Sunday, April 03, 2011
The tangled web of Broadway’s ‘Spider-Man’
The Boston Globe: "Here’s my question: If people are paying good money to see Bad “Spider-Man,’’ why spend huge sums of money to create Slightly Better “Spider-Man’’? “The trick with this show is to take advantage of other income streams,’’ explains Steven Chaikelson, a theater producer who is also director of Columbia’s MFA program in theater management. Because it is so huge and technically complex, “Spider-Man’’ would require semi-permanent engagements in large cities, or the kind of installation Cirque de Soleil has perfected in Las Vegas. “They have a Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios in Orlando,’’ Chaikelson says. “That would be a logical place to install it.’’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Spiderman's existence seems to have very little to do with making good theater so I understand and sort of agree with the idea that the team should just accept the fact that this show will never be good theater and just let it be what it is. A huge, buzz-generating monstrosity. That may be the only way to salvage a few million bucks back even if it goes down in books as Nascar masquerading as theater.
I also wonder if the extra money being spent is going to be worth it. The show is making tons of money in its current state, so what is going to change when the show re-opens? I mean, maybe they will make it a better show, but it'll be making money either way. Like the article said, it "doesn't have to be brilliant theatre". I do admire the attempts to make it better, though. What struck me while reading this article was, as we've all discussed before, the number of injuries that have occurred during this show's preview runs. 5 injuries in such a short time?? This is horrible, and I can only hope that they'll spend some extra money during the re-vamp to fix anything they can to make the show safer. I think it's all fun and games to make fun of Spiderman as a ridiculous show, but when it comes to injuries, its issues should be taken seriously. It just goes to show that even professionals make dangerous mistakes, and that we all need to be on our toes to keep each other safe.
I have worked on that awful show that the reviewers trashed but the audience rose to their feet every night. I believe the show ultimately closed due to bad management (I was just the stage manager.) I think the producers are spending more money cause they want to make good theatre. There is a bit of pride involved. Also, bad theatre can only go for so long before it dies, while good theatre can go for much longer. It is a shame so many people have been injured. Hopefully, part of their break will be to fix some of the technical elements and make them safer as well as "fix" the show itself.
I agree with Cody, a bad show will die very quickly even if it is drawing crowds now. The team of Spiderman feels they need to make back their huge investment something they will never do if the show remains as it is. People right now are coming to see a bad show because everyone says it is horrible and they want to see for themselves. I mean I did it too. But that will quickly lose its appeal. Then the show will close still out by millions. I feel they know that they should capitalize on other steams of income, that's why it has been in previews for so long. As long as people are coming they can make small changes and make money. I think it feels like as soon as it opens its a steep downward slope to closing, I can't blame them for trying everything they can to prevent that slide come June. I may have mt doubts that they can pull it off but I have got to applaud them for trying.
From what I have heard, if you take Spiderman as a circus show then you will enjoy it. If you look at it as a play then you will be disappointed because it has little story. The reason people like Spiderman, is because it is a spectacle. Circus is also a spectacle, you go and see people perform amazing stunts with little to no plot line to string these acts together. That is not to say that there are not circuses that are more like plays and have more of a story. Because of everything that Spiderman has done ever since it's conception it has been a spectacle people want to go see. People want to see what all the money that has been put into it has done. People want to see a show by Bono and Julie Taymore. People want to see people fall and almost die. People want to see a show that has been open for months but is still in previews. And mostly I think that people want to see how people can have all the money in the world and still not create the best story. So when it is changed I think that it will lose some of it's spectacle and gain some story.
I'll toss in a thought from Jeff Lee at Disney Theatricals, who was on campus last week - there's no chance Spider-Man will make back its money. That should just be tossed out the window right away. But if there's a salvageable story in the mix there and some engineering goes into it, he believes the show could have a life as a touring tent show like Cirque or like the reworked Lord of the Rings musical that will be hitting the road later this month. The show has bloodlust, which drives some interest, and if the story and music are also improved, which could happen, then a revised show could live on Broadway for a while and then hit the road and at least sustain itself (as Cody suggested, as a matter of pride for the creators to say they turned it around).
everyone brings up a good point. Zoe is right. Depending on what you come to see will depend on whether or not the show is good. Based off of what i hear the spectacle is great and the story is bad. This makes me think back to comfy chair and story telling. No matter what your attentions are, everything even things you dont mean to get interpreted. The producers are trying to tell a story, yet they are using so much spectacle to tell it that it detracts from the story and makes it all about the spectacle. The show would probably do better if it was advertised as a different kind of show.
Post a Comment