Hollywood Reporter: Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, the most expensive Broadway musical ever produced, has endured a lot since it began performances last November: Budget overruns, cast and director changes, and, of course, injuries. The production has survived flying equipment, broken harnesses, and nosy workplace safety inspectors. Now, the show has something new to contend with as an investor is suing the production for money owed.
Friday, November 04, 2011
'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark' Investor Sues for Theater Fee
Hollywood Reporter: Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, the most expensive Broadway musical ever produced, has endured a lot since it began performances last November: Budget overruns, cast and director changes, and, of course, injuries. The production has survived flying equipment, broken harnesses, and nosy workplace safety inspectors. Now, the show has something new to contend with as an investor is suing the production for money owed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What problem hasn't this show faced. I wouldn't mind hearing the producers side of it and some more details about when they were supposed to pay it. I think they will probably settle this quickly because they don't need anymore bad publicity and notoriety and it would be cheaper to settle it out of court.
Spider-man gives theater a bad name. It is a bunch of people who spent immense amounts of money and time to produce something that is not even that great but is passed off as art. Okay I could see if it was an amazing show and was worth the cost then it should be made. but I think that the producers pandered too much to the creative team, generally there needs to be constraints to create something that is truly great. I don't think that throwing an all star team and a bunch of money at a project makes it good or even easy as proof by Spider-man. It is a gross amount of money no one should be allowed to have that. I think that you should aim high but do not exceed your means.
I wonder what's actually happening here. Are the producers being shady and not holding up their part of the bargain? Is there a misunderstanding about how much money is owed? Or do the producers know what they owe and not have the money to pay it back at the moment? Either way, I feel awful for this patron and the financial abuse they're enduring. Like Zoe, I'm pretty upset by the ridiculous amounts of money going into this show. Having money doesn't necessarily mean that the best or most creative product will emerge. In this case it means that the product is flashy and pretty, but lacking in meaning. Don't get me wrong, I love a funny, feel-good musical, but Spiderman isn't even that great of a frivolous show. There are a lot of artists out there who could have made something more meaningful and important with this much money.
This show is like Murrpy's Law. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong. I feel like this article is just another journalist trying to squeeze the last drop of news worthy material out of this disaster. But I do agree that the people who were promised money in contract are owned. That is just sense. Investors sure they take a risk with their money. The show might flop. But this women is not suing over her investment but over a facilities fee. The article is misleading by saying she is an investor in the title while true that is not really the issue. All I can say is with the price tag Spiderman has they have alot of people to pay and it may be a long time before she gets her money.
P.S. I love Zoe and agree with everything she said. This show makes a mockery of theatre as an art form.
Reading between the lines, it quickly becomes clear that investors are recognizing the long-term implications of this production. Now that the show is open and running "smoothly", it's not surprising that people who opened their wallets are starting to stick out their hands. Remodeling venues for production is often cost prohibitive, but that concern clearly wasn't a problem with Spider-Man. If investors are worried they won't get this deposit back, it's probably because it's going to cost at least that much to restore Foxwoods when Spider-Man closes. I'm sure with all the trouble the show had last year somebody ran the numbers to see what it would cost to shut down and move out. That figure would be of great interest.
One part of the business that I feel I know the least about is the interaction between the producer and the investor. I feel this must be one of the trickiest lines to walk.
Are there stipulations to how the money can be used? Do they then get a say in the outcome or how decisions are made? Do they get any money unless the show begins to profit?
I am sure that each of these are spelled out in a contract. But is there a contract? Is there a waiver?
I will be interested to see how this turns out and if the lawsuit is held up in court.
Post a Comment