First of all…tempting fate by opening on March 15 was always a lousy idea. Even key cast members weren’t sanguine over the notion of opening on the Ides of March. How do I know? Reeve Carney, Broadway’s “Peter Parker” and a really nice guy, told me. Where’d I encounter him? At the Broadway Bears auction on Sunday. (Sorry the picture’s a little blurry; lighting wasn’t the greatest).
The announced push back comes as no surprise (although the reports of Julie Taymor supposedly departing are startling.) Anything that could be done to fix the show before March 15 would have been mere bandaids, and what the show really needed for long-term health is a tourniquet, which is what a several month delay at this point amounts to. By all reports, the second act is still a major problem (and the bizarre number about shoes remains in place for no explicable reason.) But the assertions that the show can’t be fixed are simply wrong. There’s nothing in the script that can’t be repaired. To me the delay just shows that they’re determined to do what needs to be done so that the story and score is able to match the much higher quality of the visuals.
PAD
• 
Maybe it’s the picture, but that Peter Parker appears to be older and have less hair than you do.
**EDIT** “…older than you and have less hair than you do.”
It’s the picture. He’s wearing a tight fitting hat that’s pulling back his hair, because I think it tends to hang in his face.
.
PAD
I still maintain that this whole production is nothing more than an elaborate prank.
To me the delay just shows that they’re determined to do what needs to be done so that the story and score is able to match the much higher quality of the visuals.
.
At this point, it seems like it’s more about the fact that they’ve sunk so much time and money into it, they can’t afford to give up on it.
There may be some of that involved. On the other hand, they could just as easily justify walking away by saying they don’t want to throw good money after bad. It would make a hëll of a write off.
.
PAD
Do I hear the ghostly voices of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom?
I know I certainly hear the ghostly voices of all the critics who were busy slamming “The Producers,” relentlessly declaring it to be a vanity exercise for Mel Brooks with unconscionably high ticket prices.
.
PAD
A CBC report just posted (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/03/09/spider-man-musical-problems.html) claims they’re still pushing for March 15, but since it’s Peter Parker who says it’s been delayed I’m guessing that’s just an effort to keep optimism up. Interesting that it’s now Broadway’s most delayed musical. I think it’ll either succeed or fail dramatically. With all the poublicity I don’t think it’s possible for this musical to land somewhere in between at this stage.
My belief is that the job of a critic isn’t to be right, it’s to be consistent. If all the critics are consistent about what they like and don’t like, then I can find the one who is the most similar to me and get a good idea if I’ll like something. They don’t even have to be fair, because there will be some people reading their reviews who aren’t fair, either. As long as they’re consistently unfair, they can be useful.
.
Critics can also be fair and give you enough information to decide if you’d like a movie that they don’t like, but that’s just bonus.
Huh. Didn’t know that about critics and the Producers. That’s too bad. How long did it take them to change their tune?
Not long after the show actually opened in its final form. People liked what they saw and didn’t give a dámņ about the ticket prices. And of course when other musicals saw audiences were willing to pay that much, ticket prices started escalating across the board.
.
Critics also savage “Les Mis,” even after it opened. They declared that it was an insult to a classic piece of literature. Which was pretty funny considering that, when the original novel came out, it was largely ripped apart by critics.
.
PAD
TIME‘s original comment on Tennessee Williams: “A little Southern boy who thought he could make himself taller by putting manure in his boots.”
.
A few weeks later when everyone else was saying how great Williams was, TIME realised just how wrong it had been.
“And of course when other musicals saw audiences were willing to pay that much, ticket prices started escalating across the board.”
.
Yeah, but is this a good thing? I’d say the critics were right to object.
The critics were right to object? The critics have no standing on the issue; they get in for free. The ones who are in a position to object and have it mean something is the theater-going audience, and the way they would make that objection clear is simple: They wouldn’t go. No one’s putting a gun to their head and forcing them to cough up the money. If they feel it’s worth it, then it’s worth it.
.
Does it offend the sensibilities of the critics that people are willing to pay those prices? Do they feel that producers are taking advantage of the poor, gullible, easily bilked audience? Yeah, well, screw the critics and their high horses.
.
PAD
Wow, you really don’t like critics.
From where I’m sitting, MOST people don’t like critics. ‘Specially other critics.
.
Unless they’re saying nice things about us. Then we LOVE the critics.
.
In the end, there are few jobs that contribute less to society than critics. I think it was said best by . . . someone whose name I can’t remember, but anyway, “‘Advice ‘is aid. ‘Critique’ is ego.”
“Wow, you really don’t like critics.”
.
There was an interesting documentary some years back about the making of a single Broadway season. It focused on several different shows, their development, etc. (including “Wicked.”) A number of critics were featured in that, shown sitting around at their little luncheons and slagging and snarking on shows. What a bunch of pompous, self-absorbed áššhølëš.
