NY Times pans--and I do mean "pans" Spider Man!
Jun 17th, 2011, 05:58 AM
#81
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, nytraveler, it IS Broadway, but such extreme misinterpretation does take incredible chutzpah!
When someome reads a headline like "Joe Smith is simply amazing", it shouldn't be from a review that actually says, "it is simply amazing that anyone so untalented could actually appear on Broadway." Taking a critic's words and so totally misrepresenting them takes incredible chutzpah. It's not unlike the headlines they come up with on the grocery star gossip papers that have nothing to do with the truth, but hardly the kind of false journalism one should expect when a major newspaper is being quoted. There was a recent case where a critic from the New York Post was similarly misquoted in publicity and he actually did a whole column saying "the show is NOT good" and clarifying how his review was blatantly misquoted. I am unable to find that at the moment.
Songdoc, I'm sure you are right. I have 100% confidence that the new Spiderman could have been absolutely spectacular and there are very few critics who would have been willing to say so. It was a given that it would receive bad reviews and there is little doubt that it is being judged by very stiff standards including not looking at it as just a fun bit of entertainment.
When someome reads a headline like "Joe Smith is simply amazing", it shouldn't be from a review that actually says, "it is simply amazing that anyone so untalented could actually appear on Broadway." Taking a critic's words and so totally misrepresenting them takes incredible chutzpah. It's not unlike the headlines they come up with on the grocery star gossip papers that have nothing to do with the truth, but hardly the kind of false journalism one should expect when a major newspaper is being quoted. There was a recent case where a critic from the New York Post was similarly misquoted in publicity and he actually did a whole column saying "the show is NOT good" and clarifying how his review was blatantly misquoted. I am unable to find that at the moment.
Songdoc, I'm sure you are right. I have 100% confidence that the new Spiderman could have been absolutely spectacular and there are very few critics who would have been willing to say so. It was a given that it would receive bad reviews and there is little doubt that it is being judged by very stiff standards including not looking at it as just a fun bit of entertainment.
Jun 17th, 2011, 06:32 AM
#82
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This brings to mind the late Broadway impresario, David Merrick. He was not above hiring people with the same names as critics who had panned his productions, and having their raves, instead of the "real" critics' pans, appear in his newspaper advertisements.
A really cynical sign of desperation. That won't keep people from flocking to this mediocrity in droves, however.
A really cynical sign of desperation. That won't keep people from flocking to this mediocrity in droves, however.
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:17 AM
#84
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have two friends who loved Spider Man but I haven't been especially interested in it because of all the plays I've seen on broadway, Lion King was the worst and Julie Taymor was almost solely responsible for it.
Jun 17th, 2011, 03:02 PM
#85
I know it is stating the obvious, but if they get this show to work they are sitting on a gold mine. Everyone is looking for a show that boys, teens and men want to see on Broadway. What to we recommend at this time? Lion King for kids, Billy Elliott for some teens, Wicked for girls, and Million Dollar Quartet for men - at least I do. This is going to have spectacular box office if they get it right. It's already breaking records when it's far from right.
Jun 18th, 2011, 05:44 AM
#86
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa, starrs. Let's not get carried away! I agree that Spiderman could be popular and play for a while, especially as a tourist draw, but the only two records that I know they've set are: 1. the most expensive show ever; 2. the most previews before opening ever.
As I just said, I agree that it certainly could play for a while, but at a reported cost of around $75 million, it'll take years and years to earn back its investment before if ever showing a profit.
As far as "shows for men," I think The Book of Mormon will give Spiderman a run for its money!
As I just said, I agree that it certainly could play for a while, but at a reported cost of around $75 million, it'll take years and years to earn back its investment before if ever showing a profit.
As far as "shows for men," I think The Book of Mormon will give Spiderman a run for its money!
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:43 AM
#87
Good points, Howard.
I still think that if they get it right, it will have a long run and be very successful. I think there are a lot of tourists coming to NYC who would go see Spiderman and not choose to see another show. It wouldn't be your top choice - or mine - but I think there's a huge audience for it. Look at Wicked. You don't like it. I do (obviously). But years later (what? six?) it's still running at capacity, without discounted tickets - and that's with long term runs in several major cities at the same time, non-stop national tours (now 2 of them), the tours returning to the same cities two and now three times...and the house remains at 99+ capacity on Broadway. Given all that, some recommended Wicked as a show "for teenage girls". If Spidey gets it right, imagine how long it may run on Broadway. I'm not sure how it would tour. IMO the sets are the reason it wasn't developed off Broadway. I can't imagine recreating the sets (and the flying) for a national tour. Wicked alternates two sets for the tour (and it's fascinating to watch the setup). "The most previews before opening ever" really isn't true if you factor in workshops and previews off-Broadway for many shows. Wicked took as much time if not more. But it was done the traditional way. I agree (and now Spiderman producers do) that it was a mistake to open on Broadway to develop the show - but am not sure what alternatives they had given the complex set.
