
Would a food critic sit for an hour in a fine restaurant waiting for his entree and then say, "at these prices I've waited long enough -- it should be ready" then march to the kitchen, sample his entree being prepared and report to readers that the food at this restaurant can be undercooked, tasteless, and not presented properly? It seems to me that while the show SHOULD be ready, it isn't and the producers have clearly stated so, and it seems unfair to review it as if it is a "finished" product and that is exactly what the critics did. It was one thing for critics to do articles talking about the known problems with getting the show ready, but quite another to give a full fledged review as if it was being presented as a finished product.
Feb 13th, 2011, 10:55 AM
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick, while you may have a point about premature reviewing and it certainly is a debatable issue, I don't think your restaurant example is a valid comparison!
I just heard on the radio that the US Department of Labor is bringing up some sort of charges against the show for a couple of incidents, at least one of which is a new one--two performers were injured doing a stunt during rehearsals. NO further details available for now.
I just heard on the radio that the US Department of Labor is bringing up some sort of charges against the show for a couple of incidents, at least one of which is a new one--two performers were injured doing a stunt during rehearsals. NO further details available for now.
Feb 14th, 2011, 06:39 AM
#27
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are all aware of the preview status of the show, the producers have been quite a bit less than above board regarding the status. My own case, for example. -- I paid full price for tickets because the show should have been well into the actual run during my January visit. When the delayed opening was announced, no price adjustment was offered. I had to contact TM and "ask" for a refund. It has also been widely reported that they were on the verge of a scuffle with the dept. of commerce for ads which did NOT disclose the show as "preview" performances while selling tickets at full price. As a result they reduced the ticket prices again. I think INTELLEGENT theater goers are just tired of the drama surrounding this non-dramatic show.
Feb 14th, 2011, 08:12 AM
#28
I can't see why an intelligent theater goer would want to see a musical based on a movie based on a comic book when the greatest comedy in the language is playing just down the block . . . but to each his own.
Seriously, I got the sense in those *premature* reviews that the reviewers were sharpening their knives for Julie Taymor. Note these phrases from the NYT's review:
"Ms. Taymor playing Michelangelo to her notion of a Sistine Chapel on Broadway"
"Ms. Taymor and her collaborators have spoken frequently about blazing new frontiers with “Spider-Man,” of venturing where no theater artist (pardon me, I mean artiste) has dared to venture before."
"(I get the impression that Arachne, as the ultimate all-controlling artist, is the only character who much interests Ms. Taymor, but that doesn’t mean that she makes sense.)"
She has a great talent, but seems to have rubbed some people the wrong way.
Seriously, I got the sense in those *premature* reviews that the reviewers were sharpening their knives for Julie Taymor. Note these phrases from the NYT's review:
"Ms. Taymor playing Michelangelo to her notion of a Sistine Chapel on Broadway"
"Ms. Taymor and her collaborators have spoken frequently about blazing new frontiers with “Spider-Man,” of venturing where no theater artist (pardon me, I mean artiste) has dared to venture before."
"(I get the impression that Arachne, as the ultimate all-controlling artist, is the only character who much interests Ms. Taymor, but that doesn’t mean that she makes sense.)"
She has a great talent, but seems to have rubbed some people the wrong way.
Feb 17th, 2011, 07:47 AM
#29
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at long last they've hired someone to work on the book (apparently) and it sounds like something is being done to work on the music as well. Perhaps this means a few more months of delays in officially opening.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/brea...-off-the-dark/
My personal news is that unexpected circumstances mean I will be seeing Spiderman on the matinee on April 2 (wouldn't April Fool's Day have been a better choice?) I'm staying that weekend with a friend in NJ who has tickets that day with two friends -- they bought them months ago. So rather than sit at home alone -- I managed to get a front row mezzanine single -- ooops, I mean "front row flying circle" single. Probably the most I've ever paid ($153 with fees) to see a train wreck.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/brea...-off-the-dark/
My personal news is that unexpected circumstances mean I will be seeing Spiderman on the matinee on April 2 (wouldn't April Fool's Day have been a better choice?) I'm staying that weekend with a friend in NJ who has tickets that day with two friends -- they bought them months ago. So rather than sit at home alone -- I managed to get a front row mezzanine single -- ooops, I mean "front row flying circle" single. Probably the most I've ever paid ($153 with fees) to see a train wreck.
Feb 22nd, 2011, 01:43 PM
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprise, surprise....Today's NY Times reports that the producers may bring in some new creative person or people....and (here's the surprise...ha!), it may mean another postponement of opening night.
Feb 27th, 2011, 09:20 AM
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprise, surprise! Today's NY Times reports that the producers of Spiderman may again postpone the opening, this time to June. And, further, the Times reports that the management "has already made plans for the show on March 15 [the current delayed opening date] to be an invitation-only performance at 4:30 p.m., followed by an A-list gala at the Grand Hyatt New York...."
You gotta give the producers credit. They are certainly getting the most out of all the negative reviews and other negative publicity....and turning them into positives.
Incidentally, not surprising, the Times article reports that the show has $1 million-a-week operating cost. By my calculations, they would have to gross $1.3 million a week (which is about what they grossed the week ending last Sunday according to the Playbill website) for more than five years to earn back the $65 million investment before starting to show any profit.
You gotta give the producers credit. They are certainly getting the most out of all the negative reviews and other negative publicity....and turning them into positives.