.
PAD
I’ve seen that. They also thought Avenue Q wouldn’t make it.
The only critics I really have a problem with are art critics, who don’t seem to serve any purpose other than to unfairly and arbitrarily determine a painting’s (and the artist’s) worth. But when it comes to popular entertainment that is available in abundance, I think critics serve a valuable job in helping us determine what is worth our time and money. If it weren’t for theater critics, for instance, I’d be lost as to what to go see, since there are a million plays going on in the L.A. area at any given time. Ditto for film critics.
(On critics; I’m not sure how far down this post will appear)
First, I *am* a critic, doing reviews for the Armchair Critic (shameless plug: http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/ ) To me the essence of criticism is: Did I like or dislike something, and why? (Avoiding spoilers is tricky.)
Second, I think the critics PAD is speaking against, and the stereotype that is sometimes true, are the pretentious critics: The folks who only look for the negative, only like “artsy” works, and the ones for whom any popularity is a sign of poor quality.
Third, that stereotype is largely changing, for good and ill. On the positive side, AT THE MOVIES (Gawd do I miss that show) helped change movie criticism from snobs preaching about foreign films to two fairly regular guys sitting and chatting about what they just saw. On the negative side, the nigh-infinite blogs have brought about a nigh-infinite number of amateur critics, many of whom think a review like “It sucked ášš!” is as well-written and critically valid as a brilliantly written essay.
And fourth, a wise teacher once said a good critic will make something you never considered before now seem obvious. If the folks behind SPIDER-MAN: TOD had read PAD’s original review and carefully considered the flaws he listed, they’d be a long way to fixing the musical. (Incidentally, when AT THE MOVIES reviewed KATE & LEOPOLD, they pointed out a script error that, through time travel, would have had Meg Ryan effectively becoming the ancestor of her love interest; this was quickly changed and the film rereleased.)
Second, I think the critics PAD is speaking against, and the stereotype that is sometimes true, are the pretentious critics: The folks who only look for the negative, only like “artsy” works, and the ones for whom any popularity is a sign of poor quality.
.
Actually, mostly I’m talking about theater critics. There’s quite a few television and movie critics with whom I have no problem. But theater seems to attract the most pretentious, arrogant áššhølëš in the entire field.
.
PAD
James, you sound more like what Spider Robinson would have insisted was a reviewer, not a critic (“I won’t just tell you that I spit it out, but what flavor it was. For all I know, you like pistachio ripple”).
.
The criticisms I’ve been reading all the way out here on the Left Coast haven’t mentioned anything about the plot, the characters, the songs, or the dialog; all they’ve been on about are the disaster stories and some mentions of costume design (no love for Swiss Miss, it would seem). The only reason I have the least idea what the show is even about, or the existence of the Geek Chorus (which sounds like a great idea to me) is because of what PAD wrote about the show. He reviewed; they were critics.
.
(In his novel “The Number of the Beast-“, Robert Heinlein’s interuniversal conference at the end had a special room for critics. The only way one of them could escape would be by being able to read a simple declarative sentence in English. He didn’t anticipate any escapees…)
If it weren’t for theater critics, for instance, I’d be lost as to what to go see, since there are a million plays going on in the L.A. area at any given time.
.
Hunh. Whereas if I’m thinking of taking in a play (as has happened occasionally) I simply check (a) who’s the writer (is it someone with whose work I’m familiar and (b) who’s in it (is it a cast I’d be interested in seeing.) Or I ask friends for recommendations.
.
The last two shows I saw on Broadway were “The Addams Family” (which the critics hated and continue to hate even more because the show continues to be successful) and “Elling” (a short lived play–one week, to be precise–starring Brendan Fraser.) I enjoyed both.
.
Aside from “Spider-Man,” which continues to be targeted relentlessly, the production I saw most screwed over by the critics was a mounting of “Macbeth” starring Kelsey Grammer some years back, during the early days of “Frasier.” The critics’ approach to the show was uniform and consistent: Where does this sitcom star get off thinking he can do Shakespeare? It didn’t matter that Grammer had DONE Shakespeare before his television career took off. The critics treated Grammer as if somehow he were attempting to act above his station. It was always intended as a limited run, but the unanimous critical dismantling wound up cutting it short (it only ran thirteen performances). The night I saw it, the theater was half-filled, if that. The show itself, which the critics didn’t actually seem to discuss all that much? Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It also featured Michael Gross from “Family Ties,” and the entire production was just great. The entire audience was on its feet by the end. I’ve never seen an actor look so grateful for a standing ovation as Grammer did. It was like a validation of the quality of the show.
.