Of course, I may be completely wrong on ALL of the above. It's just one person's opinion
I still think that if they get it right, it will have a long run and be very successful. I think there are a lot of tourists coming to NYC who would go see Spiderman and not choose to see another show. It wouldn't be your top choice - or mine - but I think there's a huge audience for it. Look at Wicked. You don't like it. I do (obviously). But years later (what? six?) it's still running at capacity, without discounted tickets - and that's with long term runs in several major cities at the same time, non-stop national tours (now 2 of them), the tours returning to the same cities two and now three times...and the house remains at 99+ capacity on Broadway. Given all that, some recommended Wicked as a show "for teenage girls". If Spidey gets it right, imagine how long it may run on Broadway. I'm not sure how it would tour. IMO the sets are the reason it wasn't developed off Broadway. I can't imagine recreating the sets (and the flying) for a national tour. Wicked alternates two sets for the tour (and it's fascinating to watch the setup). "The most previews before opening ever" really isn't true if you factor in workshops and previews off-Broadway for many shows. Wicked took as much time if not more. But it was done the traditional way. I agree (and now Spiderman producers do) that it was a mistake to open on Broadway to develop the show - but am not sure what alternatives they had given the complex set.
Of course, I may be completely wrong on ALL of the above. It's just one person's opinion
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:17 AM
#88
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I agree that Spiderman will be a bit attraction for tourists. I further agree that it will probably have a healthy. But, will it ever make money? That's another matter, given it's high initial cost and its high weekly overhead.
As for touring, I also agree that it's an iffy proposition considering the technical factors, which why it never had a tryout anywhere else by in New York. As far as going on the road, I would the logical next step would be a long-term run in Las Vegas. That's seems a natural.
Now, Starrs, as for your comment about the previews record, let's not split hairs about the record number of previews. That's cut and dried. Forget workshops, etc. A workshop is lot different from a preview.
As for touring, I also agree that it's an iffy proposition considering the technical factors, which why it never had a tryout anywhere else by in New York. As far as going on the road, I would the logical next step would be a long-term run in Las Vegas. That's seems a natural.
Now, Starrs, as for your comment about the previews record, let's not split hairs about the record number of previews. That's cut and dried. Forget workshops, etc. A workshop is lot different from a preview.
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:38 AM
#89
Howard, I don't know a lot about previews. In fact, I know very little. I do know that Wicked was in workshops and then worked out the kinks in San Francisco. That process took years. I can't imagine doing all of that in front of paying customers. I can't imagine that the first time the whole show was performed was in front of paying customers. I'm not sure what the alternatives could have been but I think everyone agrees they should have done it differently.
But even so, the Spiderman-in-trouble version beat Wicked's box office more than once this year. Maybe it was the train wreck effect, but that's pretty impressive. To me, anyway.
I think the Vegas idea is a great one.
But even so, the Spiderman-in-trouble version beat Wicked's box office more than once this year. Maybe it was the train wreck effect, but that's pretty impressive. To me, anyway.
I think the Vegas idea is a great one.
Jun 18th, 2011, 09:22 AM
#90
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, starrs, a lot of shows had a history of years of workshops. Perhaps the most famous was A Chorus Line, which started with Michael Bennett taping hours and hours and hours of interviews with dancers.
As for box office records, just check the weekly box office figures on the Playbill website and you'll see that while Spiderman's receipts may have occasionally topped Wicked's, the latter's best week still tops the former's. That is not to say that Spiderman may still set the record. However, considering the continuous rise in ticket prices, breaking a box-office record is not be-all-and-end-all of theatrical history.
And, you want to talk about meaningful Broadway records, nothing matches the phenomenal run of The Phantom of the Opera...23 years and still going strong. Now, that's a record!
As for box office records, just check the weekly box office figures on the Playbill website and you'll see that while Spiderman's receipts may have occasionally topped Wicked's, the latter's best week still tops the former's. That is not to say that Spiderman may still set the record. However, considering the continuous rise in ticket prices, breaking a box-office record is not be-all-and-end-all of theatrical history.
And, you want to talk about meaningful Broadway records, nothing matches the phenomenal run of The Phantom of the Opera...23 years and still going strong. Now, that's a record!
Jun 18th, 2011, 09:52 AM
#92
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All kidding aside, from what I've read, the show could net about $500,000 a week if playing at capacity with all full-price tickets. So, that would mean it would net about $26 million a year at capacity. Thus, it would take roughly three years at capacity to earn back its investment.
So, ask me that question in three years and maybe we'll know better!
So, ask me that question in three years and maybe we'll know better!
Jun 19th, 2011, 07:33 AM
#93
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's NY Times has an interesting article in its Week in Review section comparing the history of The Book of Mormon and Spider-Man. To quote, in part:
"....Both musicals opened on Broadway without any out-of-town tryout, which is unusual. 'Mormon' had several development workshops, and solved most of its creative problems before a single general audience member paid to see it....
"Bono [Spider-Man's composer] said the first run-through of 'Spider-Man' took place at its first public preview performance in November, attended by 1,900 people--unheard of on modern Broadway. The truth is that 'Spider-Man' was nowhere near ready to start previews...."
"....Both musicals opened on Broadway without any out-of-town tryout, which is unusual. 'Mormon' had several development workshops, and solved most of its creative problems before a single general audience member paid to see it....
"Bono [Spider-Man's composer] said the first run-through of 'Spider-Man' took place at its first public preview performance in November, attended by 1,900 people--unheard of on modern Broadway. The truth is that 'Spider-Man' was nowhere near ready to start previews...."