Incidentally, not surprising, the Times article reports that the show has $1 million-a-week operating cost. By my calculations, they would have to gross $1.3 million a week (which is about what they grossed the week ending last Sunday according to the Playbill website) for more than five years to earn back the $65 million investment before starting to show any profit.
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:20 PM
#33
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, but Howard, you're ignoring the millions in endorsements, souvenirs, program books, cast albums, tshirts, coffee mugs and all the rest.
I can see next year's Guinness Book of Records now -- "longest run of a Broadway show that never opened. . . ."
I can see next year's Guinness Book of Records now -- "longest run of a Broadway show that never opened. . . ."
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:29 PM
#34
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am only one person. But all of the shenanigans and grandstanding, and most of all endangering the cast throughout these extended non-openings really turn me off. I have no desire to ever see another show by Ms. Taymor. I do not like to be taken for a ride on the long way home when it comes to my $$ spent on Broadway. So screw Spiderman and screw all her future shows.
Feb 27th, 2011, 08:43 PM
#35
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what you mean. There are many people who say the same about Stepven Spielberg movies. Shananigans? Say what you like, the bottom line regardless of whom you are talking to is that the show is not yet ready to open. So why should it? Don't want to see it? Then don't! But if you want to avoid a show that is trying harder than anything in history to be "special" then don't cry to the rest of us later if you missed something once it got worked out.
Feb 28th, 2011, 05:50 AM
#38
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I'm reading the post as basically saying "because this director has spent too much money and too much time and the show still isn't ready, I never want to see one of her shows again." Of course, emd is entitled to that opinion and she's welcome to it, I just find it odd to cut someone off from seeing anything in the future because of one huge blunder.
And yes, I've heard a number of people say things like "I don't go to Spielberg movies -- they're just big budget over the top fluff without any meaning". Many of these are people who avoid most mainstream movies preferring Indies. (I guess they forget things like Schindler's List?) Sort of like forgetting Lion King.
Surely, Howard you must know many people who avoid all BIG films as being too commercial? Those are the ones I'm talking about. Just like many people have wanted Spiderman to fail from the very beginning -- some because they call Julie Taymor "too commercial" and some because they don't believe in all that money being spend. Just like many WANT every Disney affiliated musical to fail. This should not be any surprise.
And I guess the bottom line in this discussion is what SHOULD happen with Spiderman now? We all know the show has been a disaster and has cost more than anything. So are people suggesting that the producers who have millions invested should just walk away from it rather than try to fix it? I mean it's one thing to say "gee, it should have opened and it should be perfect by now" -- but we all know it isn't -- and far from it. So what do those who are complaining about it not opening suggest? Just close it down? Or are they saying "just make it good and open it" -- much easier said that done -- do we honestly think that's not what they're trying to do? Or are th3y saying "go ahead and open it even though you know it isn't right and then it can close and we can all say 'I told you so'? I'm serious here -- what do most people want to happen with the production?
And yes, I've heard a number of people say things like "I don't go to Spielberg movies -- they're just big budget over the top fluff without any meaning". Many of these are people who avoid most mainstream movies preferring Indies. (I guess they forget things like Schindler's List?) Sort of like forgetting Lion King.
Surely, Howard you must know many people who avoid all BIG films as being too commercial? Those are the ones I'm talking about. Just like many people have wanted Spiderman to fail from the very beginning -- some because they call Julie Taymor "too commercial" and some because they don't believe in all that money being spend. Just like many WANT every Disney affiliated musical to fail. This should not be any surprise.
And I guess the bottom line in this discussion is what SHOULD happen with Spiderman now? We all know the show has been a disaster and has cost more than anything. So are people suggesting that the producers who have millions invested should just walk away from it rather than try to fix it? I mean it's one thing to say "gee, it should have opened and it should be perfect by now" -- but we all know it isn't -- and far from it. So what do those who are complaining about it not opening suggest? Just close it down? Or are they saying "just make it good and open it" -- much easier said that done -- do we honestly think that's not what they're trying to do? Or are th3y saying "go ahead and open it even though you know it isn't right and then it can close and we can all say 'I told you so'? I'm serious here -- what do most people want to happen with the production?
Feb 28th, 2011, 10:57 AM
#39
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>
Well, I for one couldn't care less. It's their money, and spending it is good for the economy. Whether or not I choose to spend my money to see the show at some time in the future (I'm neither a Spiderman fan, nor a Julie Taymor fan) will be decided in the future!
Well, I for one couldn't care less. It's their money, and spending it is good for the economy. Whether or not I choose to spend my money to see the show at some time in the future (I'm neither a Spiderman fan, nor a Julie Taymor fan) will be decided in the future!
Mar 9th, 2011, 03:31 AM
#40
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest update in this saga:
The NY Times reports this morning that the producers may shut down the show for 2-3 weeks for an overhaul sometime in April or May, with the opening delayed to June. (Interestingly, this Times article was in the news section rather than the arts section.)
Elsewhere, I read that the cost of the show has risen to $75 million.
Elsewhere
The NY Times reports this morning that the producers may shut down the show for 2-3 weeks for an overhaul sometime in April or May, with the opening delayed to June. (Interestingly, this Times article was in the news section rather than the arts section.)
Elsewhere, I read that the cost of the show has risen to $75 million.
Elsewhere