So I have very little patience for theater critics. Many of them seem far more involved in their own agendas than they do providing guidance to audiences.
.
PAD
“Hunh. Whereas if I’m thinking of taking in a play (as has happened occasionally) I simply check (a) who’s the writer (is it someone with whose work I’m familiar and (b) who’s in it (is it a cast I’d be interested in seeing.) Or I ask friends for recommendations.”
.
If I limited my theater-going to only seeing works by writers I know and like, or featuring actors I know and like, or that my friends have liked, I would hardly ever go to the theater. L.A. isn’t New York, where practically everything has name writers and actors. And I don’t really have any theater-going friends in the area.
.
Although, ever since I discovered Goldstar, I’ve come to rely more on the reviews there than on professional reviews. But even that’s not very reliable. I saw a play recently that everyone on Goldstar raved about, but I thought it was awful. I wrote my own review, and the writer-director’s boyfriend sent me a Tweet (how he found my Twitter account, I have no idea), asking me why I’m so mean (I wasn’t mean at all, just critical and honest… I guess mine was the only negative review he’d read of the play). So I don’t write reviews anymore, but I respect those who do.
Various sites are reporting that Taymor is officially out now.
The IMDB also reported that Taymor is gone.
For a comic book-style cartoon review of this play based on a comic book character, check this out: http://www.villagevoice.com/slideshow/spidey-super-theater-stories-the-cartoon-32737417/ Gotta love the last panel!
As for the delay giving them enough time to fix it, I remain skeptical. Not only do a lot of folks and critics hate it, but also the people who did like it (like PAD) seem to always point out problems with it. No just says “I loved it, it was great!” (except Glenn Beck). The supporters sound like “I liked it, but…” and “I enjoyed it, even though…” And that’s in addition to massive changes in the Spider-Man canon. MYTHBUSTERS may have proved that it is scientifically possible to polish a turd, but sometimes a project is so flawed it needs to be scrapped and started over. Between the haters, criticisms of fans, injuries, director leaving, and high ticket prices (this ain’t spending $5 for a matinee of a movie) it sounds like it’s only a matter of time before this simply stops.
On the plus side, I bet ROBOT CHICKEN will get a great sketch out of all of this…
Just because everyone agrees that there are problems doesn’t mean the problems can’t be fixed. There are things that some people love about the show, so there is potential there.
.
Look at it this way. If 90% of the people in America agree that a movie isn’t worth seeing, then it must be pretty bad, right? I mean, 90% is a huge majority. So by the power of democracy, if 90% of people don’t want to see it, then it’s got to be a flop, right? Nope, that movie is a gigantic success. 10% of the country is 30,000,000 people, which is about how many saw the first Spidey movie and made it a blockbuster.
.
It doesn’t matter if most people don’t like something. It doesn’t even matter if a majority hate it. So yeah, a lot of people think the play has problems. The important detail is that there are also a big group of theater-going people who do think it’s worth seeing in its current form and there’s a chance that the number will grow after changes are made.
Thank’s for telling me it was the lighting. Now I won’t have to wonder why the hëll Joe Straczynski and Ted from “Scrubs” were in a photo together 🙂
I still think until there is a song in the show whose title is “With Great Power…” they are missing the point.
Until later
John
Maybe they could license Tom Smith’s “With Great Power Comes Great Power Bills”.
I would really like them to perhaps sink a little more money into the show and develop a cast album. Living in Austin Texas I come back to my home town of NY 2x a year to see family and take in a show.
The music is what really drives me to see a musical. A cast album would go a long way towards convincing me to throw down the money for tickets.
If the story sucks, I can at least think of the show as a “concert” and enjoy the songs being sung live.
Yeah, I usually like to listen to a cast album before I see a show. I find that being familiar with the music helps me enjoy the show more (and seeing the show helps me enjoy the album more, so it’s kind of cyclical that way).
Years ago I had a long conversation with a Bdwy and Hollywood music director. Many awards. He was involved with what turned out to be a complete bomb. I asked him how such a piece of crap could get produced.
He basically said that some projects get such a momentum behind them that there is no stopping them Everyone is blind to any flaws and they just keep pushing ahead in the blind faith that once it opens, the public will love it. Ðámņ the torpedoes, full steam ahead.
It seems that no one, until just now, would tell Taymor (a tremendously talented person) that in this case, she blew it and they have to start over. Same with Bono’s score which many have described as mediocre.
Maybe now, they will get it right.
Makes me sorry I didn’t see it when I was in NY last week as if it ever opens again, it might be radically different.
BTW–I did see the Book of Mormon–rude, crude, and hilarious. Also saw Priscilla which was a lot of very campy fun. Also American Idiot which was very good only if you like Green Day.
They should have hired Peter to rewrite it.